This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Farrington, D. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Methodological Quality Standards for Evaluation Research

Cambridge University; Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group; Academy of Experimental Criminology

Evaluation studies vary in methodological quality. It is essential to develop methodological quality standards for evaluation research that can be understood and easily used by scholars, practitioners, policy makers, the mass media, and systematic reviewers. This article proposes that such standards should be based on statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity, external validity, and descriptive validity. Methodological quality scales are reviewed, and it is argued that efforts should be made to improve them. Pawson and Tilley's challenge to the Campbell evaluation tradition is also assessed. It is concluded that this challenge does not have any implications for methodological quality standards, because the Campbell tradition already emphasizes the need to study moderators and mediators in evaluation research.

Key Words: methodological quality • evaluation • validity • crime reduction • systematic reviews

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 587, No. 1, 49-68 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716202250789


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Valentine Evidence, values and drug treatment policy Critical Social Policy, August 1, 2009; 29(3): 443 - 464. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. F. Hansen and O. Rieper The Evidence Movement: The Development and Consequences of Methodologies in Review Practices Evaluation, April 1, 2009; 15(2): 141 - 163. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. M. van der Knaap, F. L. Leeuw, S. Bogaerts, and L. T. J. Nijssen Combining Campbell Standards and the Realist Evaluation Approach: The Best of Two Worlds? American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2008; 29(1): 48 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Healy and I. O'Donnell Probation in the Republic of Ireland: Context and challenges Probation Journal, March 1, 2005; 52(1): 56 - 68. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. P. Farrington British Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September 1, 2003; 589(1): 150 - 167. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Weisburd, C. M. Lum, and S.-M. Yang When can we Conclude that Treatments or Programs "Don't Work"? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 31 - 48. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. McDougall, M. A. Cohen, R. Swaray, and A. Perry The Costs and Benefits of Sentencing: A Systematic Review The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 160 - 177. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Petrosino Standards for Evidence and Evidence for Standards: The Case of School-Based Drug Prevention The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 180 - 207. [Abstract] [PDF]