Average Effect Sizes in Developer-Commissioned and Independent Evaluations

Abstract Rigorous evidence of program effectiveness has become increasingly important with the 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). One question that has not yet been fully explored is whether program evaluations carried out or commissioned by developers produce larger effect sizes than evaluations conducted by independent third parties. Using study data from the What Works Clearinghouse, we find evidence of a “developer effect,” where program evaluations carried out or commissioned by developers produced average effect sizes that were substantially larger than those identified in evaluations conducted by independent parties. We explore potential reasons for the existence of a “developer effect” and provide evidence that interventions evaluated by developers were not simply more effective than those evaluated by independent parties. We conclude by discussing plausible explanations for this phenomenon as well as providing suggestions for researchers to mitigate potential bias in evaluations moving forward.

[1]  David B. Wilson,et al.  School-Based Prevention of Problem Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[2]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Data from Paper “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant” , 2014 .

[3]  P. Cobb,et al.  The Role of Program Theory in Evaluation Research , 2016 .

[4]  Roland G. Fryer The Production of Human Capital in Developed Countries: Evidence from 196 Randomized Field Experiments , 2016 .

[5]  Carly D. Robinson,et al.  Mitigating Illusory Results through Preregistration in Education , 2018 .

[6]  L. Hedges Effect Sizes in Cluster-Randomized Designs , 2007 .

[7]  Sergio Sismondo,et al.  Industry sponsorship and research outcome. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[8]  T. Cook Randomized Experiments in Educational Policy Research: A Critical Examination of the Reasons the Educational Evaluation Community has Offered for not Doing Them , 2002 .

[9]  Jonathan R. Flojo,et al.  Mathematics Instruction for Students With Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Instructional Components , 2009 .

[10]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.

[11]  R. Slavin,et al.  A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Reading Programs for Secondary Students , 2018, Reading Research Quarterly.

[12]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[13]  Elizabeth Tipton,et al.  Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. , 2015, Psychological methods.

[14]  R. Slavin,et al.  How Methodological Features Affect Effect Sizes in Education , 2016 .

[15]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[16]  Theodor D. Sterling,et al.  Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to p , 1995 .

[17]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Implementation Science BioMed Central Debate A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity , 2007 .

[18]  M. Lipsey,et al.  The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: evidence from meta-analysis. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[19]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education , 2009 .

[20]  Howard S. Bloom,et al.  Can Nonexperimental Comparison Group Methods Match the Findings from a Random Assignment Evaluation of Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs? , 2002 .

[21]  Jack L. Vevea,et al.  A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias , 1995 .

[22]  H. de Boer,et al.  Effects of the Attributes of Educational Interventions on Students’ Academic Performance , 2014 .

[23]  J. Lexchin Sponsorship bias in clinical research. , 2012, The International journal of risk & safety in medicine.

[24]  A. Gelman,et al.  The statistical crisis in science , 2014 .

[25]  Elizabeth Tipton,et al.  Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[26]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Sizes in Research , 2008 .

[27]  M. Bøg,et al.  Academic Interventions for Elementary and Middle School Students With Low Socioeconomic Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2017 .

[28]  Joshua R. Polanin,et al.  Estimating the Difference Between Published and Unpublished Effect Sizes , 2016 .

[29]  M. Pinquart Associations of Parenting Styles and Dimensions with Academic Achievement in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-analysis , 2016 .

[30]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions Into More Readily Interpretable Forms , 2012 .

[31]  B. Djulbegovic,et al.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effective Programs in Elementary Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 2007 .

[33]  Qing Li,et al.  A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Computer Technology on School Students’ Mathematics Learning , 2010 .

[34]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 2008 .

[35]  Ingram Olkin,et al.  Stochastically dependent effect sizes. , 1994 .

[36]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Practical Meta-Analysis , 2000 .

[37]  Matthew C. Makel,et al.  A Manifesto for Open Science in Giftedness Research , 2017 .

[38]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[39]  R. Slavin Effective programmes in reading and mathematics: lessons from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia 1 , 2013 .