View Item 

Show simple item record

Assessing Factors Influencing Acceptance of No-Difference Research

dc.contributor.authorYeaton, William H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSechrest, Leeen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-13T18:59:11Z
dc.date.available2010-04-13T18:59:11Z
dc.date.issued1987en_US
dc.identifier.citationYeaton, William; Sechrest, Lee (1987). "Assessing Factors Influencing Acceptance of No-Difference Research." Evaluation Review 11(1): 131-142. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66931>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0193-841Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66931
dc.description.abstractIn this randomized study 160 members of the Evaluation Research Society acted as judges to assess the attributes of research that produce credibility. The study focused on acceptability of no-difference findings, a long ignored but important domain of research. In the context of a hypothetical study, four factors were tested to determine their influence on acceptability of both no-difference and difference findings: randomization/nonran domization, one/three outcomes, power = .80/.60, and equivalence on baseline measures of all eight/all but two of eight. Experts were asked to judge degree of acceptability and to reject or accept findings in both a no-difference and a difference study. Randomization consistently enhanced the believability of outcomes whereas other factors exerted a less consistent influence. Limitations of the study were discussed.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent669964 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleAssessing Factors Influencing Acceptance of No-Difference Researchen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66931/2/10.1177_0193841X8701100108.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0193841X8701100108en_US
dc.identifier.sourceEvaluation Reviewen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBakan, D. (1966) "The test of significance in psychological research." Psych. Bull. 66: 423-437.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCampbell, D.T. (1982) "Experiments as arguments." Knowledge 3: 327-1337.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChalmers, T.C., P. Celano, H.S. Sacks, and H. Smith (1983) "Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials." New England J. of Medicine 309: 1358-1361.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCohen, J. (1977) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCohen, L.H. (1979) "Clinical psychologists' judgments of the scientific merit and clinical relevance of psychotherapy outcome research." J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 47: 421-423.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell (1979) Quasi-Experimentation. Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFisher et al. (1985) "Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer." New England J. of Medicine 312: 665-673.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreiman, J.A., T.C. Chalmers, H. Smith, and R.R. Keubler (1978) "The importance of beta, the type II error, and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial." New England J. Medicine 299: 690-694.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHavender, W.R. (1983) "The science and politics of cyclamate." Public Interest 71: 17-32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeberlein, T.A. and R. Baumgartner (1978) "Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the published literature." Amer. Soc. Rev. 43: 447-462.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRiecken, H.W. and R.F. Boruch (1974) Social Experimentation. A Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Intervention New York: Academic Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSears, C. (1985) "Back from Caesareans? New data show normal delivery often safer." Amer. Health (June): 11.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSechrest, L. (1985) "Experiments and demonstrations in health services research." Medical Care 23: 677-695.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSechrest, L. and W.H. Yeaton (forthcoming) "Role of no-difference findings in medical research."en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWare, J.E. (1985) "Commentary: monitoring and evaluating health services." Medical Care 23: 705-709.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYeaton, W.H. and L. Sechrest (1985) "Testing a strategy for increasing questionnaire return rate: providing space for responses on the prepayment check." (manuscript)en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYeaton, W.H. and L. Sechrest (1986) "Assessing tactics in planning no-difference research." (manuscript)en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
10.1177_0193841X8701100108.pdf
Size:
654.2KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.