000			02000nas a2200217Ia 4500
008			240802c99999999xx |||||||||||| ||und||
022			_a0034-6543
100			_aWadhwa, Mansi _9119524
245		0	_aHow Consistent Are Meanings of Evidence-Based? A Comparative Review of 12 Clearinghouses that Rate the Effectiveness of Educational Programs
260			_bReview of Educational Research
260			_c2024
300			_a05-32
520			_aClearinghouses set standards of scientific quality to vet existing research to determine how “evidence-based” an intervention is. This paper examines 12 educational clearinghouses to describe their effectiveness criteria, to estimate how consistently they rate the same program, and to probe why their judgments differ. All the clearinghouses value random assignment, but they differ in how they treat its implementation, how they weight quasi-experiments, and how they value ancillary causal factors like independent replication and persisting effects. A total of 1359 programs were analyzed over 10 clearinghouses; 83% of them were assessed by a single clearinghouse and, of those rated by more than one, similar ratings were achieved for only about 30% of the programs. This high level of inconsistency seems to be mostly due to clearinghouses disagreeing about whether a high program rating requires effects that are replicated and/or temporally persisting. Clearinghouses exist to identify “evidence-based” programs, but the inconsistency in their recommendations of the same program suggests that identifying “evidence-based” interventions is still more of a policy aspiration than a reliable research practice.
650			_a Clearinghouse _9119525
650			_a Experimental Research _930653
650			_a Research Methodology
650			_aResearch Utilization _9119526
700			_a Cook, Thomas D. _9119527
700			_a Zheng, Jingwen _9119528
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231152262
999			_c133497 _d133497