@techreport{Schmidt2000Evaluation,
abstract = {The context of community-based interventions presents formidable problems for any evaluation
analysis. Group-randomized studies do possess ideal properties in theory, but in practice, grouprandomization
might not be a feasible alternative at all or group-randomized studies might be
contaminated. Thus, the decisive advantage of randomized controlled trials, that they and only
they provide for a completely convincing identification strategy in the presence of observable
and unobservable confounders, is lost. There are alternative strategies for the identification of
treatment effects also in the case of unobservable confounders, however, although they
specifically require unverifiable a priori
information to be available. Moreover, when using non experimental
data, one can often easily extend sample size at low cost, and thus estimate
parameters very precisely; therefore, for any particular situation the relative attractiveness of
experimental and
non-experimental approaches should be explored.},
author = {Christoph M. Schmidt and Rob Baltussen and Rainer Sauerborn},
copyright = {http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen},
keywords = {C92; I18; C24; 330; Randomized controlled trials; self-selection; econometric evaluation; observational studies; Tobit-Modell; Stichprobenverfahren; Experiment; Gesundheitspolitik; Bewertung; Theorie},
language = {eng},
number = {206},
title = {The Evaluation of Community-Based Interventions: Group Randomization, Limits and Alternatives},
type = {IZA Discussion paper series},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10419/21051},
year = {2000}
}
