Randomized Controlled Trials and the Flow of Information
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Nancy is ultimately most concerned about how to determine the relevance of evidence to implementation of evidence-based policy guidelines, in other words, the transferability of study results to a population different from the one that was studied and in which procedures or conditions are not the same as those in the study. And she is concerned about the privileged position Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are given in the ranking schemes for evidence-based policy, because as she sees it RCTs do not address this question while other methods do. RCTs are highly regarded because of their strength in ruling out confounding variables, but they can be weak on the transferability problem because the manipulations necessary for controlled experiment also guarantee that the setting and population are different from the situation and population targeted for application. However, both of these familiar points are simplifications that can be misleading. Some non-RCT type studies (e.g. soft interventions) can also be very good at ruling out confounding variables.1 And, as I will explain, the problems leading to the transferability problem – interacting variables and a difference between study and target populations – are present in any study, not unique to RCTs. In addition
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nancy Cartwright & Eileen Munro (2010). The Limitations of Randomized Controlled Trials in Predicting Effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):260-266.
Nancy Cartwright (2009). Evidence-Based Policy: What's to Be Done About Relevance? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 143 (1):127 - 136.
David J. Torgerson & Carole J. Torgerson (2003). Avoiding Bias in Randomised Controlled Trials in Educational Research. British Journal of Educational Studies 51 (1):36 - 45.
John Worrall (2007). Why There's No Cause to Randomize. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (3):451-488.
Lisa R. Stines & Norah C. Feeny (2008). Unique Ethical Concerns in Clinical Trials Comparing Psychosocial and Psychopharmalogical Interventions. Ethics and Behavior 18 (2 & 3):234 – 246.
Gunnel Elander & Göran Hermerén (1995). Placebo Effect and Randomized Clinical Trials. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 16 (2).
Nancy Cartwright (2010). What Are Randomised Controlled Trials Good For? Philosophical Studies 147 (1):59 - 70.
Sherrilyn Roush (2009). Randomized Controlled Trials and the Flow of Information: Comment on Cartwright. Philosophical Studies 143 (1):137--145.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #162,810 of 1,088,426 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?