TY - JOUR
T1 - From Planning to Implementation
T2 - An Examination of Changes in the Research Design, Sample Size, and Precision of Group Randomized Trials Launched by the Institute of Education Sciences
AU - Spybrook, Jessaca
AU - Puente, Anne Cullen
AU - Lininger, Monica
N1 - Funding Information:
To understand the procedural differences, we briefly outline standard practice in each agency. NCER holds two grant competitions per year corresponding to June and October deadlines. Between 2002 and 2006, the request for applications stated that strong applications should include a letter of support (LOS) from districts or schools that plan to participate in the proposed study. The LOS was meant to provide evidence to the funder and reviewers that the team had already recruited for the study and, should they be awarded a grant, they would be poised and ready to execute the study. This means that at least a few months before the grant submission deadline, a PI was recruiting schools for the proposed study. After a proposal was submitted, the review process typically took about 7 months. Thus if a proposal was submitted for the June deadline, the PI was unofficially notified around January of the following year and if the proposal was submitted for the October deadline, the PI was unofficially notified around April of the following year. After the award notification, the funding for Year 1 of the grant was usually dispersed within 2 months. Adding the few months preparation time before the grant was submitted, the 7-month review time, and the few months until the award was dispersed, it is likely that initial recruiting took place approximately 1 year prior to when the study actually began.
PY - 2013/10
Y1 - 2013/10
N2 - This article examines changes in the research design, sample size, and precision between the planning phase and implementation phase of group randomized trials (GRTs) funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. Thirty-eight GRTs funded between 2002 and 2006 were examined. Three studies revealed changes in the experimental design. Ten studies showed decreases in the total number of groups randomized, whereas 18 studies showed increases. In five cases, the decreases in the number of groups randomized were large enough to decrease the precision of the study. However, in the majority of the studies, the precision was relatively unchanged from planning phase to implementation phase. The consistency in the precision between the planning phase and implementation phase highlights the importance of planning adequately powered studies.
AB - This article examines changes in the research design, sample size, and precision between the planning phase and implementation phase of group randomized trials (GRTs) funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. Thirty-eight GRTs funded between 2002 and 2006 were examined. Three studies revealed changes in the experimental design. Ten studies showed decreases in the total number of groups randomized, whereas 18 studies showed increases. In five cases, the decreases in the number of groups randomized were large enough to decrease the precision of the study. However, in the majority of the studies, the precision was relatively unchanged from planning phase to implementation phase. The consistency in the precision between the planning phase and implementation phase highlights the importance of planning adequately powered studies.
KW - Randomized trial
KW - experimental design
KW - precision
KW - statistical power
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885412314&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885412314&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/19345747.2013.801544
DO - 10.1080/19345747.2013.801544
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84885412314
SN - 1934-5747
VL - 6
SP - 396
EP - 420
JO - Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness
JF - Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness
IS - 4
ER -