The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

1. Experiments and Generalized Causal Inference 2. Statistical Conclusion Validity and Internal Validity 3. Construct Validity and External Validity 4. Quasi-Experimental Designs That Either Lack a Control Group or Lack Pretest Observations on the Outcome 5. Quasi-Experimental Designs That Use Both Control Groups and Pretests 6. Quasi-Experimentation: Interrupted Time Series Designs 7. Regression Discontinuity Designs 8. Randomized Experiments: Rationale, Designs, and Conditions Conducive to Doing Them 9. Practical Problems 1: Ethics, Participant Recruitment, and Random Assignment 10. Practical Problems 2: Treatment Implementation and Attrition 11. Generalized Causal Inference: A Grounded Theory 12. Generalized Causal Inference: Methods for Single Studies 13. Generalized Causal Inference: Methods for Multiple Studies 14. A Critical Assessment of Our Assumptions

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference

The purposes of this article are to position mixed methods research (mixed research is a synonym) as the natural complement to traditional qualitative and quantitative research, to present pragmatism as offering an attractive philosophical partner for mixed methods research, and to provide a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research. In doing this, we briefly review the paradigm “wars” and incompatibility thesis, we show some commonalities between quantitative and qualitative research, we explain the tenets of pragmatism, we explain the fundamental principle of mixed research and how to apply it, we provide specific sets of designs for the two major types of mixed methods research (mixed-model designs and mixed-method designs), and, finally, we explain mixed methods research as following (recursively) an eight-step process. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research (compared to monomethod resear...

/pdf/mixed-methods-research-a-research-paradigm-whose-time-has-gngadyc340.pdf

Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-review-and-meta-mgb1uy0yle.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

W. Wilson's (1967) review of the area of subjective well-being (SWB) advanced several conclusions regarding those who report high levels of "happiness". A number of his conclusions have been overturned: youth and modest aspirations no longer are seen as prerequisites of SWB. E. Diener's (1984) review placed greater emphasis on theories that stressed psychological factors. In the current article, the authors review current evidence for Wilson's conclusions and discuss modern theories of SWB that stress dispositional influences, adaptation, goals, and coping strategies. The next steps in the evolution of the field are to comprehend the interaction of psychological factors with life circumstances in producing SWB, to understand the causal pathways leading to happiness, understand the processes underlying adaptation to events, and develop theories that explain why certain variables differentially influence the different components of SWV (life satisfaction, pleasant affect, and unpleasant affect).

Subjective Well-Being: Three Decades of Progress

/pdf/single-case-designs-technical-documentation-5fqr7bj4u2.pdf

Single-Case Designs Technical Documentation.

In an effort to responsibly incorporate evidence based on single-case designs (SCDs) into the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence base, the WWC assembled a panel of individuals with expertise in quantitative methods and SCD methodology to draft SCD standards. In this article, the panel provides an overview of the SCD standards recommended by the panel (henceforth referred to as the Standards) and adopted in Version 1.0 of the WWC’s official pilot standards. The Standards are sequentially applied to research studies that incorporate SCDs. The design standards focus on the methodological soundness of SCDs, whereby reviewers assign the categories of Meets Standards, Meets Standards With Reservations, and Does Not Meet Standards to each study. Evidence criteria focus on the credibility of the reported evidence, whereby the outcome measures that meet the design standards (with or without reservations) are examined by reviewers trained in visual analysis and categorized as demonstrating Strong Evidence, Mod...

Single-Case Intervention Research Design Standards

Combining estimates of effect size.

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION Social Program Evaluation Its History, Tasks and Theory Good Theory for Social Program Evaluation PART TWO: STAGE ONE THEORIES: BRINGING TRUTH TO SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING Michael S Scriven The Science of Valuing Donald T Campbell Methodologist of the Experimenting Society PART THREE: STAGE TWO THEORIES: GENERATING ALTERNATIVES EMPHASIZING USE AND PRAGMATISM Carol H Weiss Linking Evaluation to Policy Research Joseph S Wholey Evaluation for Program Improvement Robert E Stake Responsive Evaluation and Qualitative Methods PART FOUR: STAGE THREE THEORIES: TRYING TO INTEGRATE THE PAST Lee J Cronbach Functional Evaluation Design for a World of Political Accommodation Peter H Rossi Comprehensive, Tailored, Theory-Driven Evaluations - A Smorgasbord of Options PART FIVE: CONCLUSIONS Summary and Implications for Evaluation Theory and Practice

William R. Shadish

Papers

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference

Single-Case Designs Technical Documentation.

Single-Case Intervention Research Design Standards

Combining estimates of effect size.

Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice