Making Every Study Count

Learning From Replication Failure to Improve Intervention Research

Dados Bibliográficos

ID9735541
AutoresJames S Kim (0000-0002-6415-5496, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, autor correspondente)
Ano2019
Volume48
Fascículo9
Páginas599-607
Data de publicação2019-12-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoEducational Researcher (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0013-189X • E-ISSN: 1935-102X
EditoraAmerican Educational Research Association (AERA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3102/0013189x19891428
OpenAlexW2995215433
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas22
Referências citadas49

Why, when so many educational interventions demonstrate positive impact in tightly controlled efficacy trials, are null results common in follow-up effectiveness trials? Using case studies from literacy, this article suggests that replication failure can surface hidden moderators—contextual differences between an efficacy and an effectiveness trial—and generate new hypotheses and questions to guide future research. First, replication failure can reveal systemic barriers to program implementation. Second, it can highlight for whom and in what contexts a program theory of change works best. Third, it suggests that a fidelity first and adaptation second model of program implementation can enhance the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions and improve student outcomes. Ultimately, researchers can make every study count by learning from both replication success and failure to improve the rigor, relevance, and reproducibility of intervention research

Adaptation (eye · Fidelity · Intervention (counseling · Literacy · Pedagogy · Psychological intervention · Replication (statistics · Applied Psychology · Computer Science · Educational Assessment and Improvement · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Psychology