FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2341787785> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2341787785 abstract "The practical importance of quasi-experimental (QE) studies in education has been growing due to increasing availability and reliability of longitudinal databases maintained by state education agencies. With access to such a database, the impacts on student achievement of a program implemented in a few schools in one district anywhere in the state can, for example, be evaluated by drawing comparable students from anywhere across the state. These databases present special opportunities because of their comprehensive nature but also challenges because of their size. The problem we address in this paper is how to select a comparison group that takes advantage of the richness and the size of a state data system while allowing the computation to be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time given the technology currently available to researchers. Most importantly: do this while optimizing the similarity of the students in the comparison group to the students in the group implementing the program.The usefulness of a QE is, of course, dependent on the similarity of the treatment and comparison groups. Unlike in a randomized control trial (RCT) where we can expect the treatment group and control group to be equivalent, program evaluation using comparison data selected after the fact cannot be assumed to be equivalent to the treated, and this can lead to biased estimates of program effect. A variety of analytical strategies have been developed to approximate the conditions of an RCT and therefore minimize the selection bias.Though a considerable body of research has been devoted to analyzing empirical problems of QE studies of job training programs, very little work of this kind has been conducted in the context of large-scale evaluations in K-12 education. For recent contributions and surveys of earlier studies, see Glazerman, Levy, and Myers (2003), Bloom, Michalopoulos, and Hill (2005), and Cook, Shadish & Wong (2008). In addition, existing program evaluation methods have been developed and tested on relatively small datasets — typically thousands of observations — while a student information system of a typical state can contain millions of records. Given the limited computing resources available to most mainstream and many academic researchers, the issues of computational efficiency of analytical methods come to the foreground.We propose, and test through a computational experiment, an approach that takes advantage of what we suspect is a tendency of K-12 practitioners to adopt new programs in some schools and not others. For example, a school district administrator running a pilot will likely talk to school principals to find those interested, while teacher teams may often share innovations within a school rather than across schools. Thus, an optimal approach would involve a two-stage matching process, which first finds comparable schools to the ones participating in the program and then from the matching schools, identifies students that match the individuals in the program." @default.
• W2341787785 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2341787785 creator A5041102194 @default.
• W2341787785 creator A5041719059 @default.
• W2341787785 creator A5061453496 @default.
• W2341787785 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2341787785 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2341787785 title "Improving Selection of the Comparison Group from State Longitudinal Data Systems Using Two-Stage Matching" @default.
• W2341787785 cites W1950406052 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W1967271316 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W1969168383 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2076035149 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2106950744 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2132469156 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2136552225 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2150291618 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2159805452 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2167047802 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2171443468 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W2989968279 @default.
• W2341787785 cites W3122542817 @default.
• W2341787785 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2753798" @default.
• W2341787785 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2341787785 type Work @default.
• W2341787785 sameAs 2341787785 @default.
• W2341787785 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2341787785 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2341787785 hasAuthorship W2341787785A5041102194 @default.
• W2341787785 hasAuthorship W2341787785A5041719059 @default.
• W2341787785 hasAuthorship W2341787785A5061453496 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C100480397 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C103278499 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C115961682 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C155108698 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C165064840 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C2781311116 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C100480397 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C103278499 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C105795698 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C11413529 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C115961682 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C119857082 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C136197465 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C145420912 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C154945302 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C155108698 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C165064840 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C178790620 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C185592680 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C2781311116 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C33923547 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C41008148 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C48103436 @default.
• W2341787785 hasConceptScore W2341787785C81917197 @default.
• W2341787785 hasLocation W23417877851 @default.
• W2341787785 hasOpenAccess W2341787785 @default.
• W2341787785 hasPrimaryLocation W23417877851 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W1045735457 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W1612299368 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W1942148939 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2026520439 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2027097101 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2041913054 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2052987960 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2058589565 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2075734592 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2082893163 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2084631615 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2436885202 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2469810947 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2794518041 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W2802126531 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W3019337990 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W302303314 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W3124127957 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W3175227734 @default.
• W2341787785 hasRelatedWork W3202190651 @default.
• W2341787785 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2341787785 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2341787785 magId "2341787785" @default.
• W2341787785 workType "article" @default.