IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v13y2005i03p233-252_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scalable Protocols Offer Efficient Design for Field Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Nickerson, David W.

Abstract

Experiments conducted in the field allay concerns over external validity but are subject to the pitfalls of fieldwork. This article proves that scalable protocols conserve statistical efficiency in the face of problems implementing the treatment regime. Three designs are considered: randomly ordering the application of the treatment; matching subjects into groups prior to assignment; and placebo-controlled experiments. Three examples taken from voter mobilization field experiments demonstrate the utility of the design principles discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Nickerson, David W., 2005. "Scalable Protocols Offer Efficient Design for Field Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 233-252, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:13:y:2005:i:03:p:233-252_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S104719870000108X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lan Liu & Michael G. Hudgens, 2014. "Large Sample Randomization Inference of Causal Effects in the Presence of Interference," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(505), pages 288-301, March.
    2. David W. Nickerson, 2005. "Partisan Mobilization Using Volunteer Phone Banks and Door Hangers," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 10-27, September.
    3. Peter John Loewen & Daniel Rubenson & Leonard Wantchekon, 2010. "Help Me Help You: Conducting Field Experiments with Political Elites," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 165-175, March.
    4. Gary King & Emmanuela Gakidou & Nirmala Ravishankar & Ryan T. Moore & Jason Lakin & Manett Vargas & Martha María Téllez-Rojo & Juan Eugenio Hernández Ávila & Mauricio Hernández Ávila & Héctor Hernánde, 2007. "A “politically robust” experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 479-506.
    5. Kevin Arceneaux & David W. Nickerson, 2009. "Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re‐Analysis of 11 Field Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:13:y:2005:i:03:p:233-252_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.