Walking the talk: the need for a trial registry for development interventions
Recent advances in the use of randomised control trials to evaluate the effect of development interventions promise to enhance our knowledge of what works and why. A core argument supporting randomised studies is the claim that they have high internal validity. The authors argue that this claim is weak as long as a trial registry of development interventions is not in place. Without a trial registry, the possibilities for data mining, created by analyses of multiple outcomes and subgroups, undermine internal validity. Drawing on experience from evidence-based medicine and recent examples from microfinance, they argue that a trial registry would also enhance external validity and foster innovative research.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 3 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJDE20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJDE20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jdevef:v:3:y:2011:i:4:p:502-519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.