Using the proper tool for the task: RCTs are the gold standard for estimating programme effects – a response to Stewart‐Brown et al.
| Pages | 148-152 |
| Published date | 15 June 2012 |
| Date | 15 June 2012 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17466661211238709 |
| Author | Gary W. Ritter |
| Subject Matter | Education,Health & social care,Sociology |
Using the proper tool for the task: RCTs are
the gold standard for estimating
programme effects – a response to
Stewart-Brown et al.
Gary W. Ritter
Abstract
Purpose – The article’s purpose is to critique a paper (Stewart-Brown et al., 2011) in a previous issue of
the Journal of Children’s Services, which challenges the utility of randomised controlledtrials (RCTs) to
evaluate the effectiveness of preventive interventions for children.
Design/methodology/approach – The article is a critical reflection on the primary issue discussed by
Stewart-Brown et al. namely that RCTsdo not work well in the evaluation of complex social interventions.
Findings – The author finds fault with several of the claims made in the earlier essay and concludes that
RCTsremain the most credible research methodology for estimating programme impacts. It is certainly
true that RCTsdo not tell us everything about programmes and implementation. However, if researchers
are attempting to assess whether social interventions have the intended measured impact on their
participants, then RCTs do indeed represent the ‘‘gold standard’’ research design.
Originality/value – The article is a re-assertion of the value of RCTs in research on preventive
interventions in children’s services.
Keywords Methodology, Randomised controlled trials, Preventive interventions, Research,
Children (age groups), Social interaction
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
When I was asked to review and respond to a paper entitled ‘‘Should randomised controlled
trials be the ‘‘gold standard’’ for research on preventive interventions for children?’’ I eagerly
accepted the task. I was particularly interested in considering this topic for the Journal of
Children’sServices, as I had worked with the editors to publish a two-part special edition of the
journal (Volume 3, Issues 1 and 2) in 2008 on the topic of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
In an editorial leading off Issue 2, Nick Axford and Michael Little noted that they are ‘‘believers
but not, we hope, blind ones’’ in the usefulness of RCTs (Axford and Little, 2008, p. 3). They
then went on to acknowledge that there are a range of views on this issue and invited papers
from a different perspective. The goal, the editors stated, wasto attempt to shed more light on
the issue and develop a better understanding of the challenges in using RCTsin evaluating the
effectiveness of children’s services. The paper by Stewart-Brown et al. (2011) in the last-but-
one issue does not, unfortunately, shed any light and is in danger of adding to the confusion
‘‘More heat. . . less light . . . ’ ’.
Stewart-Brown et al. pose a straightforward question: should RCTs be the ‘‘gold standard’’
for research on preventive interventions for children? As I review the paper,I am not able to
find a clear answer. In my view,the answer to their question is ‘ ‘sometimes, depending upon
the goal of the study’’. If we are seeking to uncover programme impacts on participants,
then the clear answer is ‘‘yes, RCTs are the gold standard’’. As Torgerson and Torgerson
PAGE 148
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2012, pp. 148-152, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660 DOI 10.1108/17466661211238709
Gary W. Ritter is based at
the University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas,
USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial