Recent meta-analyses of drug-court studies recognized the poor methodological quality of the evaluations, with only a few being randomized. This article critiques the design of the randomized studies from a statistical perspective. Learning points are identified for future drug-court studies and are applicable to evaluations both of other specialist courts and of court-based interventions more generally. The specific issues covered are randomization, describing the intervention, and baseline characteristics; study outcomes, and sample size calculations; in-program and postprogram behavior, analysis plan, and presentation of results.
Altman, D.G., S.M. Gore, M.J. Gardner, and S.J. Pocock.1983. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition)286: 1489-93.
2.
Altman, D.G., K.F. Schulz, D. Moher, M. Egger, F. Davidoff, D. Elbourne, P.C. Gøtzsche, and T. Lang.2001. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine134: 663-94.
3.
Belenko, S.2001. Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update . New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/2001drugcourts.pdf (accessed November 18, 2008).
4.
Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg.1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical methodology)57: 289-300.
5.
BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.2008 . Summary of drug court activity by state and county, August 11th 2008. Washington, DC: American University. http://spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2150.pdf (accessed November 18, 2008).
6.
Boruch, R., R. Snyder, and D. DeMoya.2000. The importance of randomized field trials . Crime and Delinquency46: 156-80.
7.
Charatan, F.2000. US launches new clinical trials database. British Medical Journal320: 668.
8.
Deschenes, E.P., S. Turner, and P.W. Greenwood.1995. Drug court or probation: An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County drug court. The Justice System Journal18: 55-73.
9.
Dickie, J.L.2000. Summit county juvenile court drug court (Evaluation report: July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000). Akron, Ohio: The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron.
10.
---. 2001. Summit county juvenile court drug court (Evaluation report: July 1, 2000 - June 30, 2001). Akron, Ohio: The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron.
11.
--- 2002. Summit county juvenile court drug court (Evaluation report: July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002). Akron, Ohio: The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron.
12.
Farrington, D.1983. Randomized experiments in crime and justice. In: Crime and justice: An annual review of research, ed. N. Morris, and M. Tonry, 257-308. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Farrington, D.P., and B.C. Welsh.2006. A half century of randomized experiments on crime and justice. Crime and Justice34: 55-132.
14.
Feder, L., and R. Boruch.2000. The need for experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime and Delinquency46: 291-4.
15.
Freedman, D.A.2006. Statistical models for causation: What inferential leverage do they provide? Evaluation Review30: 691-713.
16.
Gottfredson, D.C., and L.M. Exum.2002. The Baltimore city drug treatment court: One-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency39: 337-56.
17.
Gottfredson, D.C., S.S. Najaka, and B. Kearley.2003. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy2: 171-96.
18.
Gottfredson, D.C., S.S. Najaka, B. Kearley, and C.M. Rocha.2006. Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study . Journal of Experimental Criminology2: 67-98.
19.
Hoenig, J.M., and D.M. Heisey.2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculation for data analysis. The American Statistician55: 19-24.
20.
Jensen, E.L., and C.J. Mosher.2006. Adult drug courts: Emergence, growth, outcome evaluations, and the need for a continuum of care. Idaho Law Review42: 443-70.
21.
Jensen, E.L., N.L. Parsons, and C.J. Mosher.2007. Adult drug treatment courts: A review . Sociology Compass1: 552-71.
22.
Lind, B., D. Weatherburn, S. Chen, M. Shanahan, E. Lancsar, M. Haas, and R. De Abreu Lourenco .2002. New South Wales drug court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness, New South Wales: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
23.
Machin, D., and M.J. Campbell.2005. Design of studies for medical research , Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
24.
Marlowe, D.B., D.S. Festinger, P.A. Lee, M.M. Schepise, J.E.R. Hazzard, J.C. Merrill, F.D. Mulvaney, and A.T. McLellan.2003. Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior30: 141-62.
25.
Marlowe, D.B., D.S. Festinger, K. Dugosh, and P. Lee.2005. Are judicial status hearings a ``key component'' of drug court? Six and twelve months outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence79: 145-55.
26.
McIvor, G., L. Barnsdale, M. Malloch, S. Eley, and R. Yates.2006. In The operation and effectiveness of the Scottish drug court pilots, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.
27.
Ministry of Justice.2008. Dedicated drug court pilots: A process report [Government report online]. London: Ministry of Justice (MoJ Research Series 7/08). http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/dedicated-drug-courts.pdf (accessed November 18, 2008).
28.
Moher, D., K.F. Schulz, and D.G. Altman.2001. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. Biomed Central Medical Research Methodology1: 2.
29.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals.1997. In Defining drug courts: The key components, Washington, DC: The National Association of Drug Courts Office.
30.
Payne, J.2005. Final report on the North Queensland drug court. Technical and Background Paper no. 17. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
31.
Perera, R., C. Heneghan, and P. Yudkin.2007. Graphical method for depicting randomized trials of complex interventions. British Medical Journal334: 127-9.
32.
Perry A.E., and M. Johnson2008. Applying the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) to studies of mental health provision for juvenile offenders: a research note. Journal of Experimental Criminology4: 165-185.
33.
Piantadosi, S.2005. In Clinical trials-A methodologic perspective. 2nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
34.
Pocock S.J.1983. Clinical Trials - A Practical Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
35.
Pocock S.J.1983a. Monitoring Trial Progress. In: Clinical Trials - A Practical Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
36.
Pocock S.J.1997. Clinical trials with multiple outcomes: A statistical perspective on their design, analysis, and interpretation. Controlled Clinical Trials18: 530-545.
37.
Rawlins, M.D.2008. De Testimonio. Harveian Oration Lecture, Oct 16, 2008, London, UK. London: Royal College of Physicians. https://admin.emea.acrobat.com/_a45839050/p37057603/ (accessed November 10, 2008).
38.
Shanahan, M., E. Lancsar, M. Haas, B. Lind, D. Weatherburn, and S.L. Chen.2004. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the New South Wales adult drug court program. Evaluation Review28: 3-27.
39.
Shepherd, J.P.2003. Explaining the feast or famine in randomized field trials . Evaluation Review27: 290-315.
40.
Sherman, L.W., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J.E.P. Reuter, and S. Bushway.1997. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising [Government report online]. Washington : National Institute of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/ (accessed October 2, 2007).
41.
Weisburd, D.2003. Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in Crime and Justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review27: 336-54.
42.
Wilson, D.B., O. Mitchell, and D.L. MacKenzie.2007. A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology2: 459-87.
