BerkR. (2011). Evidence-based versus junk-based evaluation research: Some lessons from 35 years of the evaluation review. Evaluation Review, 35, 191–203.
CochraneA. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services (Vol. 900574178). London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
4.
DekeJ.ChiangH. (2017). The WWC attrition standard: Sensitivity to assumptions and opportunities for refinement and adaptation to new contexts. Evaluation Review, 41, 130–154.
5.
GoeslingB.OberlanderS.TrivitsL. (2017). High-stakes systematic reviews: A case study from the field of teen pregnancy prevention. Evaluation Review, 41, 27–49.
6.
GroeneveldL. P.HannanM. T.TumaN. B. (1983). Final report of the Seattle–Denver income maintenance experiment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.
GrovesR. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–675.
8.
GrovesR. M.PeytchevaE. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 167–189.
9.
HaskinsR.MargolisG. (2014). Show me the evidence: Obama’s fight for rigor and results in social policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
10.
NewhouseJ. P., & Rand Corporation, Insurance Experiment Group. (1993). Free for all? Lessons from the RAND health insurance experiment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
SeftorN. (2017). Raising the bar [Special issue]. Evaluation Review.
12.
ValentineJ.WilsonS.RindskopfD.LauT.Tanner-SmithE.YeideM.…FosterL. (2017). Synthesizing Evidence in Public Policy Contexts: The Challenge of Synthesis When There Are Only a Few Studies. Evaluation Review, 41, 3–26.
13.
WestbrookT. P. R.AvellarS. A.SeftorN. (2017). Reviewing the reviews: Examining similarities and differences between federally funded evidence reviews. Evaluation Review, 41, 183–211.
