Data from the national evaluation of Project Follow Through were analyzed using analy
sis of covariance with and without correcting the pretest for unreliability. Such corrections
led to some changes in conclusions about the performance of various educational models
funded under Follow Through. Although the results of both sets of analyses were pre
sented in the Follow Through evaluators' report, conclusions were based on the analyses
employing the uncorrected pretest due to the many disagreements in the literature about
the appropriateness of correction for unreliability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, D.T. and R.F. Boruch (1975) “Making the case for randomized assignment to treatments by considering the alternatives“ in C. A. Bennett and A. A. Lumsdaine (eds.) Evaluation and Experiment. New York: Academic Press.
2.
Campbell, D.T. and A. Erlebacher (1970) “How regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look harmful,” in J. Hellmuth (ed.) Compensatory Education: A National Debate. The Disadvantaged Child, Volume 3. New York: Brunner/ Mazel.
3.
Cohen, J. and P. Cohen (1975) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
4.
Cronbach, L.J., D.R. Rogosa, R.E. Floden, and G.G. Price (1977) “Analysis of covariance in nonrandomized experiments: parameters affecting bias.” Stanford, CA: Standford Evaluation Consortium, Stanford University .
5.
Gao (1975) Follow Through: Lessons Learned from its Evaluation and the Need to Improve its Administration (Report to Congress, MWD-75-34). Washington, DC.
6.
Lord, F.M. (1960) “Large-scale covariance analysis when the control variable is fallible.” J. of the Amer. Statistical Association55: 307-321.
7.
Porter, A.C. (1967) “The effects of using fallible variables in the analysis of covariance.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
8.
??? and T.R. Chibucos (1974) “Selecting analysis strategies,” in G. D. Borich (ed.) Evaluating Educational Programs and Products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Educational Technology Publications.
9.
Stebbins, L.B., R G. St. Pierre, E.C. Proper, R.B. Anderson, and T.R. Cerva (1977) Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model, Volume IV-A. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
10.
Wolff, M. and A. Stein (1966) Six Months Later, Head Start Evaluation Project . New York: Yeshiva University, Ferkauf Graduate School of Education.
