This article responds to arguments by Skidmore and Thompson (this issue of Educational Researcher) that a graph published more than 10 years ago was erroneously reproduced and “gratuitously damaged” perceptions of the quality of education research. After describing the purpose of the original graph, the author counters assertions that the graph changed perceptions or that this was anything more than a case of unintentional editorial sloppiness.
BoruchR.De MoyaD.SnyderB. (2002). The importance of randomized field trials in education and related areas. In MostellerF.BoruchR. (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 50–79). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
MostellerF. M.BoruchR. F. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
NaveB.MiechE. J.Mosteller. (2000). A rare design: The role of field trials in evaluating school practices. In StufflebeamD. L.MadausG. F.KellaghanT. (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 145–161).Boston: Kluwer.
7.
PetrosinoA. (2003). Estimates of randomized controlled trials across six areas of childhood intervention: A bibliometric analysis. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 589, 190–202.
8.
PetrosinoA.BoruchR. F.RoundingC.McDonaldS.ChalmersI. (2000). The Campbell Collaboration Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (C2-SPECTR) to facilitate the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews of social and educational interventions. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 206–219.
9.
PetrosinoA.BoruchR. F.SoydanH.DugganL.Sanchez-MecaJ. (2001). Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell Collaboration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 14–34.
