In this chapter, we describe and compare the standards for evidence used by three entities that review studies of education interventions: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Social Programs that Work, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Based on direct comparisons of the evidence frameworks, we identify key differences in the level at which effectiveness ratings are granted (i.e., intervention vs. outcome domain), as well as in how each entity prioritizes intervention documentation, researcher independence, and sustained versus immediate effects. Because such differences in priorities may result in contradictory intervention ratings between entities, we offer a number of recommendations for a common set of standards that would harmonize effectiveness ratings across the three entities while preserving differences that allow for variation in user priorities. These include disentangling study rigor from intervention effectiveness, ceasing vote counting procedures, adding replication criteria, adding fidelity criteria, assessing baseline equivalence for randomized studies, making quasi-experiments eligible for review, adding criteria for researcher independence, and providing effectiveness ratings at the level of the outcome domain rather than the intervention.

在本章中，我们描述并比较了三个审查教育干预研究的实体所使用的证据标准：“健康青年发展蓝图”，“有效的社会项目”和“有效的信息交换所”。基于对证据框架的直接比较，我们确定了授予有效性评级的水平（即干预与结果域）之间的主要差异，以及每个实体如何确定干预文档的优先顺序，研究人员的独立性以及持续性与即时性之间的主要差异。效果。由于优先级上的此类差异可能会导致实体之间的干预评分相互矛盾，我们为一组通用标准提供了一些建议，这些标准将在三个实体之间协调有效性评级，同时保留允许用户优先级变化的差异。这些措施包括使研究严格性与干预效果脱节，取消投票计数程序，添加复制标准，添加保真度标准，评估随机研究的基线等效性，使准实验有资格接受审查，增加研究人员独立性的标准以及在该级别提供有效性评级结果域而不是干预。