Expanding the frontiers of heterogeneity analysis: application of a machine learning method to a gender attitude change program

At 3ie, we recently tested a machine learning technique on a previously completed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a school-based gender attitude change program in Haryana, India to answer this question. We share a few key findings and benefits of employing this method.

Insights from the Development Evidence Portal – the Middle East and North Africa

Our latest piece in the ‘state of the evidence’ series – which interprets data by unpacking the studies in our Development Evidence Portal (DEP) – focuses on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. . The DEP currently includes 740 impact evaluations (IE) and 352 systematic reviews (SR) from the region, which is the second smallest amongst regions containing low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). Interested readers are encouraged to further explore the DEP for additional data not covered in this blog.

Previous Pause Next

Latest blogs

Requiring fuel gauges: A pitch for justifying impact evaluation sample size assumptions

Eric Djimeu, Benjamin DK Wood 17 October 2014 blog

We expect researchers to defend their assumptions when they write papers or present at seminars. Well, we expect them to defend most of their assumptions. However, the assumptions behind their sample size, determined by their power calculations, are rarely discussed. Sample sizes and power calculations matter. Power calculations determine sample size requirements, which match budget constraints with minimum sample size requirements.

Unexpected evidence on impact evaluations of anti-poverty programmes

Martina Vojtkova 28 September 2014 blog

The first email that caught my eye this morning as I opened my inbox was Markus Goldstein’s most recent World Bank blog post, “Do impact evaluations tell us anything about reducing poverty?” Having worked in this field for four years, I too have been thinking that we were in the business of fighting poverty, and like him, I expected that impact evaluations, especially impact evaluations of anti-poverty programmes, would tell us whether we are reaching the poor and helping

How 3ie is tackling the challenges of producing high-quality policy-relevant systematic reviews in international development

Hugh Waddington 26 September 2014 blog

At its annual colloquium being held in Hyderabad, India, the Cochrane Collaboration is focusing on evidence on the global burden of disease of mostly treatable illnesses that are concentrated among populations living in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). We already have a lot of systematic review evidence about what works to prevent and treat them. Yet they remain prevalent due to the lack of resources, implementation capacity and population attitudes.

Making impact evidence matter for people’s welfare

Heather Lanthorn, Birte Snilstveit 24 September 2014 blog

The plenary session at the Making Impact Evaluation Matter conference in Manila made clear that impact evidence – in the form of single evaluations and syntheses of rigorous evidence – do indeed matter. Two key themes were (1) strong evidence about the causal effects of programmes and policies matter to making decisions that improve the welfare of people living in low- and middle-income countries and (2) that, to make impact evaluation matter more, we need to continue to make efforts to build capacity to generate, understand, and use such evidence in those same countries.

Early engagement improves REDD+ and early warning system design and proposals

Heather Lanthorn, Jyotsna Puri, Stuti Tripathi, Beryl Leach 08 September 2014 blog

At 3ie, our mission is to fund the generation and sharing of sound, useful evidence on the impacts of development programmes and policies work. Actually, we’re more curious (or nosy) than that. For impact evaluation that matters, we need to know which bits of a programme worked, which didn’t, why and through which mechanisms, in which contexts and for what costs.

Twelve tips for selling randomised controlled trials to reluctant policymakers and programme managers

Howard White 02 September 2014 blog

I recently wrote a blog on ten things that can go wrong with randomised controlled trials (RCTs). As a sequel, which may seem to be a bit of a non-sequiter, here are twelve tips for selling RCTs to reluctant policymakers and programme managers.

Gearing up for Making Impact Evaluation Matter

Heather Lanthorn 31 August 2014 blog

Over the last week, 3ie staff in Delhi, London and Washington were busy coordinating conference logistics, finalising the conference programme, figuring out how to balance 3ie publications and clothing in their suitcases, and putting the last touches to their presentations. This is usual conference preparation for a conference that is going to be different. Why is this conference different? The participant mix – more than 500 people – is balanced among policymakers, programme managers and implementers, and researchers.

Ten things that can go wrong with randomised controlled trials

Howard White 23 August 2014 blog

From the vantage point of 3ie having funded over 150 studies in the last few years, there are some pitfalls to watch for in order to design and implement randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lead to better policies and better lives. If we don’t watch out for these, we will just end up wasting the time and money of funders, researchers and the intended beneficiaries.

How fruity should you be?

Howard White 05 August 2014 blog

A couple of months back the BBC reported a new study which questioned existing advice to eat five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables a day. Five was not enough according to the study authors, it should be seven. I really do try each day to eat five portions. Where was I going to find the time and space for these extra two portions? But this looked like a sound study published in a respected academic journal, with data from over 65,000 people.

Unexpected and disappearing outcomes: Why relying on proxy outcomes is often not enough

Howard White 02 July 2014 blog

In the early years of the Second World War, British intelligence undertook one of its first exercises in strategic deception. To divert the attention of occupying Italian forces from a planned attack on Eritrea by troops based in Sudan, the British engaged in various activities to make the Italians think an attack was going to be launched on British Somaliland from Egypt. The British were successful in making the Italians believe that an attack was coming.

About

Evidence Matters is 3ie’s blog. It primarily features contributions from staff and board members. Guest blogs are by invitation.

3ie publishes blogs in the form received from the authors. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Views expressed are their own and do not represent the opinions of 3ie, its board of commissioners or supporters.