This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Camilli, G.A. A reanalysis of the effect of Follow Through on cognitive and affective development. Unpublished dissertation, University of Colorado, 1980.
Campbell, D.T. & Erlebacher, A. How regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations in compensatory education tend to underestimate effects. In C.A. Bennett and A.A. Lumsdaine (Eds.),Evaluation and experiment. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Cronbach, L.J., Rogosa, D.R., Fladen, R.E., & Price, G.G. Analysis of covariance in nonrandomized experiments: parameters affecting bias. (Stanford Evaluation Consortium, Occasional Paper), unpublished paper, Stanford University, 1977.
Cooley, W.W. & Leinhardt, G. The instructional dimensions study.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1980,2(1), 7–25.
House, E.R., Glass G.V., McLean, L.D., & Walker, D.F. No simple answer: Critique of the Follow Through evaluation.Harvard Educational Review 1978,48(2), 128–160.
Slack, W.V. & Porter, D. The Scholastic Aptitude Test: A critical appraisal.Harvard Educational Review, 1980 50(2), 154–175.
Walker, D.F. & Schaffarzick, J. Comparing curricula.Review of Educational Research 1974,44(1), 83–111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
House, E.R. Changing lead into gold. Interchange 12, 22–26 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807393
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807393