Prevention Science

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 179–188 | Cite as

When is the Story in the Subgroups?

Strategies for Interpreting and Reporting Intervention Effects for Subgroups
  • Howard S. BloomEmail author
  • Charles Michalopoulos


This paper examines strategies for interpreting and reporting estimates of intervention effects for subgroups of a study sample. The paper considers: why and how subgroup findings are important for applied research, alternative ways to define subgroups, different research questions that motivate subgroup analyses, the importance of pre-specifying subgroups before analyses are conducted, the importance of using existing theory and prior research to distinguish between subgroups for whom study findings are confirmatory (hypothesis testing) as opposed to exploratory (hypothesis generating), and the conditions under which study findings should be considered confirmatory. Each issue is illustrated by selected empirical examples.


Subgroup analysis Intervention effects Reporting intervention research 


  1. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, D. (2009). The Joyce Foundation’s transitional jobs reentry demonstration: Testing strategies to help former prisoners find and keep jobs and stay out of prison. Chicago, IL: The Joyce Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, D., Redcross, C., Zweig, J., & Azurdia, G. (2007). Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: Early impacts from a random assignment evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) prisoner reentry program. New York: MDRC.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, H. S., Thompson, S. L., & Unterman, R. (2010). Transforming the high school experience: How New York city’s new small schools are boosting student achievement and graduation rates. New York: MDRC.Google Scholar
  5. Council, N. R. (2007). Crime, parole, desistance from crime, and community integration. Committee on Community Supervision and Desistance from Crime. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fournier, J. C., DeRubeis, R. J., Hollon, S. D., Dimidjian, S., Amsterdam, J. D., Shelton, R. C., et al. (2010). Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: A patient-level meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303, 47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim, S., Leblanc, A., & Michalopoulos, C. (2009). Working toward Wellness: Early results from a telephonic care management program for medicaid recipients with depression. New York: MDRC.Google Scholar
  8. Kim, S., Leblanc, A., Simon, G., Walter, J., & Michalopoulos, C. (2010). Working toward Wellness: Eighteen-month results from a telephonic care management program for medicaid recipients with depression. New York: MDRC.Google Scholar
  9. Michalopoulos, C., & Schwartz, C. (2000). What works best for whom: Impacts of 20 welfare-to-work programs by subgroup. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Administration for Children and Families, and U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Redcross, C., Bloom, D., Azurdia, G., Zweig, J., & Pindus, N. (2007). Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: Implementation, two-year impacts, and costs of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) prisoner reentry program. New York: MDRC.Google Scholar
  11. Rothwell, P. M. (2005). Subgroup analysis in randomised control trials: Importance, indications and interpretation. The Lancet, 365, 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schochet, P. M. (2008). Technical methods report: Guidelines for multiple testing in impact evaluations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Wells, K. B., Sherbourne, C., Schoenbaum, M., Duan, N., Meredith, L., Unutzer, J., et al. (2000). Impact of disseminating quality improvement programs for depression in managed primary care: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of American Medical Association, 283, 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wells, K., Sherbourne, C., Schoenbaum, M., Ettner, S., Duan, N., Miranda, J., et al. (2004). Five-year impact of quality improvement for depression: Results of a group-level randomized controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 378–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MDRCNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations