Class-level RCT
Tests interventions at the classroom level to prevent cross-group contamination
Making
Educational Research
Better with ERCT Standards
The Educational Randomized Controlled Trial (ERCT) Standard is a rigorous framework addressing key challenges in educational studies. With 12 criteria across 3 progressive levels, it resolves issues like bias, limited scope, and short-term focus – enabling researchers to produce actionable results that improve education systems worldwide.
The ERCT Framework
The ERCT Standard has 3 levels, each containing 4 criteria
Level 1
-
-
Exam-based Assessment
Uses standardized exams for objective and comparable results
-
Term Duration
Ensures studies last at least one academic term to measure meaningful impacts
-
Documented Control Group
Requires detailed control group data for proper comparisons
Level 2
-
School-level RCT
Expands testing to whole schools for real-world relevance
-
Independent Conduct
Removes bias by using third-party evaluators.
-
Year Duration
Ensures studies last at least one academic term to measure meaningful impacts
-
Balanced Resources
Ensures equal time and resources for both groups to isolate the intervention's impact.
Level 3
-
Reproduced
Uses standardized exams for objective and comparable results
-
All-subject Exams
Assesses effects across all core subjects, avoiding imbalances
-
Graduation Tracking
Tracks students until graduation to evaluate long-term impacts.
-
Pre-registered Protocol:
Increases transparency by publishing study plans before data collection
ERCT Evaluated Studies
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the school level, which meets or exceeds the class‑level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study uses the nationally standardized ENLACE exam for objective, comparable assessment.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes were collected approximately three years after the intervention began, exceeding the minimum of one academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
Baseline demographics and pre‑intervention scores for the control group are provided in detail.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation at the school level fulfills the School‑level RCT requirement.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The evaluation was conducted by researchers unaffiliated with SEP, ensuring independence of the study’s implementation and analysis.
-
Y
Year Duration
Participants were followed for approximately three years, which is longer than one academic year from intervention start to final outcomes.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The difference in time or resources between groups is trivial and integral to the intervention, unlikely to bias the results.
-
R
Reproduced Results
The paper does not reference any independent replication studies, and none were found in external literature.
-
A
All Exams
Only math and language outcomes are measured, omitting other main subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The RCT measured on-time high school completion, meaning participants were followed through the completion of that educational level.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre-registration statement or registry ID is provided in the paper or its references.
The heterogeneous effect of information on student performance: Evidence from a randomized control trial in Mexico
Ciro Avitabile and Rafael de HoyosWe use data from the randomized control trial of the Percepciones pilot to study whether providing 10th grade students with information about the average earnings associated with different educational attainments, life expectancy, and obtaining funding for higher education can contribute...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization occurred at the class (school) level, avoiding within-class mixing and meeting the class-level RCT standard.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
Student learning was measured with the TerraNova standardized test, a well‑established, nationally normed exam.
-
T
Term Duration
The intervention spanned a full academic year of seventh-grade instruction, exceeding the one-term minimum.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s practices, demographics, and baseline scores are clearly documented for proper comparison.
-
S
School-level RCT
Entire schools (not just classes) were randomized, satisfying the school-level RCT requirement.
-
I
Independent Conduct
An independent research team evaluated the intervention, and no authors had a financial interest in ASSISTments.
-
Y
Year Duration
The trial ran for a full academic year (with data from the second year cohort), meeting the one‑year duration requirement.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Both groups followed identical homework policies and content; the ASSISTments tool and training were the core treatment.
-
R
Reproduced Results
An independent replication by another research team found similar positive results, confirming the original findings.
-
A
All Exams
Only mathematics achievement was assessed; other subjects were not tested.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Students were originally tracked only through 7th grade; a separate follow-up measured outcomes at the end of 8th grade, but tracking did not extend to high school graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The study was not pre-registered; no registry or preregistration statement is provided.
Online Mathematics Homework Increases Student Achievement
Jeremy Roschelle, Mingyu Feng, Robert F. Murphy, Craig A. MasonIn a randomized field trial with 2,850 seventh-grade mathematics students, we evaluated whether an educational technology intervention increased mathematics learning. Assigning homework is common yet sometimes controversial. Building on prior research on formative assessment and adaptive teaching, we predicted that...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization was conducted at the school (cluster) level, satisfying the class‑level RCT criterion.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study measured outcomes using national examination scores, a standardized assessment.
-
T
Term Duration
Intervention and follow‑up lasted ten months, exceeding a full academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s size and baseline characteristics are clearly documented in the methods and tables.
-
S
School-level RCT
Entire schools were randomized, satisfying the school‑level RCT criterion.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The same team that designed the intervention conducted and analyzed the trial without independent oversight.
-
Y
Year Duration
Participants were tracked from February through December—one full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
HIIT was integrated into standard PE time without additional class time or resources, keeping groups balanced.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of this intervention has been reported.
-
A
All Exams
Outcomes were measured only in mathematics and Mongolian language, not all main subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Participants were not followed until graduation; follow-up ended at study completion.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
Trial registration was completed before the study began (registered 1st February 2018).
Exercise Intervention for Academic Achievement Among Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Kenji Takehara, Ganchimeg Togoobaatar, Akihito Kikuchi, Gundegmaa Lkhagvasuren, Altantsetseg Lkhagvasuren, Ai Aoki, Takemune Fukuie, Bat‑Erdene Shagdar, Kazuya Suwabe, Masashi Mikami, Rintaro Mori, and Hideaki SoyaOBJECTIVES: Physical inactivity is an important health concern worldwide. We examined the effects of an exercise intervention on children’s academic achievement, cognitive function, physical fitness, and other health-related outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cluster RCT among 2301 fourth‑grade students...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The study randomised treatment at the grade‐by‐school level, satisfying the class‐level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
They used the Smarter Balanced standardized exams for Math and ELA as outcome measures.
-
T
Term Duration
The intervention lasted from late October through May, satisfying the full academic term requirement.
-
D
Documented Control Group
Control group characteristics and communications are clearly documented in the methods and Table 1.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the grade‐by‐school level rather than entire schools.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The study was designed, implemented, and analyzed by the same team without external evaluation.
-
Y
Year Duration
The study intervention covered a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
No additional instructional time or budget was provided, only low‑cost informational text messages.
-
R
Reproduced Results
A separate research team reproduced the intervention in another context and reported similar positive results.
-
A
All Exams
Only Math and ELA were assessed via standardized exams, failing to cover all core subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Participants were tracked only through the end of the school year, not until graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The study’s analysis plan and outcomes were publicly pre-registered before data collection began.
Leveraging Technology to Engage Parents at Scale: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial
Peter Bergman and Eric W. ChanWhile leveraging parents has the potential to increase student performance, programs that do so are often costly to implement or they target younger children. We partner text‐messaging technology with school information systems to automate the gathering and provision of information...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the school level with classes equally divided into intervention and control groups, satisfying the Class‑level RCT criterion.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study used GL Assessment Progress Tests—standardized instruments in English, mathematics, and science—scored blind by the test publisher, fulfilling the ERCT Standard’s Exam‑based Assessment criterion.
-
T
Term Duration
Primary outcomes were measured 20 weeks after intervention start, exceeding a single academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
Control cohorts are described alongside intervention cohorts, with baseline comparisons implied.
-
S
School-level RCT
The study’s RCT was conducted at the whole-school level: entire schools were randomly assigned to either the dialogic teaching intervention or the control condition, fulfilling the School‑level RCT criterion.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The RCT was conducted by an independent evaluation team, separate from the intervention’s designers.
-
Y
Year Duration
The study lasted 20 weeks, well short of a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Control group teachers did not receive the intervention’s teacher induction, training, or mentoring support.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of this dialogic teaching trial is reported in the paper or elsewhere.
-
A
All Exams
Student performance was assessed in English, mathematics and science, covering the core primary curriculum.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
No follow‑up tracking to graduation is described in the study or in any subsequent publications.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre‑registration or protocol identifier is provided in the paper (the trial was only registered retrospectively on ISRCTN, after completion).
Developing dialogic teaching: genesis, process, trial
Robin AlexanderThis paper considers the development and randomised control trial (RCT) of a dialogic teaching intervention designed to maximise the power of classroom talk to enhance students’ engagement and learning. Building on the author’s earlier work, the intervention’s pedagogical strand instantiates...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The study randomized entire schools to treatment or control, satisfying the requirement for class‑level RCT.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study employed official state standardized exams for ELA and math, meeting the exam‑based assessment requirement.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes were measured in subsequent grades, well after at least one full academic term had elapsed, fulfilling the term‑duration requirement.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s makeup, baseline statistics, and alternate program are clearly documented, satisfying the requirement for a documented control group.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomization at the school level fulfills the school‑level RCT criterion.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The study was implemented and analyzed by the same team that developed the program, so there is no independent evaluation group.
-
Y
Year Duration
Students’ outcomes were measured over multiple grades, covering at least a full academic year of follow‑up.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The control group’s activities were far less intensive than INSIGHTS, so resource allocation was not balanced.
-
R
Reproduced Results
There is no reference to an external, independent replication of the INSIGHTS trial.
-
A
All Exams
The authors measured only ELA and math; other core subjects were not assessed.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
No data are reported beyond sixth grade (middle school entry), so graduation tracking is incomplete.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre‑registered protocol or registry reference is provided in the paper.
Long‑Term Effects of Social‑Emotional Learning on Academic Skills: Evidence from a Randomized Trial of INSIGHTS
Meghan P. McCormick, Robin Neuhaus, Erin E. O’Connor, Hope I. White, E. Parham Horn, Samantha Harding, Elise Cappella, and Sandee McClowrySocial‑Emotional Learning (SEL) programs are school‑based preventive interventions that aim to improve children’s social‑emotional skills and behaviors. Although meta‑analytic research has shown that SEL programs implemented in early childhood can improve academic and behavioral outcomes in the short‑term, there is...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization occurred at the school (above-class) level, satisfying the class-level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
Outcomes were measured using the standardized ITBS reading test.
-
T
Term Duration
Reading outcomes were assessed after 12–20 weeks (roughly one academic term).
-
D
Documented Control Group
Control group conditions and baseline characteristics were thoroughly described.
-
S
School-level RCT
No entire school was solely a treatment or solely a control site; randomization was within schools.
-
I
Independent Conduct
An independent evaluation team (with an external data center) conducted the study, separate from the program’s creators.
-
Y
Year Duration
Outcomes were measured only midyear (half-year), with no full-year follow-up.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The Reading Recovery group got extra daily tutoring that the control group did not receive, resulting in unbalanced time/resources.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No evidence was found of an independent replication of this Reading Recovery study by another team.
-
A
All Exams
Only reading was tested; no standard exams in other core subjects were reported.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The study did not track participants through to graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre-registration or registry listing was provided for the study.
Year One Results From the Multisite Randomized Evaluation of the i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery
Henry May, Abigail Gray, Philip Sirinides, Heather Goldsworthy, Michael Armijo, Cecile Sam, Jessica N. Gillespie, and Namrata TognattaReading Recovery (RR) is a short-term, one-to-one intervention designed to help the lowest achieving readers in first grade. This article presents first-year results from the multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) and implementation study under the $55 million Investing in Innovation...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization occurred at the classroom level, satisfying the class-level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
A standardized reading test (Gray Silent Reading Test) was used for outcome measurement.
-
T
Term Duration
Post-tests were administered after about 6–7 months of intervention, exceeding a single term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s composition and baseline performance were clearly documented and comparable to the intervention group.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomization was done at the class level within schools, not at the school level (no whole-school assignment).
-
I
Independent Conduct
The researchers who developed the intervention also implemented the study (no independent evaluators were involved).
-
Y
Year Duration
The study spanned about 7 months of one school year, with no outcomes tracked for a full year or longer.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Both groups had equal instructional time and curricular resources; ITSS replaced part of the normal class time rather than adding extra time.
-
R
Reproduced Results
The study has not been independently replicated by an unrelated research team.
-
A
All Exams
Outcomes were limited to reading comprehension; no other core subjects were tested.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Participants were not tracked beyond the immediate post-test in 4th grade (no long-term follow-up through graduation).
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre-registered study protocol was identified for this trial.
Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension
Kausalai Kay Wijekumar, Bonnie J. F. Meyer, Puiwa LeiReading comprehension is a challenge for K‑12 learners and adults. Nonfiction texts, such as expository texts that inform and explain, are particularly challenging and vital for students’ understanding because of their frequent use in formal schooling (e.g., textbooks) as well...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization was performed at the school level, exceeding the class-level requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study used custom-designed tests rather than a recognized standardized exam.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes were measured about 15 months after the intervention start, exceeding one academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s size and treatment condition are clearly described, fulfilling documentation requirements.
-
S
School-level RCT
Entire schools, rather than individual classes, were randomized to treatment and control.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The evaluation was performed by an independent team (IDB and academic partners), distinct from the OLPC Foundation designers.
-
Y
Year Duration
Outcomes were measured 15 months post-start, satisfying the full academic year requirement.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Additional resources (laptops and training) were the treatment variable being tested, so the control condition appropriately remained business-as-usual.
-
R
Reproduced Results
An independent replication in Uruguay has confirmed the results.
-
A
All Exams
Only math and language outcomes were assessed, not all main subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
A long-term follow-up study tracked student outcomes through graduation, meeting this criterion.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No statement of pre-registration is provided.
Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program
Julian Cristia, Pablo Ibarrarán, Santiago Cueto, Ana Santiago, and Eugenio SeverínThis paper presents results from a large-scale randomized evaluation of the One Laptop per Child program, using data collected after 15 months of implementation in 318 primary schools in rural Peru. The program increased the ratio of computers per student...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomisation at the school level satisfies the requirement for a class-level RCT.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The assessments were study-designed instruments, not recognised standardized exams.
-
T
Term Duration
Measurement occurred after five terms, satisfying at least one full academic term of follow-up.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The paper provides detailed baseline characteristics and conditions for the control group in Table 1.
-
S
School-level RCT
Entire schools, not just classes, were randomly assigned to treatment or control.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The same research team and ICS officers designed, implemented, and analyzed the intervention without independent oversight.
-
Y
Year Duration
The study tracked outcomes for more than an academic year, satisfying the Year Duration requirement.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The additional teacher is the treatment variable, so business-as-usual resourcing in the control group is acceptable.
-
R
Reproduced Results
Multiple independent studies have replicated this finding.
-
A
All Exams
Only math and reading outcomes were measured, failing to cover all core subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
No follow-up through to primary school graduation is reported.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The study was not pre-registered before data collection.
School governance, teacher incentives, and pupil–teacher ratios: Experimental evidence from Kenyan primary schools
Esther Duflo, Pascaline Dupas, and Michael KremerSome education policymakers focus on bringing down pupil–teacher ratios. Others argue that resources will have limited impact without systematic reforms to education governance, teacher incentives, and pedagogy. We examine a program under which school committees at randomly selected Kenyan schools...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Pupils rather than whole classes were randomised.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
A validated standardised exam (PhAB‑2) was used.
-
T
Term Duration
Post‑test occurred four months after the December start.
-
D
Documented Control Group
Control demographics and baseline scores are clearly provided.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation took place within, not between, schools.
-
I
Independent Conduct
Researchers were not affiliated with the program’s developer.
-
Y
Year Duration
Only six months of data – under one school year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Extra resources constituted the treatment itself, making balance proper.
-
R
Reproduced Results
The study’s findings were later replicated by an independent team.
-
A
All Exams
The study measured literacy only, not all subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Follow‑up ended two months after the block, not at graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The paper provides no evidence of pre‑registration.
A randomized controlled trial of an early‑intervention, computer‑based literacy program to boost phonological skills in 4‑ to 6‑year‑old children
Paul O’Callaghan; Aimee McIvor; Claire McVeigh; Teresa RusheBackground. Many school‑based interventions are delivered without evidence of effectiveness. Aims. This study evaluated the Lexia Reading Core5 program with 4‑ to 6‑year‑olds in Northern Ireland. Sample. One hundred and twenty‑six pupils were screened; ninety‑eight below‑average readers were randomised to an 8‑week block of...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomisation was conducted at the individual student level within schools rather than at the class level, leading to potential contamination across students in the same class.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The primary outcome is based on post‑intervention grade point averages from school records, not a standardized exam‑based assessment.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes (end‑of‑year GPAs) were measured at the end of the academic year, at least one full term after the intervention.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control condition and its baseline data are clearly described, including content, fidelity, and demographics.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the student level within schools, not at the school level.
-
I
Independent Conduct
Independent professional research companies conducted data collection and processing, separate from the intervention designers.
-
Y
Year Duration
Outcomes were tracked through the end of ninth grade, covering a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Both intervention and control groups received equivalent session time and attention, balancing educational inputs.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of this national study by a different team is reported.
-
A
All Exams
No standardized exam-based assessments across all core subjects; the study relies on administrative GPAs.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Participants were only tracked through ninth grade; no graduation tracking is reported.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The analysis plan and moderation hypotheses were pre-registered on OSF prior to data analysis.
A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement
David S. Yeager, Paul Hanselman, Gregory M. Walton, Jared S. Murray, Robert Crosnoe, Chandra Muller, Elizabeth Tipton, Barbara Schneider, Chris S. Hulleman, Cintia P. Hinojosa, David Paunesku, Carissa Romero, Kate Flint, Alice Roberts, Jill Trott, Ronaldo Iachan, Jenny Buontempo, Sophia Man Yang, Carlos M. Carvalho, P. Richard Hahn, Maithreyi Gopalan, Pratik Mhatre, Ronald Ferguson, Angela L. Duckworth & Carol S. DweckA global priority for the behavioural sciences is to develop cost-effective, scalable interventions that could improve the academic outcomes of adolescents at a population level, but no such interventions have so far been evaluated in a population-generalizable sample. Here we...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization was done at the Head Start site (center) level, which satisfies or exceeds class-level randomization.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study measured child-level academic outcomes via teacher ratings, not a standardized, exam-based assessment of each child.
-
T
Term Duration
The paper reports that the intervention was conducted over an entire Head Start academic term (fall to spring), meeting the term duration criterion.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s business-as-usual setting is clearly described, including their staffing support and how it differed from the intervention.
-
S
School-level RCT
Whole Head Start sites (equivalent to schools) were the unit of randomization, fulfilling the school-level RCT requirement.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The study does not mention any external evaluators. The intervention appears to have been evaluated by its own designers, lacking independent oversight.
-
Y
Year Duration
The intervention spanned an entire preschool year (approximately 9 months), satisfying the one-year duration criterion.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The intervention group received extra training and mental health consultation services, whereas the control group did not receive comparable resources or attention.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication by other researchers is reported; this was a single-site study carried out by one team.
-
A
All Exams
Academic performance was only assessed in language/literacy and math (via teacher-rated scales), rather than covering all core subjects with standardized exams.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The original CSRP participants were followed up in later years. A subsequent study by the same research team collected data on these students’ outcomes in high school, fulfilling the graduation tracking criterion.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre-registered analysis plan or study registration is mentioned. There is no evidence that the trial was registered before data collection.
Academic performance of subsequent schools and impacts of early interventions: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Head Start settings
Fuhua Zhai, C. Cybele Raver, Stephanie M. JonesThe role of subsequent school contexts in the long-term effects of early childhood interventions has received increasing attention, but has been understudied in the literature. Using data from the Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP), a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted in...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization was conducted at the individual student level rather than by class or school, failing the class-level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
Outcomes were measured via course grades and credits, not through a recognized standardized examination.
-
T
Term Duration
The intervention courses ran for a full 16-week semester, meeting the term duration requirement.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s composition, consent rates, and baseline covariates are documented in tables and text, satisfying documentation requirements.
-
S
School-level RCT
The study randomized individual students rather than entire schools, failing the school-level RCT requirement.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The study was conducted by researchers independent from the designers of the corequisite models, satisfying the ERCT requirement for Criterion I.
-
Y
Year Duration
The corequisite support lasted one semester; the Year-long intervention requirement is not satisfied.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The DE support hours are integral to the corequisite intervention, so the control’s business-as-usual condition is appropriate.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of this RCT is reported in the paper.
-
A
All Exams
Only reading and writing outcomes were measured, failing the all-subject exam requirement.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
A follow-up study by the same research team tracked the original student cohort through graduation, satisfying the ERCT requirement for Criterion G.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
There is no indication that the study protocol was pre-registered before data collection.
Assessing the Effect of Corequisite English Instruction Using a Randomized Controlled Trial
T. Miller; L. Daugherty; P. Martorell; R. GerberThis study provides experimental evidence on the impact of corequisite remediation for students underprepared in reading and writing. We examine the short-term impacts of three corequisite models implemented at five large urban community colleges in Texas. Results indicate that corequisite...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization occurred at the classroom level, preventing contamination across students in the same class.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study employs bespoke KA Lite assessments, not established standardized exams.
-
T
Term Duration
The study measures outcomes after approximately six weeks, not a full term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s makeup and activities are thoroughly described.
-
S
School-level RCT
The study randomized individual classrooms, not whole schools.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The same research team designed and evaluated the intervention.
-
Y
Year Duration
The intervention and measurement occur within ~12 weeks, not a full year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Treatment and control groups received identical time and resources.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication study is mentioned.
-
A
All Exams
Only mathematics outcomes are measured, not all core subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The study ends after the units and does not follow students to graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The protocol was pre‑registered in the AEA registry before implementation.
Incentives for Effort or Outputs? A Field Experiment to Improve Student Performance
Sarojini R. HirshleiferThis randomized experiment implemented with school children in India directly tests an input incentive designed to increase effort on learning activities against both an output incentive that rewards test performance and a control. Students in the input incentive treatment perform...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The study randomized whole classes within schools, satisfying the class‑level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The tests were custom assemblies of items from exam books, not formal standardized exams.
-
T
Term Duration
Student performance was assessed at the end of the fall semester, meeting the term‑duration requirement.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control classes’ makeup, treatment conditions, and baseline data are clearly reported.
-
S
School-level RCT
The trial randomised classes within schools rather than entire schools.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The authors who developed the CAL were also responsible for its implementation and assessment.
-
Y
Year Duration
Tracking ceased at the semester’s end, not over a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The additional CAL sessions are the treatment itself, so the control group’s business‑as‑usual status is appropriate.
-
R
Reproduced Results
The paper contains no mention of independent replication by a different research team.
-
A
All Exams
The study assessed only math and Chinese; other core subjects were omitted.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Student outcomes were not monitored beyond the semester, so no graduation tracking occurred.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
There is no evidence the trial was pre-registered before data collection.
Does computer-assisted learning improve learning outcomes? Evidence from a randomized experiment in migrant schools in Beijing
Fang Lai, Renfu Luo, Linxiu Zhang, Xinzhe Huang, Scott RozelleThe education of the disadvantaged population has been a long-standing challenge to education systems in both developed and developing countries. Although computer-assisted learning (CAL) has been considered one alternative to improve learning outcomes in a cost-effective way, the empirical evidence...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization was conducted at the class level with intact classes assigned to each condition.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study employed custom-designed tests of graphing and slope problems rather than a recognized standardized exam.
-
T
Term Duration
The study measured outcomes after approximately three months, satisfying the term-duration requirement.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s size and baseline comparability (NAEP scores) are documented in detail.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomization was at the class level within one school, not across multiple schools.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The study was conducted and scored by the authors, with no independent external evaluation.
-
Y
Year Duration
Outcomes were measured within three months, not tracked over an academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Both groups received the same number of assignments, problems, and review sessions, ensuring balanced time and resources.
-
R
Reproduced Results
There is no evidence of an independent replication study by a different research team that confirms these findings.
-
A
All Exams
The study only assessed mathematics graphing and slope problems, not a full range of subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Follow-up ended at 30 days post-review, with no tracking until graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The paper does not report a pre-registration or registry before the intervention began.
Interleaved Practice Improves Mathematics Learning
Doug Rohrer, Robert F. Dedrick, and Sandra StershicA typical mathematics assignment consists primarily of practice problems requiring the strategy introduced in the immediately preceding lesson (e.g., a dozen problems that are solved by using the Pythagorean theorem). This means that students know which strategy is needed to...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Although randomization was not at the class level, the intervention was a fully individualized, at-home, computer-based program, satisfying the personal tutoring exception in the ERCT standard.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study employed the standardized TOWRE subtests for reading fluency, meeting the exam‑based assessment requirement.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcome assessments occurred after at least 16 weeks of training (and within a 6‑month participation period), exceeding the one‑term minimum requirement.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The study lacked a separate control group, relying on a within‑subject baseline, thus failing the documented control group requirement.
-
S
School-level RCT
The study randomized individual children rather than entire schools, so the school‑level RCT requirement is not met.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The intervention was conducted and monitored by the same team that designed it, failing the independent conduct requirement.
-
Y
Year Duration
Participants were observed for about 6 months, not a full academic year, so the year‑duration requirement is not met.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The control condition had no training or additional support, so resources were not balanced.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent research team has published a replication of this trial, so reproducibility is not established.
-
A
All Exams
The study measured only reading skills without assessing other core subjects, so the all-subject exams requirement is not met.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Participants were followed for about 6 months, with no data collection continuing through graduation, failing the graduation tracking requirement.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The trial was prospectively registered long before participants were enrolled, satisfying the pre-registered protocol requirement.
Replicability of sight word training and phonics training in poor readers: a randomised controlled trial
G. McArthur, S. Kohnen, K. Jones, P. Eve, E. Banales, L. Larsen, and A. CastlesGiven the importance of effective treatments for children with reading impairment, paired with growing concern about the lack of scientific replication in psychological science, the aim of this study was to replicate a quasi‑randomised trial of sight word and phonics...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the school level, which satisfies the class‑level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The authors used a bespoke nine‑item quiz rather than a recognised standardised exam.
-
T
Term Duration
The intervention lasted only a few hours over several weeks, not a full term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group’s composition, baseline performance, and lack of intervention are clearly documented.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation at the school level fulfills the school‑level RCT criterion.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The intervention was designed, delivered, and assessed by the authors’ team with no third‑party evaluation.
-
Y
Year Duration
The experiment ran under one academic year, so year‐long criterion is unmet.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The control group received no equivalent time or resources, so control was not balanced.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of this intervention has been reported.
-
A
All Exams
Only financial literacy was assessed, so all‐subject exam criterion is unmet.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The study tracked outcomes only up to seven weeks post‑intervention, not through graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The trial was pre‑registered in the AEA RCT Registry before data collection.
The effects of parental involvement in homework: two randomised controlled trials in financial education
Joana Elisa Maldonado, Kristof De Witte, and Koen DeclercqThis paper provides causal evidence on the effects of parental involvement on student outcomes in a financial education course based on two randomised controlled trials with a total of 2,779 grade 8 and 9 students in Flanders. Using an experimental design...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomisation was at the parent (individual) level, not at the class level.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study used custom and adapted questionnaires rather than standardised exams.
-
T
Term Duration
A six‑month follow‑up assessment provided outcome measurement after at least one full academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The wait‑list control group is described with detailed demographics and conditions.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the individual level, with no schools assigned as units.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The authors who designed the program also delivered and assessed it without independent evaluation.
-
Y
Year Duration
Follow‑up lasted six months, shorter than the full academic year required.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The study explicitly tests additional training resources as the intervention; the control group remained business‑as‑usual.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication by another research team is mentioned.
-
A
All Exams
Academic outcomes were measured by custom questionnaires, not in all main subjects via standardised exams.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The study conducted only a six‑month follow‑up and did not track to graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The study was registered after the trial began (ACTRN12613000660785), so it was not truly pre‑registered.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Group Triple P With Chinese Parents in Mainland China
Mingchun Guo, Alina Morawska, and Matthew R. SandersThis study evaluated the effects of Group Triple P with Chinese parents on parenting and child outcomes as well as outcomes relating to child academic learning in Mainland China. Participants were 81 Chinese parents and their children in Shanghai, who...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The study randomizes intact sections (all students in a meeting) to flipped or lecture for each lesson, avoiding within‑session mixing and satisfying class‑level assignment.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study used instructor‑designed course exams instead of standardized external assessments.
-
T
Term Duration
Learning outcomes were measured at end of semester, satisfying the term duration requirement.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control (lecture) condition lacks detailed documentation of participant characteristics and baseline outcomes.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomization occurred within course sections rather than entire schools.
-
I
Independent Conduct
Authors who designed the intervention also implemented and analyzed the study.
-
Y
Year Duration
Outcomes were measured only through one semester, not a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Flipped lessons included mandatory pre‑class videos and in‑class exercises not equated by the control group.
-
R
Reproduced Results
An independent replication of the flipped classroom experiment by another research team has been published, satisfying this criterion.
-
A
All Exams
Only econometrics outcomes were assessed, with no broad subject coverage.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The study did not track participants until graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No evidence of pre-registration of study protocols.
Evaluating the flipped classroom: A randomized controlled trial
Nathan Wozny, Cary Balser & Drew IvesDespite recent interest in flipped classrooms, rigorous research evaluating their effectiveness is sparse. In this study, the authors implement a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a flipped classroom technique relative to a traditional lecture in an introductory...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The study randomized entire schools to treatment conditions, meeting the class-level RCT criterion.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study used researcher-designed tests, not standardized exams, to measure financial proficiency.
-
T
Term Duration
The intervention consisted of four 50-minute lectures, much shorter than a full academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The paper documents the control group's characteristics, size, and conditions in detail, including baseline scores in Table III.
-
S
School-level RCT
The study randomized entire schools, fulfilling the requirement for a school-level RCT.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The authors conceptualized, designed the methodology, conducted the investigation, and wrote the paper; no independent team was involved.
-
Y
Year Duration
The intervention involved four 50-minute sessions and a four-week follow-up, falling short of the required full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The control group did not receive the financial education program or any comparable substitute, creating an imbalance in educational time/resources.
-
R
Reproduced Results
There is no mention in the paper or readily available external evidence of an independent replication of this specific study.
-
A
All Exams
The study only assessed financial proficiency (knowledge and behavior) and did not use standardized exams for other core subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Follow-up was limited to approximately four weeks post-intervention; there was no tracking until graduation.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The study was registered in the AEA RCT Registry (AEARCTR- 0004431), but the registration occurred *after* the intervention and data collection were completed.
The effects of computer-assisted adaptive instruction and elaborated feedback on learning outcomes. A randomized control trial
Kaat Iterbeke, Kristof De Witte, Wouter SchelfhoutUsing a computer-based learning environment, the present paper studied the effects of adaptive instruction and elaborated feedback on the learning outcomes of secondary school students in a financial education program. We randomly assigned schools to four conditions on a crossing...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomisation was conducted at the individual‑student level rather than at the class level, so the Class‑level RCT criterion is not satisfied.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study used researcher‑designed custom tests rather than a standardized, widely recognized exam, so the Exam‑based Assessment criterion is not satisfied.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes were measured after a 4.5‑month intervention period, which covers at least one term, satisfying the Term Duration criterion.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The study provides detailed baseline characteristics and assessment outcomes for the control group, fulfilling the Documented Control Group criterion.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation was done at the individual‑student level, not at the school level, so the School‑level RCT criterion is not satisfied.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The same team that designed Mindspark also carried out the trial and analysis, so the Independent Conduct criterion is not satisfied.
-
Y
Year Duration
Participants were followed for only 4.5 months rather than an academic year, so the Year Duration criterion is not satisfied.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The intervention’s extra instructional time is integral to the treatment, so the Balanced Resources criterion is satisfied.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of the study is reported, so the Reproduced criterion is not satisfied.
-
A
All Exams
Only mathematics and Hindi were assessed, so the All‑subject Exams criterion is not satisfied.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Participants were only followed until the endline test, with no graduation tracking, so the Graduation Tracking criterion is not satisfied.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The trial was registered only after data collection began, so the Pre‑registered Protocol criterion is not satisfied.
Disrupting Education? Experimental Evidence on Technology‑Aided Instruction in India
Karthik Muralidharan, Abhijeet Singh, and Alejandro J. GanimianWe study the impact of a personalized technology‑aided after‑school instruction program in middle‑school grades in urban India using a lottery that provided winners with free access to the program. Lottery winners scored 0.37σ higher in math and 0.23σ higher in...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Students were randomized at the individual level rather than by classroom, so cross-group contamination could occur.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The learning outcomes were measured using custom-built tests, not standardized exams.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes were measured immediately after two class meetings, not after a full academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control condition is clearly described with baseline group characteristics and identical materials.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the student level, not at the school level.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The same research team designed and conducted the intervention, with no third-party evaluator.
-
Y
Year Duration
The study spans two sessions with no year‑long follow‑up.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Time and materials were identical for both conditions, with only active engagement toggled.
-
R
Reproduced Results
The study has been independently replicated by a different research team.
-
A
All Exams
Only physics learning was assessed, not all core subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The study ended after the course, without tracking students to graduation, and no follow-up by the authors provided such data.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre-registration or protocol registry is mentioned.
Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom
Louis Deslauriers, Logan S. McCarty, Kelly Miller, Kristina Callaghan, Greg KestinWe compared students’ self-reported perception of learning with their actual learning under controlled conditions in large-enrollment introductory college physics courses taught using active instruction and passive lecture. Both groups received identical content and handouts, and students were randomly assigned without...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Randomization was conducted at the class (tutorial) level, satisfying the class‑level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study used author‑designed pre/post tests rather than a standardized exam.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcome measures were collected within days, not after a full academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The handout control group is well described with baseline tasks and scores.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomisation occurred at the tutorial‑class level, not at the school level.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The authors’ own team both developed and evaluated the intervention.
-
Y
Year Duration
Follow‑up lasted only days, not a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The AR intervention entailed multimedia app access not matched by the handout.
-
R
Reproduced Results
Independent teams reproduced similar AR‐enhanced learning gains in other contexts.
-
A
All Exams
Only sewing/textiles skills were assessed, not all core subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
No follow‑up beyond the immediate post‑workshop period.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No evidence of pre‑registration is provided.
Improving Quality of Teaching and Learning in Classes by using Augmented Reality Video
Joanne Yip, Sze‑Ham Wong, Kit‑Lun Yick, Kannass Chan, Ka‑Hing WongThis study contributes to enhancing students’ learning experience and increasing their understanding of complex issues by incorporating an augmented reality (AR) mobile application (app) into a sewing workshop in which a threading task was carried out to facilitate better learning...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The study randomized individual students, not entire classes or schools.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
Assessments used researcher-developed quizzes and checklists, not standardized exams.
-
T
Term Duration
The intervention period was 6 weeks, shorter than a full academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The control group's demographics, baseline characteristics, and treatment (routine FC) are documented.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomization was at the student level within a single university, not at the school level.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The same authors appear to have designed the intervention, conducted the study, and analyzed the data, with no mention of independent conduct.
-
Y
Year Duration
The study duration, including data collection, was 11 weeks, which is less than a full academic year. Also, Criterion Y was not met.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The intervention group received gamified activities (extra quizzes, points, badges) which constitute additional resources/ engagement time compared to the control group's routine FC, and this difference was not explicitly tested as the treatment variable nor balanced.
-
R
Reproduced Results
The paper does not mention any independent replication of this specific study by another research team.
-
A
All Exams
The study measured only nursing skills competency and related factors, not performance across all core academic subjects. Also, Criterion E was not met.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
The study tracked students for 11 weeks, not until graduation. Also, Criterion Y was not met.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov before the intervention likely started based on the semester timing.
Effect of gamified flipped classroom on improving nursing students' skills competency and learning motivation: a randomized controlled trial
Mohamed E. H. Elzeky, Heba M. M. Elhabashy, Wafaa G. M. Ali and Shaimaa M. E. AllamBackground: Flipped learning excessively boosts the conceptual understanding of students through the reversed arrangement of pre-learning and in classroom learning events and challenges students to independently achieve learning objectives. Using a gamification method in flipped classrooms can help students stay...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Individual‑level randomization within one class violates the class‑level RCT requirement.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
Assessments were custom course quizzes and a final, not a standardized exam.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes were collected after only five weeks, not a full term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
Demographics and baseline performance for the control group are fully reported.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomization did not occur at the school level.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The same team designed, implemented, and evaluated the study.
-
Y
Year Duration
Study duration was five weeks, not a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Control and treatment groups received equivalent emails and incentives; no extra resources favored treatment.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of this RCT is reported.
-
A
All Exams
Outcomes are limited to a single STEM course, not all subjects.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
No tracking beyond the short 5‑week course was conducted.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No evidence of prospective trial registration is provided.
Does Inducing Students to Schedule Lecture Watching in Online Classes Improve Their Academic Performance? An Experimental Analysis of a Time Management Intervention
Rachel Baker, Brent Evans, Qiujie Li, Bianca CungTime‑management skills are an essential component of college student success, especially in online classes. Through a randomized control trial of students in a for‑credit online course at a public 4‑year university, we test the efficacy of a scheduling intervention aimed...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
Random assignment occurred at the individual student level, not by entire class or school.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study employed custom 22‑item free‑response tests rather than a standardized exam.
-
T
Term Duration
Outcomes were measured over a seven‑day period, not a full term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The negative control group’s composition and baseline data are clearly documented.
-
S
School-level RCT
Randomization was at the individual student level, not by school.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The intervention was designed, delivered, and assessed by the same team without independent oversight.
-
Y
Year Duration
The study tracked outcomes over one week, not a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
The extra evening sessions are central to the intervention and thus the unmatched control is acceptable.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of this RCT is reported.
-
A
All Exams
Only stereochemistry outcomes were measured, and E was not met.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
Tracking ended after one week; no graduation‑level follow‑up.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre‑registration of the study protocol is mentioned.
Dissecting the Flipped Classroom: Using a Randomized Controlled Trial Experiment to Determine When Student Learning Occurs
Matthew D. Casselman, Kinnari Atit, Grace Henbest, Cybill Guregyan, Kiana Mortezaei, and Jack F. EichlerThe use of the flipped classroom approach in higher education STEM courses has rapidly increased over the past decade, and it appears this type of learning environment will play an important role in improving student success and retention in undergraduate...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The paper does not describe any randomization at the class level.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
No standardized exam-based assessment is implemented in the paper.
-
T
Term Duration
No term-long outcome measurement is reported in the paper.
-
D
Documented Control Group
Control group demographics and baseline data are not provided.
-
S
School-level RCT
No school-level random assignment is executed as part of this paper.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The study was conducted by the intervention's own authors.
-
Y
Year Duration
No outcomes tracked over a full academic year are provided.
-
B
Balanced Resources
Treatment classes had extra teacher time; controls did not.
-
R
Reproduced Results
No independent replication of the interventions is reported.
-
A
All Exams
Outcomes measured only in targeted subjects, not across all.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
No long-term tracking through graduation is provided.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
The RCT was preregistered on OSF prior to data collection.
Beyond class size reduction: Towards more flexible ways of implementing a reduced pupil–teacher ratio
Oddny Judith Solheim and Vibeke OpheimThe effect of a reduced pupil–teacher ratio has mainly been investigated as that of reduced class size. Hence we know little about alternative methods of reducing the pupil–teacher ratio. Deploying additional teachers in selected subjects may be a more flexible...
Published: -
C
-
-
C
Class-level RCT
The study is observational and did not randomize at the class level.
-
E
Exam-based Assessment
The study measures course grades rather than using standardized exams.
-
T
Term Duration
There is no intervention with outcomes measured after one academic term.
-
D
Documented Control Group
The paper does not document a distinct control group.
-
S
School-level RCT
No school-level randomization was performed.
-
I
Independent Conduct
The study was conducted by the authors without an independent evaluator.
-
Y
Year Duration
There is no intervention tracked for a full academic year.
-
B
Balanced Resources
No attempt to balance class time or resources.
-
R
Reproduced Results
The study's findings have been independently replicated by others.
-
A
All Exams
The study does not use all-subject standardized exams.
-
G
Graduation Tracking
No graduation tracking is performed.
-
P
Pre-registered Protocol
No pre-registered protocol is referenced.
The effects of class size on student grades at a public university
Edward C. Kokkelenberg, Michael Dillon, Sean M. ChristyWe model how class size affects the grade higher education students earn and we test the model using an ordinal logit with and without fixed effects on over 760,000 undergraduate observations from a northeastern public university. We find that class...
Published: -
C
Have Questions
or Suggestions?
Get in Touch
Have a study you'd like to submit for ERCT evaluation? Found something that could be improved? If you're an author and need to update or correct information about your study, let us know.
-
Submit a Study for Evaluation
Share your research with us for review
-
Suggest Improvements
Provide feedback to help us make things better.
-
Update Your Study
If you're the author, let us know about necessary updates or corrections.