Uncovering individualised treatment effects for educational trials

Large-scale Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as "the gold standard" for testing the causal effects of school-based interventions. RCTs typically present the statistical significance of the average treatment effect (ATE), which captures the effect an intervention has had on average for a given population. However, key decisions in child health and education are often about individuals who may be very different from those averages. One way to identify heterogeneous treatment effects across different individuals, not captured by the ATE, is to conduct subgroup analyses. For example, free school meal (FSM) pupils as required for projects funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in England. These subgroup analyses, as we demonstrate in 48 EEF-funded RCTs involving over 200,000 students, are usually not standardised across studies and offer flexible degrees of freedom to researchers, potentially leading to mixed, if not misleading, results. Here, we develop and deploy an alternative to ATE and subgroup analysis, a machine-learning and regression-based framework to predict individualised treatment effects (ITEs). ITEs could show where an intervention worked, for which individuals, and to what extent. Our findings have implications for decision-makers in fields like education, healthcare, law, and clinical practices concerning children and adolescents.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73714-z
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.42

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Uncovering individualised treatment effects for educational trials

ZhiMin Xiao, Charlie Kirkwood, Oliver Hauser, Steve Higgins et al.
2 citations
Scientific Reports
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
1.42
article

Uncovering individualised treatment effects for educational trials

ZhiMin Xiao, Charlie Kirkwood, Oliver Hauser, Steve Higgins, Tamsin Jane Ford, Daniel Z. Li
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Large-scale Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as "the gold standard" for testing the causal effects of school-based interventions. RCTs typically present the statistical significance of the average treatment effect (ATE), which captures the effect an intervention has had on average for a given population. However, key decisions in child health and education are often about individuals who may be very different from those averages. One way to identify heterogeneous treatment effects across different individuals, not captured by the ATE, is to conduct subgroup analyses. For example, free school meal (FSM) pupils as required for projects funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in England. These subgroup analyses, as we demonstrate in 48 EEF-funded RCTs involving over 200,000 students, are usually not standardised across studies and offer flexible degrees of freedom to researchers, potentially leading to mixed, if not misleading, results. Here, we develop and deploy an alternative to ATE and subgroup analysis, a machine-learning and regression-based framework to predict individualised treatment effects (ITEs). ITEs could show where an intervention worked, for which individuals, and to what extent. Our findings have implications for decision-makers in fields like education, healthcare, law, and clinical practices concerning children and adolescents.

Scientific ReportsVol. 14(1)
University of Essex (GB), Durham University (GB), University of Exeter (GB), University of Cambridge (GB)
Education Endowment Foundation, University of Exeter, University of Bath, Durham University
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
1.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.