Back to History Current Version

Navigating Performance Complexity in Public Service Delivery: Do Frontline Workers Distinguish Between Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes?

Last registered on April 06, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Is There a Free Pass for the "Deserving" Under-Performer?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007418
Initial registration date
April 06, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
April 06, 2021, 6:20 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
Denmark
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Paw Hansen
Affiliation
University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Science
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-04-06
End date
2021-04-27
Keywords
Education, Other, Welfare
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We provide descriptions of fictive high schools to a large sample of Danish high-school teachers and ask them to rate the performance of the presented schools. Within each description we randomly assign a number of different pieces of performance information. In addition, we provide teachers with information of schools' "deservingness" to see if teachers give higher ratings to schools with low performance but high in deservingness. Specifically, we provide information about schools' share of non-Western student, education levels of parents, how hard schools have worked the past year to improve performance, and how many new initiatives schools have set up to improve in the future.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Hansen, Paw. 2021. "Is There a Free Pass for the "Deserving" Under-Performer?." AEA RCT Registry. April 06. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7418-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Interventions are in the form of different pieces of information about each presented high school in the conjoint survey experiment. Specifically, we provide information about schools' share of non-Western student, education levels of parents, how hard schools have worked the past year to improve performance, and how many new initiatives schools have set up to improve in the future.
Intervention Start Date
2021-04-06
Intervention End Date
2021-04-27

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
We have two primary outcomes: 1) The probability that schools with certain characteristics are chosen as highest performing, and 2) the rating respondents assign to each school.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We provide descriptions of fictive high schools to a large sample of Danish high-school teachers and ask them to rate the performance of the presented schools. Within each description we randomly assign a number of different pieces of performance information. In addition, we provide teachers with information of schools' "deservingness" to see if teachers give higher ratings to schools with low performance but high in deservingness. Specifically, we provide information about schools' share of non-Western student, education levels of parents, how hard schools have worked the past year to improve performance, and how many new initiatives schools have set up to improve in the future.

We have two primary outcomes: 1) The probability that schools with certain characteristics are chosen as highest performing, and 2) the rating respondents assign to each school.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is done by computer.
Randomization Unit
Approx. 9,000 high school teachers
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Approx. 9,000 high school teachers
Sample size: planned number of observations
Approx. 2,500 high school teachers x 3 matched pairs = 7,500 choices and 15,000 ratings.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Approx. 1/3 in each arm = 833 high school teachers in each arm.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials