打开教育政策研究的“黑盒子”

汤蕾; 马静; 刘涵; 岳爱; 白钰; 孟春; 马成俊

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.08.003

打开教育政策研究的“黑盒子”

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.08.003

汤蕾¹,
马静¹,
刘涵¹,
岳爱¹,
白钰¹,
孟春²,
马成俊³

1.
陕西师范大学教育实验经济研究所，西安， 710119
2.
国务院发展研究中心宏观经济研究部，北京， 100010
3.
青海民族大学法学院，西宁， 810007

基金项目: 高等学校学科创新引智计划（B16031）；国家自然科学基金重点项目（71933003）；国家自然科学基金项目（71703083，71703084，71803108）；教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目（19YJC790080）；陕西师范大学教师教育课题（JSJY2017019，JSJY2017020)；陕西师范大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目（20SZYB12）

①随机干预实验往往是在一个非代表性的样本中进行。将干预项目向更大范围内推广存在外部有效性不足的问题，比如，估计的效果只代表在当地实施的结果，其他地区情况不同，效果可能不同；向大范围内推广，一般均衡效果可能改变；评估本身可能改变群体的行为（Zellner & Rossi，1984；Duflo et al.，2006；Justman，2018）。了解干预“为什么有效果”即了解干预有效的前提，可以部分解决这些问题。
②基于理论的影响评估作为一种对因果关系进行探讨的理念，可以被广泛地应用于基于不同数据形式（如访谈数据和调查数据）和不同方法（如实验方法和准实验方法）的项目影响评估之中（Coryn，et al.，2011）。本文只讨论基于理论的影响评估在RCTs研究中的应用。
③即使项目评估者不是设计者，评估者也最好在项目开始之前就与利益相关方共同计划，就项目的目标和实现目标的途径达成共识（Gertler，2016）。
④该项目全称为“养育未来儿童早期发展整县模式项目”，由浙江省养育未来儿童早期发展行动研究中心于2017年底开始推动，项目由当地政府主导实施，社会多方参与。
⑤从我国的现实情况来看，无论是隔代照料还是父母参与，家庭照料是目前0—3岁婴幼儿的主要照护方式，但在学界尤其是社会保障学界社会服务研究方向的学者看来，对于这一问题的讨论仍存在争议，即主流照护方式是家庭照料，但在家庭照料和机构照料之间，哪种方式的早期干预更为有效目前仍有争议。本文的目标虽然不是对二者进行比较，而是以农村婴幼儿照护主要由家庭照护为主的现状为出发点，评估政府主导的家庭养育指导项目，但是本文认为读者需要更为全面地了解可能存在的争议。
计量
- 文章访问数: 463
- HTML全文浏览量: 388
- PDF下载量: 28
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 刊出日期: 2020-08-01

Opening Up the “Black Box” of Education Policy Research: Application of Theory-Based Impact Evaluation in Randomized Controlled Trial Studies

1.
The Center for Experimental Economics in Education, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, 710119, China
2.
Department of Macroeconomic Research, Development Research Center of the State Council, Beijing, 100010, China
3.
Law School, Qinghai Nationalities University, Xining, 810007, China

摘要

摘要: 影响评估旨在了解政策对参与者福利的影响，其关键在于建立两者之间的因果关系（什么有效），了解政策的作用机制（为什么有效）。基于理论的影响评估（Theory-Based Impact Evaluation，TBIE）被普遍认为有助于回答“为什么有效”的问题。基于理论的影响评估通过建立从投入到产出再到影响的因果链，使用实证数据检验在因果链中有可能起作用的理论和潜在假设是否成立，达到厘清干预项目作用机理的目的。本文旨在回顾和总结基于理论的影响评估的核心概念和原理，并结合随机干预实验方法和具体实例，阐述在开展随机干预实验时，如何基于理论探索干预项目的作用机制。
- 作用机制分析 /
- 变化理论 /
- 因果链 /
- 影响评估
Abstract: Impact evalution aims to understand the impact of policies/interventions on the welfare of participants. The key is to establish a causal relationship between the two (what works) and to understand the mechanism of policies/interventions (why it works). Theory-based impact evaluation (TBIE) is widely believed to help answer the question of “why it works”. TBIE clarifies the intervention mechanisms by establishing a causal chain from input to output and then to impact, and using empirical data to test the validity of the theory and potential hypotheses that may play a role in the causal chain. This paper reviews and summarizes the core concepts and principles of TBIE, and uses examples to illustrate how to apply TBIE when conducting random controlled trials.
- analysis of mechanism /
- theory of change /
- causal chain /
- impact evaluation
注释:

1) ①随机干预实验往往是在一个非代表性的样本中进行。将干预项目向更大范围内推广存在外部有效性不足的问题，比如，估计的效果只代表在当地实施的结果，其他地区情况不同，效果可能不同；向大范围内推广，一般均衡效果可能改变；评估本身可能改变群体的行为（Zellner & Rossi，1984；Duflo et al.，2006；Justman，2018）。了解干预“为什么有效果”即了解干预有效的前提，可以部分解决这些问题。

2) ②基于理论的影响评估作为一种对因果关系进行探讨的理念，可以被广泛地应用于基于不同数据形式（如访谈数据和调查数据）和不同方法（如实验方法和准实验方法）的项目影响评估之中（Coryn，et al.，2011）。本文只讨论基于理论的影响评估在RCTs研究中的应用。

3) ③即使项目评估者不是设计者，评估者也最好在项目开始之前就与利益相关方共同计划，就项目的目标和实现目标的途径达成共识（Gertler，2016）。

4) ④该项目全称为“养育未来儿童早期发展整县模式项目”，由浙江省养育未来儿童早期发展行动研究中心于2017年底开始推动，项目由当地政府主导实施，社会多方参与。

5) ⑤从我国的现实情况来看，无论是隔代照料还是父母参与，家庭照料是目前0—3岁婴幼儿的主要照护方式，但在学界尤其是社会保障学界社会服务研究方向的学者看来，对于这一问题的讨论仍存在争议，即主流照护方式是家庭照料，但在家庭照料和机构照料之间，哪种方式的早期干预更为有效目前仍有争议。本文的目标虽然不是对二者进行比较，而是以农村婴幼儿照护主要由家庭照护为主的现状为出发点，评估政府主导的家庭养育指导项目，但是本文认为读者需要更为全面地了解可能存在的争议。

HTML全文

图 1 因果链的基本要素和逻辑关联

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 中介和调节效应分析

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 项目设计与作用机制分析的不同阶段

阶段1	阶段2	阶段3	阶段4
提出问题（Problems）界定目标（Objectives）确定干预方法（Approaches）	初步建立因果链（Causal Chain）	过程评估（Process Evaluation）	数据收集和分析（Results）
通过文献或数据分析，与利益相关方讨论，提出研究问题，确定干预目标和方案	基于理论和已有研究结论，初步建立变化理论，勾画项目因果链	针对潜在的作用机制、环境和项目执行进行定性研究，检测项目是否按照计划开展，是否偏离变化理论。基于定性研究数据完善第2阶段中变化理论的假设	收集和分析过程数据与结果数据（mediator and moderator analysis），完善变化理论，通过实证分析验证过程变量的作用机制

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 养育未来整县项目因果链

	投入 Inputs	活动/过程 Activities	产出 Outputs	中间结果 Intermediate Outcomes	最终结果 Final Outcomes
内容	1.预算、资金 2.物资（绘本、玩教具等） 3.活动/课程内容开发 4.信息管理系统搭建 5.督导系统搭建 6.养育中心和服务点建设 7.工作人员招募与培训	1.入户摸底登记，照片采集，开展家长培训 2.养育师组织开展亲子课程，养育师组织开展活动（集体游戏，故事会） 3.管理中心组织社区宣传活动	1.家长参加培训 2.家长和儿童参加课程和活动 3.家长借书、借玩具	1.家长知识和观念转变 2.家长心理健康改善 3.家庭投资行为，家庭养育环境改善，家长养育行为改善	儿童早期发展水平改善
假定条件	1.中心/服务点选址便捷 2.玩具、绘本、IT系统及时到位 3.培训内容通俗易懂，养育师经过培训和实习基本掌握工作内容；管理中心干事掌握养育师以及管理中心工作内容 4.课程/活动内容和配套玩教具符合儿童发展需要 5.招聘的养育师为项目点常住人口 6.养育师与服务家庭数量配比合适 7.持续的资金、物资支持	1.家长培训内容通俗易懂，时间适宜 2.课程与活动时间灵活适宜 3.养育师服务质量好：干预强度（Dosage），内容（Content），关系（Relationship） 4.管理中心有效开展日常管理，工资发放，定期督导等工作 5.儿童和家庭人脸数据收集完成度 6.IT系统运作正常	1.家长理解并掌握活动内容 2.家长了解了早期发展重要性 3.家长理解了活动内容	1.家长学以致用 2.家庭养育知识、态度、行为以及家长心理健康水平与儿童早期发展具有因果关系	早期发展能力测试量表具有测量人群的信效度
衡量指标	1.费用支出 2.参加培训的养育师和管理中心干事人数 3.收到发文的村数量 4.养育中心/服务点数量 5.玩教具和绘本数量 6.信息管理系统运转情况	中心/服务点运营指标：开关门天数/上门服务次数中心卫生评价 IT系统运行情况服务质量指标： 1.干预强度（Dosage）：养育师定期提醒家庭参与课程和活动次数，养育师督促家长借书、借玩具回家次数 2.干预内容（Content）：养育师正确并通俗易懂地讲解和示范课程次数，养育师有效组织集体活动次数 3.关系（Relationship）：养育师与家庭关系家庭间关系家庭满意度管理中心指标: 管理中心干事与养育师关系督导次数按时发放工资次数组织社区宣传次数	家庭参与指标：签到率，一对一课程参与次数和时长，集体活动参与次数与时长，绘本和玩具借阅/用频率关系指标：家长满意度家庭交往频率	家长养育知识家长养育观念家长抑郁倾向家庭养育环境家长养育行为	婴幼儿语言、运动、认知和社会情感能力测评
调节变量Moderators	家庭特征：照养人基本特征；家庭基本特征儿童特征：个人基本特征；气质类型养育师特征：知识，教育水平，社会经济地位（Socioeconomic Status，SES），动机，工作态度，沟通能力社区特征：地理位置（县城、县郊、农村）服务质量：干预强度（Dosage），内容（Content），关系（Relationship）
注：因果链的梳理源自“养育未来儿童早期发展整县模式项目”的实际运营和研究数据。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(92)

[1]	白钰, 党瑞瑞, 郑丽娟, 刘国强, 王蕾. (2020). 中国农村中小学生自我控制力水平及其与教育产出的关系. 世界农业, (05), 12−19+38.
[2]	高玉娟, 白钰, 马跃, & 史耀疆. (2018). 正负效应的先来后到: 父母外出对留守儿童学业表现的影响研究. 劳动经济研究,6(3),98−114.
[3]	甘雨, 岳爱, 高嘉琪, 汤蕾, & 罗仁福. (2019). 贫困农村地区婴幼儿抚养人抑郁症状的危险因素. 中国心理卫生杂志, 33(10), 751−755.
[4]	李英, 贾米琪, 郑文廷, 汤蕾, & 白钰. (2019). 中国农村贫困地区儿童早期认知发展现状及影响因素研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),37(3),21−36.
[5]	李志艳. (2015). 公益的方法. 北京: 社会资源研究所.
[6]	史耀疆, 王欢, 罗仁福, 张林秀, 刘承芳, & 易红梅, 等. (2013). 营养干预对陕西贫困农村学生身心健康的影响研究. 中国软科学,4(10),53−63.
[7]	史耀疆, 薛浩, 王欢, Sean, Sylvia, & Alexis, et al. (2016). 中国农村医生医疗服务质量的测量——基于标准化病人法的实验研究. 劳动经济研究,4(2),48−71.
[8]	史耀疆, 张林秀, 常芳, 刘涵, 唐彬, 高秋风, 关宏宇, 聂景春, 杨洁, 白钰, 李英, 汤蕾, 岳爱, 茹彤. (2020). 教育精准扶贫中随机干预实验的中国实践与经验. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 38(8), 1—67.
[9]	岳爱, 蔡建华, 白钰, 汤蕾, 史耀疆, & 罗仁福, 等. (2019). 中国农村贫困地区0—3岁婴幼儿面临的挑战及可能的解决方案. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),37(3),5−20.
[10]	张林秀, 刘承芳, 罗仁福, 史耀疆, 岳爱, & Rozelle, S. (2009). 农村小学生的贫血状况及其对身体发育和学业表现的影响: 对陕西省贫困县的实证研究. 中国教育经济学学术年会,1756−1766.
[11]	张林秀, 易红梅, 罗仁福, 刘承芳, & 史耀疆. (2014). 中等收入陷阱的人力资本根源: 中国案例. 中国人民大学学报,28(3),8−18.
[12]	Attanasio, O., Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Meghir, C., & Rubio-Codina, M. (2018). Estimating the production function for human capital: Results from a randomized control trial in Colombia. Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers.
[13]	Attanasio, O., Fernandez, C., Fitzsimons, E., Grantham-McGregor, S., Meghir, C., and Rubio-Codina, M. (2014). Using the infrastructure of a conditional cash transfer program to deliver a scalable integrated early child development program in Colombia: Cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ, 349(oct08 9), 6126. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6126
[14]	Bai, Y., Neubauer, M., Ru, T., Shi, Y., Kenny, K., & Rozelle, S. (2019). Impact of second-parent migration on student academic performance in northwest China and its implications. The Journal of Development Studies, 1−18.
[15]	Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2009). The experimental approach to development economics. Annual Review of Economics, 1(1), 151−178. doi: 10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143235
[16]	Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173−1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
[17]	Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142−163. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
[18]	Black, R. E., Victora, C. G., Walker, S. P., Bhutta, Z. A., Christian, P., De Onis, M., .. & Uauy, R. (2013). Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 382(9890), 427−451. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X
[19]	Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Morton, M., Lorenc, T., & Moore, L. (2012). Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 75(12), 2299−2306.
[20]	Britto, P. R., Lye, S. J., Proulx, K., Yousafzai, A. K., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2016). Nurturing care: Promoting early childhood development. The Lancet, 389(10064).
[21]	Brown, C. H., & Liao, J. (1999). Principles for designing randomized preventive trials in mental health: An emerging developmental epidemiology paradigm. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(5), 673−710. doi: 10.1023/A:1022142021441
[22]	Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 231. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.231
[23]	Campis, L. K., Lyman, R. D., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1986). The parental locus of control scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15(3), 260−267. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp1503_10
[24]	Carvalho, S., & White, H. (2004). Theory-based evaluation: The case of social funds. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 141−160. doi: 10.1177/109821400402500202
[25]	Carvalho, S., Perkins, G., White, H. (2004). Social funds: Participation, social capital and sustainability. Journal of International Development, 14, 611−625.
[26]	Carvalho, S., Perkins, G., White, H., Bahnson, C., Kapoor, A. G., & Webervenghaus, S. (2002). Social funds: Assessing effectiveness. The World Bank.
[27]	Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[28]	Chen, H., Rossi, P. H., & Policy Studies Organization. (1992). Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations. Greenwood Press.
[29]	Cogill, S. R., Caplan, H. L., Alexandra, H., Robson, K. M., & Kumar, R. (1986). Impact of maternal postnatal depression on cognitive development of young children. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 292(6529), 1165−1167.
[30]	Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schroter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199−226. doi: 10.1177/1098214010389321
[31]	Currie, J., & Almond, D. (2011). Human capital development before age five. Handbook of labor economics, 4, 1315−1486. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02413-0
[32]	Duflo, E. (2006). Field experiments in development economics. In R.Blundel et al (eds), Advances in economics and econometrics: Theory and applications. Cambridge University Press.
[33]	Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
[34]	Engle, P. L., Black, M. M., Behrman, J. R., De Mello, M. C., Gertler, P. J., Kapiriri, L., .. & International Child Development Steering Group. (2007). Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. The Lancet, 369(9557), 229−242. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60112-3
[35]	Fernald, L. C. H., Prado, E. L., & Kariger, P. K. (2017). Toolkit for measuring early childhood development in low- and middle-income countries. World Bank Publications.
[36]	Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115−134. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
[37]	Frongillo, E. A., Tofail, F., Hamadani, J. D., Warren, A. M., & Mehrin, S. F. (2014). Measures and indicators for assessing impact of interventions integrating nutrition, health, and early childhood development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1308(1), 68−88. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12319
[38]	Gertler, P. (2016). Impact evaluation in practice (Second Edition). World Bank Group.
[39]	Gertler, P. J., Heckman, J. J., Pinto, R. R., Zanolini, A., Vermeerch, C., & Walker, S., et al. (2011). Labor market returns to early childhood stimulation: A 20-year followup to an experimental intervention in Jamaica. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[40]	Glennerster, R., & Takavarasha, K. (2013). Running randomized evaluations: A practical guide. Princeton University Press.
[41]	Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., & Strupp, B. (2007). Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. The Lancet, 369(9555), 60−70. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60032-4
[42]	Guan, H., Wang, H., Huang, J., Du, K., Zhao, J., Boswell, M., … Rozelle, S. (2018). Health seeking behavior among rural left-behind children: Evidence from Shaanxi and Gansu provinces in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5), 883. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15050883
[43]	Hamadani, J. D., Tofail, F., Hilaly, A., Hu da, S. N., & Grantham-Mcgregor, S. M. (2010). Use of family care indicators and their relationship with child development in Bangladesh. Journal of Health Population & Nutrition, 28(1), 23−33.
[44]	Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (1995). Assessing the case for social experiments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85−110. doi: 10.1257/jep.9.2.85
[45]	Horton, R. (2008). Maternal and child undernutrition: An urgent opportunity. The Lancet, 371(9608), 179−179. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61869-8
[46]	Jamal, F., Fletcher, A., Shackleton, N., Elbourne, D., Viner, R., & Bonell, C. (2015). The three stages of building and testing mid-level theories in a realist RCT: A theoretical and methodological case-example. Trials, 16(1), 466. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0980-y
[47]	Jones, D. S., & Podolsky, S. H. (2015). The history and fate of the gold standard. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1502−1503. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60742-5
[48]	Justman, M. (2018). Randomized controlled trials informing public policy: Lessons from project STAR and class size reduction. European Journal of Political Economy, 54, 167−174. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.04.005
[49]	Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation: Quantitative methods and practices. The World Bank.
[50]	Lai, F., Zhang, L., Hu, X., Qu, Q., Shi, Y., & Qiao, Y., et al. (2013). Computer assisted learning as extracurricular tutor? Evidence from a randomised experiment in rural boarding schools in Shaanxi. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 5(2), 208−231. doi: 10.1080/19439342.2013.780089
[51]	Lee, H., Herbert, R. D., Lamb, S. E., Moseley, A. M., & McAuley, J. H. (2019). Investigating causal mechanisms in randomised controlled trials. Trials, 20(1), 524. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3593-z
[52]	Lin, J., Song, F., Yao, P., Yang, X., & Liu, L. (2007). Effect of vitamin A supplementation on immune function of well-nourished children suffering from vitamin A deficiency in China. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 62(12), 1412−1418.
[53]	Lovejoy, M. C., Graczyk, P. A., O'Hare, E., & Neuman, G. (2000). Maternal depression and parenting behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(5), 561−592.
[54]	Luo, R., Yue, A., Zhou, H., Shi, Y., Zhang, L., & Martorell, R., et al. (2017a). The effect of a micronutrient powder home fortification program on anemia and cognitive outcomes among young children in rural China: A cluster randomized trial. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 738. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4755-0
[55]	Luo, R., Jia, F., Yue, A., Zhang, L., Lyu, Q., Shi, Y., .. & Rozelle, S. (2017b). Passive parenting and its association with early child development. Early Child Development and Care, 189(10), 1709−1723.
[56]	Ma, X., Zhou, Z., Yi, H., Pang, X., Shi, Y., Chen, Q., .. & Liu, Y. (2014). Effect of providing free glasses on children’s educational outcomes in China: Cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ, 349, 5740. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5740
[57]	Mahoney, J. (2001). Beyond correlational analysis: Recent innovations in theory and method. Sociological Forum.
[58]	Marchal, B., Westhorp, G., Wong, G., Van Belle, S., Greenhalgh, T., Kegels, G., & Pawson, R. (2013). Realist RCTs of complex interventions–An oxymoron. Social Science & Medicine, 94, 124−128.
[59]	Merton, R. K. (1967). Social theory and social structure. Free Press, a division of Macmillan Pub.
[60]	Mo, D., Luo, R., Liu, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, L., Medina, A., & Rozelle, S. (2014a). Text messaging and its impacts on the health and education of the poor: Evidence from a field experiment in rural China. World Development, 64, 766−780. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.07.015
[61]	Mo, D., Zhang, L., Luo, R., Qu, Q., Huang, W., & Wang, J., et al. (2014b). Integrating computer-assisted learning into a regular curriculum: Evidence from a randomised experiment in rural schools in Shaanxi. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6(3), 300−323. doi: 10.1080/19439342.2014.911770
[62]	Neiss, M., & Rowe, D. C. (2000). Parental education and child’s Verbal IQ in adoptive and biological families in the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Behavior Genetics, 30(6), 487−495. doi: 10.1023/A:1010254918997
[63]	Nobre-Lima, L., Vale-Dias, M. da L., Mendes, T. V., Mónico, L., & MacPhee, D. (2014). The Portuguese version of the Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory-P (KIDI-P). European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 740−745. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2014.929941
[64]	Paulsell, D., Avellar, S., Martin, E. S., & Del Grosso, P. (2010). Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary. Mathematica Policy Research.
[65]	Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage.
[66]	Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.
[67]	Peterson, C. A., Luze, G. J., Eshbaugh, E. M., Jeon, H. J., & Kantz, K. R. (2007). Enhancing parent–child interactions through home visiting: Promising practice or unfulfilled promise?. Journal of Early Intervention, 29(2), 119−140. doi: 10.1177/105381510702900205
[68]	Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., & Ou, S. R. (2010). Preschool education, educational attainment, and crime prevention: contributions of cognitive and noncognitive skills. Children & Youth Services Review, 32(8), 1054−1063.
[69]	Riley, S., Brady, A. E., Goldberg, J., Jacobs, F., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (2008). Once the door closes: Understanding the parent-provider relationship. Children & Youth Services Review, 30(5), 597−612.
[70]	Rogers, P. (2014). Theory of change, methodological briefs: Impact evaluation 2. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
[71]	Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation the International Journal of Theory Research & Practice, 14(1), 29−48.
[72]	Roggman, L. A., Cook, G. A., Peterson, C. A., & Raikes, H. H. (2008). Who drops out of early head start home visiting programs?. Early Education and Development, 19(4), 574−599. doi: 10.1080/10409280701681870
[73]	Sanson, A., Hemphill, S., Yagmurlu, B., & McClowry, S. G. (2002). Temperament and social development. In Smith, P. K. & Hart, C. H. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development. Oxford: Blackwell.
[74]	Shah, M. K., Kieffer, E. C., Choi, H., Schumann, C., & Heisler, M. (2015). Mediators and moderators of the effectiveness of a community health worker intervention that improved dietary outcomes in pregnant Latino women. Health Education & Behavior, 42(5), 593−603.
[75]	Stanhope, L., Bell, R. Q., & Parker-Cohen, N. Y. (1987). Temperament and helping behavior in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 347−353. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.23.3.347
[76]	Stanley, Z., Paul, A., Claudia, S., Kojo Yeboah, A., George, Y., & Ana, P. (2003). Home-fortification with iron and zinc sprinkles or iron sprinkles alone successfully treats anemia in infants and young children. Journal of Nutrition, 133(4), 1075−1080. doi: 10.1093/jn/133.4.1075
[77]	Sylvia, S., Warrinnier, N., Luo, R., Yue, A., Attanasio, O., Medina, A., & Rozelle, S. (2018). From quantity to quality: Delivering a home-based parenting intervention through China’s family planning cadres. Working paper. Rural Education Action Program, Stanford University.
[78]	Van Belle, S., Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Pearson, M., Emmel, N., Manzano, A., & Marchal, B. (2016). Can “realist” randomised controlled trials be genuinely realist?. Trials, 17(1), 313−330. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1407-0
[79]	Verch, K. (2017). Premeira Infancia Melhor: Transforming the attention towards the first years of life in Latin America: Challenges and achievements of a public policy in southern Brazil. Inter-American Development Bank.
[80]	Walker, S. P., Wachs, T. D., Grantham-Mcgregor, S., Black, M. M., Nelson, C. A., & Huffman, S. L., et al. (2011). Inequality in early childhood: Risk and protective factors for early child development. The Lancet, 378(9799), 1325−1338. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60555-2
[81]	Walker, S. P., Wachs, T. D., Meeks Gardner, J., Lozoff, B., Wasserman, G. A., Pollitt, E., & Carter, J. A. (2007). Child development: Risk factors for adverse outcomes in developing countries. The Lancet, 369(9556), 145−157. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60076-2
[82]	Wallander, J. L., Biasini, F. J., Thorsten, V., Dhaded, S. M., Jong, D. M. D., & Chomba, E., et al. (2014). Dose of early intervention treatment during children’s first 36 months of life is associated with developmental outcomes: An observational cohort study in three low/low-middle income countries. BMC Pediatrics, 14(1), 1−11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-1
[83]	Weiss, C. H. (1995a). Nothing as practical as a good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families, in J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, pp. 65−69. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
[84]	Weiss, C. H. (1995b). New approaches to evaluating comprehensive community initiatives. The Aspen Institute, Washington, DC.
[85]	Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[86]	White, H. (2009). Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 1(3), 271−284. doi: 10.1080/19439340903114628
[87]	Yue, A., Bai, Y., Shi, Y., Luo, R., Rozelle, S., Medina, A., & Sylvia, S. (2020). Parental Migration and Early Childhood Development in Rural China. Demography.
[88]	Yue, A., Shi, Y., Luo, R., Chen, J., Garth, J., Zhang, J.,.. & Rozelle, S. (2017). China’s invisible crisis: Cognitive delays among rural toddlers and the absence of modern parenting. The China Journal, 78(1), 50−80.
[89]	Yue, A., Shi, Y., Luo, R., Wang, B., Weber, A., Medina, A., ... & Rozelle, S. (2019). Stimulation and early child development in China: Caregiving at arm’s length. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics.
[90]	Zellner, A., & Rossi, P. E. (1984). Bayesian analysis of dichotomous quantal response models. Journal of Econometrics, 25(3), 365−393. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(84)90007-1
[91]	Zhou, H., Sun, S., Luo, R., Sylvia, S., & Rozelle, S. (2016). Impact of text message reminders on caregivers’ adherence to a home fortification program against child anemia in rural western China: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 106(7), 1−7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303180
[92]	Zhang, S., Dang, R., Yang, N., Bai, Y., Wang, L., Abbey, C., & Rozelle, S. (2018). Effect of caregiver’s mental health on early childhood development across different rural communities in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2341.