Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized Controlled Trials for loss prevention research: Process and problems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Retailers face difficult and expensive decisions regarding what loss prevention intervention they should use to reduce shrink. A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), based on the experimental research approach, can provide retailers with valuable information regarding the effectiveness of a loss prevention intervention. Implementing a RCT in the real world of retailing, however, presents several challenges to the validity of the results. This article, based on the experience of implementing several RCT projects for retailers, examines the threats to the validity of the results. It also provides practical recommendations for correcting the threats to validity. This article also recommends that researchers and retailers must collaborate to implement effective RCT research projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Clarke, R.V. and Eck, J.E. (2005) Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. (1991) Clarifying the warrant for generalized causal inferences in quasi-experimentation. In: M.W. McLauchlin and D.C. Phillips (eds.) Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. and Campbell, D. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J.E. and Madensen, T. (2009) Using signatures of opportunity to examine mechanisms in crime prevention evaluations. In: J. Knutsson and N. Tilley (eds.) Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 24 : Evaluating Crime Reduction Initiatives. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D.P. (2003) Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587: 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, S. and Michael, W. (1995) Handbook in Research and Evaluation: For Education and the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, K. and West, S. (1987) A multiplist strategy for strengthening nonequivalent control group designs. Evaluation Review 11 (6): 691–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. (1981) Research Designs. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2005) Evidence-based crime prevention: Conclusions and directions for a safe society. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 47 (2): 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma, W. (2000) Research Methods in Education: An Introduction, 7th edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611, FL, USA

    Michael J Scicchitano

Authors
  1. Michael J Scicchitano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scicchitano, M. Randomized Controlled Trials for loss prevention research: Process and problems. Secur J 24, 217–224 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2011.10

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2011.10

Keywords

Search

Navigation