Abstract
The claims of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard rest on the fact that the ideal RCT is a deductive method: if the assumptions of the test are met, a positive result implies the appropriate causal conclusion. This is a feature that RCTs share with a variety of other methods, which thus have equal claim to being a gold standard. This article describes some of these other deductive methods and also some useful non-deductive methods, including the hypothetico-deductive method. It argues that with all deductive methods, the benefit that the conclusions follow deductively in the ideal case comes with a great cost: narrowness of scope. This is an instance of the familiar trade-off between internal and external validity. RCTs have high internal validity but the formal methodology puts severe constraints on the assumptions a target population must meet to justify exporting a conclusion from the test population to the target. The article reviews one such set of assumptions to show the kind of knowledge required. The overall conclusion is that to draw causal inferences about a target population, which method is best depends case-by-case on what background knowledge we have or can come to obtain. There is no gold standard.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
1 This must include ‘spontaneous generation’. More formally, Ki holds fixed one variable on each pathway that does not go through T, as judged by the causal structure CS.
2 In the ‘long run’, of course, since all results are probabilistic.
3 Or as near enough as matters for our purposes. I shall here ignore these niceties and how to treat them in order to focus on the main point.
References
Cartwright N. (1989). Nature's capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cartwright N. (forthcoming). Hunting causes and using them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Granger C. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-special methods. Econometrica, 37, 424–438.
Heckman J. (2001). Econometrics, counterfactuals and causal models. Keynote Address, International Statistical Institute, Seoul, Korea.
Holland P.W., & Rubin D.B. (1988). Causal inference in retrospective studies. Evaluation Review, 12, 203–231.
Suppes P. (1970). Probabilistic theory of causality. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cartwright, N. Are RCTs the Gold Standard?. BioSocieties 2, 11–20 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855207005029
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855207005029