The No-Spin Evidence Review
We summarize recent program evaluations and explain what the evidence really shows. More >
Latest No-Spin Evidence Report
Science (May 2023) published RCT results for a brief reading-and-writing activity to promote “social belonging” among incoming college students. Despite the abstract’s positive portrayal of the results, the study found null effects on one of its prespecified primary hypotheses – that the intervention would increase college persistence among students in groups with a low sense of belonging – and doesn’t report findings on its other two prespecified hypotheses.
What We Do
We provide plain-language, no-spin summaries of recent studies on “what works” in social spending. We also highlight a common problem in study reporting: Study abstracts often portray programs as effective when the study’s results don’t support such claims.
We focus on abstracts because of their central role in research communication. Many readers rely on abstracts for a study's main take-aways - due to time constraints or paywalls on full-report access - so their exaggerated claims can lead to programs being mislabeled as “evidence based” and expanded despite weak or null findings.
Each No-Spin report assigns a rating – “accurately reported,” “somewhat accurately reported,” or “not accurately reported” – based on how well the abstract reflects the study’s primary findings and notes any important limitations that could affect study validity. We explain the basis for each rating and, where needed, suggest revisions to make the abstract more accurate.
We mainly report on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because, when feasible and well-conducted, they're considered the strongest method of evaluating program effectiveness.
Learn more about our review process.
