Internal Validity:
However, this just shows there is a relationship, but does not mean it is a causal one. We would like to deduce that New Hope’s intervention made a difference. But there may be reasons that could explain these differences. Reasons the sampling method, even initially well-thought and properly implemented did not answer through time. Table #1 shows that 71.6% of the full sample and 89.8% of the CFS sample were female, respectively 59.8/62.2 never married, 31.8/29.4 years old, 71/100 with children, and 62.9/80.7 received AFDC, GA, Food stamps, and Medicaid. Young, single mothers, two third had a H.S diploma, and received welfare could have engaged in new relationships, found a side job, got an occupational certification or a higher education, family help, increase in benefits, fathers could have finally paid alimonies. Moreover, year 1 older children
…show more content…
Random assignment process ensured that both groups sample’s characteristics (low income families, living in same areas, similar environmental context, etc.) are preserved and the control group members did not vary at the beginning of the study, which guaranteed that the only difference between both the treatment and control group was that the treatment group had access to New Hope. Consequently, any significant differences in outcomes that arise a course of the experiment (i.e., employment rates or children achievement) between the two groups can be ascribed to New Hope intervention. Finally, probable barriers to working such as drug abuse and/or mental health were not treated by the research, because New Hope was not designed to address such factors despites the potential impact these variables could had on the