
An empirical comparison of systematic and randomized field experimental designs
<a href="https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMinAJBVV95cUxQa1FXbzIxLWEtLWFzOWQwT2N0bUsyUjZwMDBMUS1JUndyeGIwQ2pZd2Njc0ZKR0hKYTVMTE9iSC1faXJUXzZrZ21kaC1WS0JZSkxnU1AyUXE4U1k5Ul9pSm9Rb0syZXZ6YVFvMTI2MGpTbjhtdG5LS2xuYXJiQndENDY1NDJSdHJlVFJINGN4b0NmcjdJajdyaWFGRmlLWmxRazVnRE1Uc0p6RE9GME9GU0R2R3lUQUJLVGpEWjl3YTFwMEJfd0dUSTQ1SGg1SXZwSmlPZWRwMzA2aHI1eWU2QnFIQk9ZRlZnVTlmd3FIbXp5YVNiTnUwYXR2VHlDYnVYMTROOEpfdGxoZGh1Tmlndjhibmp5WmtndzI0Mw?oc=5" target="_blank">An empirical comparison of systematic and randomized field experimental designs</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="#6f6f6f">Cambridge University Press & Assessment</font>
