The Institute’s purpose in funding Efficacy/Replication evaluations is to determine whether or not fully developed interventions produce a net positive impact relative to a counterfactual when they are implemented in authentic education delivery settings (e.g., schools) with a limited and specified sample.
- By counterfactual, IES means a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in all respects except for receiving the intervention
- By limited and specified sample, IES means with a specific student or teacher population and with specific types of schools.
- efficacy studies are not expected to encompass widely diverse samples.
The Institute is interested in funding small, well-designed and well-conducted efficacy studies that are adequately powered to test the primary questions of interest.
From the Institute’s standpoint, a funded Efficacy/Replication project would be methodologically successful if, at the end of the grant period, the investigators had rigorously evaluated the impact of a clearly specified intervention on relevant student outcomes and under clearly described conditions using a research design that meets (without reservation) the Institute’s What Works Clearinghouse standards (http://whatworks.ed.gov), whether or not the intervention is found to improve student outcomes relative to the comparison condition.
Significance: Interventions appropriate for study under the Efficacy/Replication goal are
- interventions that are already widely used but have not been rigorously evaluated or
- interventions that are fully developed, have evidence of their feasibility for use in authentic education delivery settings, and empirical evidence of the promise of the intervention but are not yet widely used
- interventions that will be replicated in a different setting or with a different population.
Applicants address the significance of their proposal by describing (i) clear aims (hypotheses and/or research questions) for the project, (ii) the fully developed intervention (e.g., features, components), (iii) the theory of change for the intervention, and (iv) a compelling rationale for evaluating the proposed intervention, which may include input from education stakeholders such as practitioners and policymakers.
Awards: Typical awards for Efficacy and Replication projects are $250,000 to $650,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per year for up to 4 years. The maximum duration of the award is 4 years and the maximum award for a 4-year project is $3,500,000 (total cost). Typical awards for Efficacy and Replication follow-up studies are $150,000 to $300,000 (total cost = direct + indirect costs) per year for up to 3 years. The maximum duration of the award is 3 years and the maximum award for a 3-year project is $1,200,000 (total cost).
Example of funded research
Efficacy/Replication #1
An Efficacy Trial of Enhanced Milieu Teaching (EMT) Language Intervention in Preschoolers with Language Disorders
Project Activities: This efficacy trial will compare EMT implemented by parents and therapists at home to a community “business as usual” comparison condition. Sixty children will be recruited and randomly assigned to each of two experimental conditions (EMT and Comparison) and will be followed longitudinally over 18 months. All children will be pretested, and results will be used to set language-learning targets. Children in the treatment group and their parents will work with therapists in 24 one-hour sessions. Children will be assessed at four time points (before and after the intervention, at 6 months and 12 months post-intervention), leading to a description and comparison of individual language growth trajectories over a period of 18 months
Other examples
To explore other examples of Efficacy/Replication research, go to
- https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/projects/
- select a topic of interest (e.g., social and behavioral outcomes to support learning)
- choose “efficacy/replication” as the “goal”
- FYI, the IES database does not always identify all relevant funded projects