{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02544704264099037, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008253094910591471, 'mean_word_length': 5.298701298701299, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of Multiple Analyses in Quasi-experimental Evaluations

Over the past few years a debate has taken place among evaluators of social programs concerning the relative merits of true and quasi-experiments as evaluation tools. Proponents of true experiments (Gilbert, Light, & Mosteller, 1975; Riecken & Boruch, 1975) believe that they are underutilized, and that the circumstances under which such designs may be implemented are not as rare or restrictive as many evaluators believe. Others, such as Evans and Schiller (1970), while agreeing that true experiments are the most reliable method for assessing the worth of a program, argue that the information to be gained via quasiexperiments should not be disparaged, and certainly is preferable to the alternative of no information at all. Both experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations exhibit many of the same ideal characteristics. Program goals subject to evaluation are selected, success criteria are stated, measures are selected/ constructed, an evaluation design is developed, treatment and comparison groups are formed, data are collected and analyzed, conclusions about the effectiveness of the program are drawn, and a report is written. However, the distinction between true and quasi-experiments is crucial to several facets of an evaluation. Of particular interest in the present case is that the techniques employed in the analysis of data from a quasi-experiment are not nec-