arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Field Trials as an Extension Technique: The Case of Swaziland

David G. Abler et al.

Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics1992https://doi.org/10.1017/s0899367x00002506article
ABDC C
Weight
0.34

What the paper says

One potentially serious problem in evaluating the effectiveness of extension programs is that participants are not picked at random. Self-selection can be a problem, and it can be compounded if extension officials concentrate on the most progressive farms. This study explores the relationships between adoption of maize high-yielding varieties (HYVs) and participation in field trials intended to foster HYV usage, drawing on data from Swaziland. Results indicate that it is impossible to say if field trials had any effect on adoption. Participating farms used more HYVs, but this could have been due to self-selection or the government's selection process.

4 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0899367x00002506

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{david1992,
  title        = {{Field Trials as an Extension Technique: The Case of Swaziland}},
  author       = {David G. Abler et al.},
  journal      = {Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics},
  year         = {1992},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0899367x00002506},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Field Trials as an Extension Technique: The Case of Swaziland

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.34

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.00 × 0.4 = 0.00
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.