Using the proper tool for the task: RCTs are the gold standard for estimating programme effects – a response to Stewart‐Brown et al.

Purpose – The article's purpose is to critique a paper (Stewart‐Brown et al., 2011) in a previous issue of the Journal of Children's Services , which challenges the utility of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive interventions for children. Design/methodology/approach – The article is a critical reflection on the primary issue discussed by Stewart‐Brown et al. namely that RCTs do not work well in the evaluation of complex social interventions. Findings – The author finds fault with several of the claims made in the earlier essay and concludes that RCTs remain the most credible research methodology for estimating programme impacts. It is certainly true that RCTs do not tell us everything about programmes and implementation. However, if researchers are attempting to assess whether social interventions have the intended measured impact on their participants, then RCTs do indeed represent the “gold standard” research design. Originality/value – The article is a re‐assertion of the value of RCTs in research on preventive interventions in children's services.