I agree that the Guttmacher Institute (which I’d not heard of but have just looked-up) seems to be a reliable, scientifically-rigorous source.
I couldn’t agree with “no incentive to push bad stats/juice the numbers”: I think one of the lessons of the replication crisis is that almost everybody has an incentive to do this (or more accurately a bias towards doing this, not always consciously) - but A) I admit that I am saying this without actually going and looking at the stats/methodology, and B) I think your evidence (and argument) for its effectiveness is on the whole stronger than my evidence against it.
(But I still wouldn’t take the risk of using the method myself..)
I agree that the Guttmacher Institute (which I’d not heard of but have just looked-up) seems to be a reliable, scientifically-rigorous source.
I couldn’t agree with “no incentive to push bad stats/juice the numbers”: I think one of the lessons of the replication crisis is that almost everybody has an incentive to do this (or more accurately a bias towards doing this, not always consciously) - but A) I admit that I am saying this without actually going and looking at the stats/methodology, and B) I think your evidence (and argument) for its effectiveness is on the whole stronger than my evidence against it.
(But I still wouldn’t take the risk of using the method myself..)