R andomized controlled or clinical trials (RCTs) have been taking on increasing importance, especially outside of the medical field. 1 The number of RCTs is increasing as well as the number of areas in which they are conducted (Bloom, 2008; Boruch, Weisburd, Turner, Karpyn, & Littell, 2009). Moreover, these designs are being recommended and privileged over other designs by prestigious research organizations (e.g., Shavelson & Towne, 2002). In addition, several U.S. federal agencies deemed the RCT as the gold standard that should be used not only in considering the funding of research and evaluation but also in initiating and terminating programs (Brass, Nunez-Neto, & Williams, 2006). However, over the last several years, there has been considerable debate about whether RCTs should be considered the ultimate standard design (Cook & Payne, 2002; Maxwell, 2004). While most would argue that the RCT is a powerful research design, many debate whether it should be labeled as the gold standard for research trying to determine causality. Dissenters of this design as the model for research cite issues of appropriateness, ethics, feasibility, and cost, arguing that other methods can answer causal questions equally well. Most claim that RCTs are more appropriate for medical and basic science investigations, i AUTHORS' NOTE: We are not the first to use metals to describe standards. Both Rossi (1987) and Berk (2005) have used similar terms.