2016
DOI: 10.22158/jepf.v2n1p1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Impacts of Farmer Field School Training on Knowledge and Farm Technology Adoption: Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in Oromia, Ethiopia

Abstract: This study examines the impact of Farmer Field School (FFS) training program on farmers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, after matching, covariates are balanced. The insignificant likelihood ratio tests of all covariates imply that the matching procedure is able to balance the characteristics in the treated group (contracted farmers) and the control group (independent farmers) ( Low pseudo R 2 and the insignificant likelihood ratio tests reflect that treatment and control groups have the same distribution in covariates after matching and that matching methods can balance characteristics of the treated and control groups (Wainaina and others, 2012;Chege and others, 2015;and Huluka and Negatu, 2016). After matching, pseudo R 2 dropped from 0.227 to 0.008, the likelihood ratio is insignificant (0.887), and total bias decreased by 50 per cent.…”
Section: Assessment On the Match Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, after matching, covariates are balanced. The insignificant likelihood ratio tests of all covariates imply that the matching procedure is able to balance the characteristics in the treated group (contracted farmers) and the control group (independent farmers) ( Low pseudo R 2 and the insignificant likelihood ratio tests reflect that treatment and control groups have the same distribution in covariates after matching and that matching methods can balance characteristics of the treated and control groups (Wainaina and others, 2012;Chege and others, 2015;and Huluka and Negatu, 2016). After matching, pseudo R 2 dropped from 0.227 to 0.008, the likelihood ratio is insignificant (0.887), and total bias decreased by 50 per cent.…”
Section: Assessment On the Match Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…"Farmer Field School (FFS) is considered as an extension approach where the farmers are being trained on different aspects of crop and livestock production, especially management of soil and crops in a low cost and environment-friendly means through a season-long training program" (Roy et al, 2013). According to Huluka and Negatu (2016), FFS intends to provide specialized training to a chosen group of "model farmers," who were then expected to pass on their knowledge to others through administratively managed farmer networks rather than through existing social relationships. FFS attempts to improve farmers' capacity as well as testing new technology, evaluating the results and their applicability to their own conditions, as well as interacting with scientists and extensionists on a more demand-driven basis when they cannot fix a problem amongst themselves.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Austin [31] proclaimed that an observational or nonrandomized study can be designed and analyzed using the propensity score to imitate some of the characteristics of a randomized controlled trial. Moreover, matching is likely to reduce the underlying selection bias with two assumptions-conditional independence assumption and common support assumption [32]. This study fulfills the necessary conditions to assess the impact of FFS program in terms of selecting covariates and ensure their sufficient balancing.…”
Section: Two-sample T-testmentioning
confidence: 87%