Is MasterClass right for me?
Take this quiz to find out.
Quasi-Experimental Design: Types, Examples, Pros, and Cons
Written by MasterClass
Last updated: Jun 16, 2022 • 3 min read
A quasi-experimental design can be a great option when ethical or practical concerns make true experiments impossible, but the research methodology does have its drawbacks. Learn all the ins and outs of a quasi-experimental design.
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples
Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples
Published on July 31, 2020 by Lauren Thomas . Revised on January 22, 2024.
Like a true experiment , a quasi-experimental design aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable .
However, unlike a true experiment, a quasi-experiment does not rely on random assignment . Instead, subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria.
Quasi-experimental design is a useful tool in situations where true experiments cannot be used for ethical or practical reasons.
Table of contents
Differences between quasi-experiments and true experiments, types of quasi-experimental designs, when to use quasi-experimental design, advantages and disadvantages, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about quasi-experimental designs.
There are several common differences between true and quasi-experimental designs.
True experimental design | Quasi-experimental design | |
---|---|---|
Assignment to treatment | The researcher subjects to control and treatment groups. | Some other, method is used to assign subjects to groups. |
Control over treatment | The researcher usually . | The researcher often , but instead studies pre-existing groups that received different treatments after the fact. |
Use of | Requires the use of . | Control groups are not required (although they are commonly used). |
Example of a true experiment vs a quasi-experiment
However, for ethical reasons, the directors of the mental health clinic may not give you permission to randomly assign their patients to treatments. In this case, you cannot run a true experiment.
Instead, you can use a quasi-experimental design.
You can use these pre-existing groups to study the symptom progression of the patients treated with the new therapy versus those receiving the standard course of treatment.
Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.
Many types of quasi-experimental designs exist. Here we explain three of the most common types: nonequivalent groups design, regression discontinuity, and natural experiments.
Nonequivalent groups design
In nonequivalent group design, the researcher chooses existing groups that appear similar, but where only one of the groups experiences the treatment.
In a true experiment with random assignment , the control and treatment groups are considered equivalent in every way other than the treatment. But in a quasi-experiment where the groups are not random, they may differ in other ways—they are nonequivalent groups .
When using this kind of design, researchers try to account for any confounding variables by controlling for them in their analysis or by choosing groups that are as similar as possible.
This is the most common type of quasi-experimental design.
Regression discontinuity
Many potential treatments that researchers wish to study are designed around an essentially arbitrary cutoff, where those above the threshold receive the treatment and those below it do not.
Near this threshold, the differences between the two groups are often so minimal as to be nearly nonexistent. Therefore, researchers can use individuals just below the threshold as a control group and those just above as a treatment group.
However, since the exact cutoff score is arbitrary, the students near the threshold—those who just barely pass the exam and those who fail by a very small margin—tend to be very similar, with the small differences in their scores mostly due to random chance. You can therefore conclude that any outcome differences must come from the school they attended.
Natural experiments
In both laboratory and field experiments, researchers normally control which group the subjects are assigned to. In a natural experiment, an external event or situation (“nature”) results in the random or random-like assignment of subjects to the treatment group.
Even though some use random assignments, natural experiments are not considered to be true experiments because they are observational in nature.
Although the researchers have no control over the independent variable , they can exploit this event after the fact to study the effect of the treatment.
However, as they could not afford to cover everyone who they deemed eligible for the program, they instead allocated spots in the program based on a random lottery.
Although true experiments have higher internal validity , you might choose to use a quasi-experimental design for ethical or practical reasons.
Sometimes it would be unethical to provide or withhold a treatment on a random basis, so a true experiment is not feasible. In this case, a quasi-experiment can allow you to study the same causal relationship without the ethical issues.
The Oregon Health Study is a good example. It would be unethical to randomly provide some people with health insurance but purposely prevent others from receiving it solely for the purposes of research.
However, since the Oregon government faced financial constraints and decided to provide health insurance via lottery, studying this event after the fact is a much more ethical approach to studying the same problem.
True experimental design may be infeasible to implement or simply too expensive, particularly for researchers without access to large funding streams.
At other times, too much work is involved in recruiting and properly designing an experimental intervention for an adequate number of subjects to justify a true experiment.
In either case, quasi-experimental designs allow you to study the question by taking advantage of data that has previously been paid for or collected by others (often the government).
Quasi-experimental designs have various pros and cons compared to other types of studies.
- Higher external validity than most true experiments, because they often involve real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.
- Higher internal validity than other non-experimental types of research, because they allow you to better control for confounding variables than other types of studies do.
- Lower internal validity than true experiments—without randomization, it can be difficult to verify that all confounding variables have been accounted for.
- The use of retrospective data that has already been collected for other purposes can be inaccurate, incomplete or difficult to access.
Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
- Academic style
- Vague sentences
- Style consistency
See an example
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Normal distribution
- Degrees of freedom
- Null hypothesis
- Discourse analysis
- Control groups
- Mixed methods research
- Non-probability sampling
- Quantitative research
- Ecological validity
Research bias
- Rosenthal effect
- Implicit bias
- Cognitive bias
- Selection bias
- Negativity bias
- Status quo bias
A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.
In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomization. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.
Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .
Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
Thomas, L. (2024, January 22). Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quasi-experimental-design/
Is this article helpful?
Lauren Thomas
Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, random assignment in experiments | introduction & examples, control variables | what are they & why do they matter, what is your plagiarism score.
Child Care and Early Education Research Connections
Experiments and quasi-experiments.
This page includes an explanation of the types, key components, validity, ethics, and advantages and disadvantages of experimental design.
An experiment is a study in which the researcher manipulates the level of some independent variable and then measures the outcome. Experiments are powerful techniques for evaluating cause-and-effect relationships. Many researchers consider experiments the "gold standard" against which all other research designs should be judged. Experiments are conducted both in the laboratory and in real life situations.
Types of Experimental Design
There are two basic types of research design:
- True experiments
- Quasi-experiments
The purpose of both is to examine the cause of certain phenomena.
True experiments, in which all the important factors that might affect the phenomena of interest are completely controlled, are the preferred design. Often, however, it is not possible or practical to control all the key factors, so it becomes necessary to implement a quasi-experimental research design.
Similarities between true and quasi-experiments:
- Study participants are subjected to some type of treatment or condition
- Some outcome of interest is measured
- The researchers test whether differences in this outcome are related to the treatment
Differences between true experiments and quasi-experiments:
- In a true experiment, participants are randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control group, whereas they are not assigned randomly in a quasi-experiment
- In a quasi-experiment, the control and treatment groups differ not only in terms of the experimental treatment they receive, but also in other, often unknown or unknowable, ways. Thus, the researcher must try to statistically control for as many of these differences as possible
- Because control is lacking in quasi-experiments, there may be several "rival hypotheses" competing with the experimental manipulation as explanations for observed results
Key Components of Experimental Research Design
The manipulation of predictor variables.
In an experiment, the researcher manipulates the factor that is hypothesized to affect the outcome of interest. The factor that is being manipulated is typically referred to as the treatment or intervention. The researcher may manipulate whether research subjects receive a treatment (e.g., antidepressant medicine: yes or no) and the level of treatment (e.g., 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 125 mg).
Suppose, for example, a group of researchers was interested in the causes of maternal employment. They might hypothesize that the provision of government-subsidized child care would promote such employment. They could then design an experiment in which some subjects would be provided the option of government-funded child care subsidies and others would not. The researchers might also manipulate the value of the child care subsidies in order to determine if higher subsidy values might result in different levels of maternal employment.
Random Assignment
- Study participants are randomly assigned to different treatment groups
- All participants have the same chance of being in a given condition
- Participants are assigned to either the group that receives the treatment, known as the "experimental group" or "treatment group," or to the group which does not receive the treatment, referred to as the "control group"
- Random assignment neutralizes factors other than the independent and dependent variables, making it possible to directly infer cause and effect
Random Sampling
Traditionally, experimental researchers have used convenience sampling to select study participants. However, as research methods have become more rigorous, and the problems with generalizing from a convenience sample to the larger population have become more apparent, experimental researchers are increasingly turning to random sampling. In experimental policy research studies, participants are often randomly selected from program administrative databases and randomly assigned to the control or treatment groups.
Validity of Results
The two types of validity of experiments are internal and external. It is often difficult to achieve both in social science research experiments.
Internal Validity
- When an experiment is internally valid, we are certain that the independent variable (e.g., child care subsidies) caused the outcome of the study (e.g., maternal employment)
- When subjects are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, we can assume that the independent variable caused the observed outcomes because the two groups should not have differed from one another at the start of the experiment
- For example, take the child care subsidy example above. Since research subjects were randomly assigned to the treatment (child care subsidies available) and control (no child care subsidies available) groups, the two groups should not have differed at the outset of the study. If, after the intervention, mothers in the treatment group were more likely to be working, we can assume that the availability of child care subsidies promoted maternal employment
One potential threat to internal validity in experiments occurs when participants either drop out of the study or refuse to participate in the study. If particular types of individuals drop out or refuse to participate more often than individuals with other characteristics, this is called differential attrition. For example, suppose an experiment was conducted to assess the effects of a new reading curriculum. If the new curriculum was so tough that many of the slowest readers dropped out of school, the school with the new curriculum would experience an increase in the average reading scores. The reason they experienced an increase in reading scores, however, is because the worst readers left the school, not because the new curriculum improved students' reading skills.
External Validity
- External validity is also of particular concern in social science experiments
- It can be very difficult to generalize experimental results to groups that were not included in the study
- Studies that randomly select participants from the most diverse and representative populations are more likely to have external validity
- The use of random sampling techniques makes it easier to generalize the results of studies to other groups
For example, a research study shows that a new curriculum improved reading comprehension of third-grade children in Iowa. To assess the study's external validity, you would ask whether this new curriculum would also be effective with third graders in New York or with children in other elementary grades.
Glossary terms related to validity:
- internal validity
- external validity
- differential attrition
It is particularly important in experimental research to follow ethical guidelines. Protecting the health and safety of research subjects is imperative. In order to assure subject safety, all researchers should have their project reviewed by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBS). The National Institutes of Health supplies strict guidelines for project approval. Many of these guidelines are based on the Belmont Report (pdf).
The basic ethical principles:
- Respect for persons -- requires that research subjects are not coerced into participating in a study and requires the protection of research subjects who have diminished autonomy
- Beneficence -- requires that experiments do not harm research subjects, and that researchers minimize the risks for subjects while maximizing the benefits for them
- Justice -- requires that all forms of differential treatment among research subjects be justified
Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Design
The environment in which the research takes place can often be carefully controlled. Consequently, it is easier to estimate the true effect of the variable of interest on the outcome of interest.
Disadvantages
It is often difficult to assure the external validity of the experiment, due to the frequently nonrandom selection processes and the artificial nature of the experimental context.
- Skip to secondary menu
- Skip to main content
- Skip to primary sidebar
Statistics By Jim
Making statistics intuitive
Quasi Experimental Design Overview & Examples
By Jim Frost Leave a Comment
What is a Quasi Experimental Design?
A quasi experimental design is a method for identifying causal relationships that does not randomly assign participants to the experimental groups. Instead, researchers use a non-random process. For example, they might use an eligibility cutoff score or preexisting groups to determine who receives the treatment.
Quasi-experimental research is a design that closely resembles experimental research but is different. The term “quasi” means “resembling,” so you can think of it as a cousin to actual experiments. In these studies, researchers can manipulate an independent variable — that is, they change one factor to see what effect it has. However, unlike true experimental research, participants are not randomly assigned to different groups.
Learn more about Experimental Designs: Definition & Types .
When to Use Quasi-Experimental Design
Researchers typically use a quasi-experimental design because they can’t randomize due to practical or ethical concerns. For example:
- Practical Constraints : A school interested in testing a new teaching method can only implement it in preexisting classes and cannot randomly assign students.
- Ethical Concerns : A medical study might not be able to randomly assign participants to a treatment group for an experimental medication when they are already taking a proven drug.
Quasi-experimental designs also come in handy when researchers want to study the effects of naturally occurring events, like policy changes or environmental shifts, where they can’t control who is exposed to the treatment.
Quasi-experimental designs occupy a unique position in the spectrum of research methodologies, sitting between observational studies and true experiments. This middle ground offers a blend of both worlds, addressing some limitations of purely observational studies while navigating the constraints often accompanying true experiments.
A significant advantage of quasi-experimental research over purely observational studies and correlational research is that it addresses the issue of directionality, determining which variable is the cause and which is the effect. In quasi-experiments, an intervention typically occurs during the investigation, and the researchers record outcomes before and after it, increasing the confidence that it causes the observed changes.
However, it’s crucial to recognize its limitations as well. Controlling confounding variables is a larger concern for a quasi-experimental design than a true experiment because it lacks random assignment.
In sum, quasi-experimental designs offer a valuable research approach when random assignment is not feasible, providing a more structured and controlled framework than observational studies while acknowledging and attempting to address potential confounders.
Types of Quasi-Experimental Designs and Examples
Quasi-experimental studies use various methods, depending on the scenario.
Natural Experiments
This design uses naturally occurring events or changes to create the treatment and control groups. Researchers compare outcomes between those whom the event affected and those it did not affect. Analysts use statistical controls to account for confounders that the researchers must also measure.
Natural experiments are related to observational studies, but they allow for a clearer causality inference because the external event or policy change provides both a form of quasi-random group assignment and a definite start date for the intervention.
For example, in a natural experiment utilizing a quasi-experimental design, researchers study the impact of a significant economic policy change on small business growth. The policy is implemented in one state but not in neighboring states. This scenario creates an unplanned experimental setup, where the state with the new policy serves as the treatment group, and the neighboring states act as the control group.
Researchers are primarily interested in small business growth rates but need to record various confounders that can impact growth rates. Hence, they record state economic indicators, investment levels, and employment figures. By recording these metrics across the states, they can include them in the model as covariates and control them statistically. This method allows researchers to estimate differences in small business growth due to the policy itself, separate from the various confounders.
Nonequivalent Groups Design
This method involves matching existing groups that are similar but not identical. Researchers attempt to find groups that are as equivalent as possible, particularly for factors likely to affect the outcome.
For instance, researchers use a nonequivalent groups quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving students’ mathematics performance. A school district considering the teaching method is planning the study. Students are already divided into schools, preventing random assignment.
The researchers matched two schools with similar demographics, baseline academic performance, and resources. The school using the traditional methodology is the control, while the other uses the new approach. Researchers are evaluating differences in educational outcomes between the two methods.
They perform a pretest to identify differences between the schools that might affect the outcome and include them as covariates to control for confounding. They also record outcomes before and after the intervention to have a larger context for the changes they observe.
Regression Discontinuity
This process assigns subjects to a treatment or control group based on a predetermined cutoff point (e.g., a test score). The analysis primarily focuses on participants near the cutoff point, as they are likely similar except for the treatment received. By comparing participants just above and below the cutoff, the design controls for confounders that vary smoothly around the cutoff.
For example, in a regression discontinuity quasi-experimental design focusing on a new medical treatment for depression, researchers use depression scores as the cutoff point. Individuals with depression scores just above a certain threshold are assigned to receive the latest treatment, while those just below the threshold do not receive it. This method creates two closely matched groups: one that barely qualifies for treatment and one that barely misses out.
By comparing the mental health outcomes of these two groups over time, researchers can assess the effectiveness of the new treatment. The assumption is that the only significant difference between the groups is whether they received the treatment, thereby isolating its impact on depression outcomes.
Controlling Confounders in a Quasi-Experimental Design
Accounting for confounding variables is a challenging but essential task for a quasi-experimental design.
In a true experiment, the random assignment process equalizes confounders across the groups to nullify their overall effect. It’s the gold standard because it works on all confounders, known and unknown.
Unfortunately, the lack of random assignment can allow differences between the groups to exist before the intervention. These confounding factors might ultimately explain the results rather than the intervention.
Consequently, researchers must use other methods to equalize the groups roughly using matching and cutoff values or statistically adjust for preexisting differences they measure to reduce the impact of confounders.
A key strength of quasi-experiments is their frequent use of “pre-post testing.” This approach involves conducting initial tests before collecting data to check for preexisting differences between groups that could impact the study’s outcome. By identifying these variables early on and including them as covariates, researchers can more effectively control potential confounders in their statistical analysis.
Additionally, researchers frequently track outcomes before and after the intervention to better understand the context for changes they observe.
Statisticians consider these methods to be less effective than randomization. Hence, quasi-experiments fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to internal validity , or how well the study can identify causal relationships versus mere correlation . They’re more conclusive than correlational studies but not as solid as true experiments.
In conclusion, quasi-experimental designs offer researchers a versatile and practical approach when random assignment is not feasible. This methodology bridges the gap between controlled experiments and observational studies, providing a valuable tool for investigating cause-and-effect relationships in real-world settings. Researchers can address ethical and logistical constraints by understanding and leveraging the different types of quasi-experimental designs while still obtaining insightful and meaningful results.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Share this:
Reader Interactions
Comments and questions cancel reply.
Quasi-Experimental Design: Definition, Types, Examples
Appinio Research · 19.12.2023 · 37min read
Ever wondered how researchers uncover cause-and-effect relationships in the real world, where controlled experiments are often elusive? Quasi-experimental design holds the key. In this guide, we'll unravel the intricacies of quasi-experimental design, shedding light on its definition, purpose, and applications across various domains. Whether you're a student, a professional, or simply curious about the methods behind meaningful research, join us as we delve into the world of quasi-experimental design, making complex concepts sound simple and embarking on a journey of knowledge and discovery.
What is Quasi-Experimental Design?
Quasi-experimental design is a research methodology used to study the effects of independent variables on dependent variables when full experimental control is not possible or ethical. It falls between controlled experiments, where variables are tightly controlled, and purely observational studies, where researchers have little control over variables. Quasi-experimental design mimics some aspects of experimental research but lacks randomization.
The primary purpose of quasi-experimental design is to investigate cause-and-effect relationships between variables in real-world settings. Researchers use this approach to answer research questions, test hypotheses, and explore the impact of interventions or treatments when they cannot employ traditional experimental methods. Quasi-experimental studies aim to maximize internal validity and make meaningful inferences while acknowledging practical constraints and ethical considerations.
Quasi-Experimental vs. Experimental Design
It's essential to understand the distinctions between Quasi-Experimental and Experimental Design to appreciate the unique characteristics of each approach:
- Randomization: In Experimental Design, random assignment of participants to groups is a defining feature. Quasi-experimental design, on the other hand, lacks randomization due to practical constraints or ethical considerations.
- Control Groups : Experimental Design typically includes control groups that are subjected to no treatment or a placebo. The quasi-experimental design may have comparison groups but lacks the same level of control.
- Manipulation of IV: Experimental Design involves the intentional manipulation of the independent variable. Quasi-experimental design often deals with naturally occurring independent variables.
- Causal Inference: Experimental Design allows for stronger causal inferences due to randomization and control. Quasi-experimental design permits causal inferences but with some limitations.
When to Use Quasi-Experimental Design?
A quasi-experimental design is particularly valuable in several situations:
- Ethical Constraints: When manipulating the independent variable is ethically unacceptable or impractical, quasi-experimental design offers an alternative to studying naturally occurring variables.
- Real-World Settings: When researchers want to study phenomena in real-world contexts, quasi-experimental design allows them to do so without artificial laboratory settings.
- Limited Resources: In cases where resources are limited and conducting a controlled experiment is cost-prohibitive, quasi-experimental design can provide valuable insights.
- Policy and Program Evaluation: Quasi-experimental design is commonly used in evaluating the effectiveness of policies, interventions, or programs that cannot be randomly assigned to participants.
Importance of Quasi-Experimental Design in Research
Quasi-experimental design plays a vital role in research for several reasons:
- Addressing Real-World Complexities: It allows researchers to tackle complex real-world issues where controlled experiments are not feasible. This bridges the gap between controlled experiments and purely observational studies.
- Ethical Research: It provides an honest approach when manipulating variables or assigning treatments could harm participants or violate ethical standards.
- Policy and Practice Implications: Quasi-experimental studies generate findings with direct applications in policy-making and practical solutions in fields such as education, healthcare, and social sciences.
- Enhanced External Validity: Findings from Quasi-Experimental research often have high external validity, making them more applicable to broader populations and contexts.
By embracing the challenges and opportunities of quasi-experimental design, researchers can contribute valuable insights to their respective fields and drive positive changes in the real world.
Key Concepts in Quasi-Experimental Design
In quasi-experimental design, it's essential to grasp the fundamental concepts underpinning this research methodology. Let's explore these key concepts in detail.
Independent Variable
The independent variable (IV) is the factor you aim to study or manipulate in your research. Unlike controlled experiments, where you can directly manipulate the IV, quasi-experimental design often deals with naturally occurring variables. For example, if you're investigating the impact of a new teaching method on student performance, the teaching method is your independent variable.
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable (DV) is the outcome or response you measure to assess the effects of changes in the independent variable. Continuing with the teaching method example, the dependent variable would be the students' academic performance, typically measured using test scores, grades, or other relevant metrics.
Control Groups vs. Comparison Groups
While quasi-experimental design lacks the luxury of randomly assigning participants to control and experimental groups, you can still establish comparison groups to make meaningful inferences. Control groups consist of individuals who do not receive the treatment, while comparison groups are exposed to different levels or variations of the treatment. These groups help researchers gauge the effect of the independent variable.
Pre-Test and Post-Test Measures
In quasi-experimental design, it's common practice to collect data both before and after implementing the independent variable. The initial data (pre-test) serves as a baseline, allowing you to measure changes over time (post-test). This approach helps assess the impact of the independent variable more accurately. For instance, if you're studying the effectiveness of a new drug, you'd measure patients' health before administering the drug (pre-test) and afterward (post-test).
Threats to Internal Validity
Internal validity is crucial for establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables. However, in a quasi-experimental design, several threats can compromise internal validity. These threats include:
- Selection Bias : When non-randomized groups differ systematically in ways that affect the study's outcome.
- History Effects: External events or changes over time that influence the results.
- Maturation Effects: Natural changes or developments that occur within participants during the study.
- Regression to the Mean: The tendency for extreme scores on a variable to move closer to the mean upon retesting.
- Attrition and Mortality: The loss of participants over time, potentially skewing the results.
- Testing Effects: The mere act of testing or assessing participants can impact their subsequent performance.
Understanding these threats is essential for designing and conducting Quasi-Experimental studies that yield valid and reliable results.
Randomization and Non-Randomization
In traditional experimental designs, randomization is a powerful tool for ensuring that groups are equivalent at the outset of a study. However, quasi-experimental design often involves non-randomization due to the nature of the research. This means that participants are not randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Instead, researchers must employ various techniques to minimize biases and ensure that the groups are as similar as possible.
For example, if you are conducting a study on the effects of a new teaching method in a real classroom setting, you cannot randomly assign students to the treatment and control groups. Instead, you might use statistical methods to match students based on relevant characteristics such as prior academic performance or socioeconomic status. This matching process helps control for potential confounding variables, increasing the validity of your study.
Types of Quasi-Experimental Designs
In quasi-experimental design, researchers employ various approaches to investigate causal relationships and study the effects of independent variables when complete experimental control is challenging. Let's explore these types of quasi-experimental designs.
One-Group Posttest-Only Design
The One-Group Posttest-Only Design is one of the simplest forms of quasi-experimental design. In this design, a single group is exposed to the independent variable, and data is collected only after the intervention has taken place. Unlike controlled experiments, there is no comparison group. This design is useful when researchers cannot administer a pre-test or when it is logistically difficult to do so.
Example : Suppose you want to assess the effectiveness of a new time management seminar. You offer the seminar to a group of employees and measure their productivity levels immediately afterward to determine if there's an observable impact.
One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design
Similar to the One-Group Posttest-Only Design, this approach includes a pre-test measure in addition to the post-test. Researchers collect data both before and after the intervention. By comparing the pre-test and post-test results within the same group, you can gain a better understanding of the changes that occur due to the independent variable.
Example : If you're studying the impact of a stress management program on participants' stress levels, you would measure their stress levels before the program (pre-test) and after completing the program (post-test) to assess any changes.
Non-Equivalent Groups Design
The Non-Equivalent Groups Design involves multiple groups, but they are not randomly assigned. Instead, researchers must carefully match or control for relevant variables to minimize biases. This design is particularly useful when random assignment is not possible or ethical.
Example : Imagine you're examining the effectiveness of two teaching methods in two different schools. You can't randomly assign students to the schools, but you can carefully match them based on factors like age, prior academic performance, and socioeconomic status to create equivalent groups.
Time Series Design
Time Series Design is an approach where data is collected at multiple time points before and after the intervention. This design allows researchers to analyze trends and patterns over time, providing valuable insights into the sustained effects of the independent variable.
Example : If you're studying the impact of a new marketing campaign on product sales, you would collect sales data at regular intervals (e.g., monthly) before and after the campaign's launch to observe any long-term trends.
Regression Discontinuity Design
Regression Discontinuity Design is employed when participants are assigned to different groups based on a specific cutoff score or threshold. This design is often used in educational and policy research to assess the effects of interventions near a cutoff point.
Example : Suppose you're evaluating the impact of a scholarship program on students' academic performance. Students who score just above or below a certain GPA threshold are assigned differently to the program. This design helps assess the program's effectiveness at the cutoff point.
Propensity Score Matching
Propensity Score Matching is a technique used to create comparable treatment and control groups in non-randomized studies. Researchers calculate propensity scores based on participants' characteristics and match individuals in the treatment group to those in the control group with similar scores.
Example : If you're studying the effects of a new medication on patient outcomes, you would use propensity scores to match patients who received the medication with those who did not but have similar health profiles.
Interrupted Time Series Design
The Interrupted Time Series Design involves collecting data at multiple time points before and after the introduction of an intervention. However, in this design, the intervention occurs at a specific point in time, allowing researchers to assess its immediate impact.
Example : Let's say you're analyzing the effects of a new traffic management system on traffic accidents. You collect accident data before and after the system's implementation to observe any abrupt changes right after its introduction.
Each of these quasi-experimental designs offers unique advantages and is best suited to specific research questions and scenarios. Choosing the right design is crucial for conducting robust and informative studies.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Quasi-Experimental Design
Quasi-experimental design offers a valuable research approach, but like any methodology, it comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Let's explore these in detail.
Quasi-Experimental Design Advantages
Quasi-experimental design presents several advantages that make it a valuable tool in research:
- Real-World Applicability: Quasi-experimental studies often take place in real-world settings, making the findings more applicable to practical situations. Researchers can examine the effects of interventions or variables in the context where they naturally occur.
- Ethical Considerations: In situations where manipulating the independent variable in a controlled experiment would be unethical, quasi-experimental design provides an ethical alternative. For example, it would be unethical to assign participants to smoke for a study on the health effects of smoking, but you can study naturally occurring groups of smokers and non-smokers.
- Cost-Efficiency: Conducting Quasi-Experimental research is often more cost-effective than conducting controlled experiments. The absence of controlled environments and extensive manipulations can save both time and resources.
These advantages make quasi-experimental design an attractive choice for researchers facing practical or ethical constraints in their studies.
Quasi-Experimental Design Disadvantages
However, quasi-experimental design also comes with its share of challenges and disadvantages:
- Limited Control: Unlike controlled experiments, where researchers have full control over variables, quasi-experimental design lacks the same level of control. This limited control can result in confounding variables that make it difficult to establish causality.
- Threats to Internal Validity: Various threats to internal validity, such as selection bias, history effects, and maturation effects, can compromise the accuracy of causal inferences. Researchers must carefully address these threats to ensure the validity of their findings.
- Causality Inference Challenges: Establishing causality can be challenging in quasi-experimental design due to the absence of randomization and control. While you can make strong arguments for causality, it may not be as conclusive as in controlled experiments.
- Potential Confounding Variables: In a quasi-experimental design, it's often challenging to control for all possible confounding variables that may affect the dependent variable. This can lead to uncertainty in attributing changes solely to the independent variable.
Despite these disadvantages, quasi-experimental design remains a valuable research tool when used judiciously and with a keen awareness of its limitations. Researchers should carefully consider their research questions and the practical constraints they face before choosing this approach.
How to Conduct a Quasi-Experimental Study?
Conducting a Quasi-Experimental study requires careful planning and execution to ensure the validity of your research. Let's dive into the essential steps you need to follow when conducting such a study.
1. Define Research Questions and Objectives
The first step in any research endeavor is clearly defining your research questions and objectives. This involves identifying the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV) you want to study. What is the specific relationship you want to explore, and what do you aim to achieve with your research?
- Specify Your Research Questions : Start by formulating precise research questions that your study aims to answer. These questions should be clear, focused, and relevant to your field of study.
- Identify the Independent Variable: Define the variable you intend to manipulate or study in your research. Understand its significance in your study's context.
- Determine the Dependent Variable: Identify the outcome or response variable that will be affected by changes in the independent variable.
- Establish Hypotheses (If Applicable): If you have specific hypotheses about the relationship between the IV and DV, state them clearly. Hypotheses provide a framework for testing your research questions.
2. Select the Appropriate Quasi-Experimental Design
Choosing the right quasi-experimental design is crucial for achieving your research objectives. Select a design that aligns with your research questions and the available data. Consider factors such as the feasibility of implementing the design and the ethical considerations involved.
- Evaluate Your Research Goals: Assess your research questions and objectives to determine which type of quasi-experimental design is most suitable. Each design has its strengths and limitations, so choose one that aligns with your goals.
- Consider Ethical Constraints: Take into account any ethical concerns related to your research. Depending on your study's context, some designs may be more ethically sound than others.
- Assess Data Availability: Ensure you have access to the necessary data for your chosen design. Some designs may require extensive historical data, while others may rely on data collected during the study.
3. Identify and Recruit Participants
Selecting the right participants is a critical aspect of Quasi-Experimental research. The participants should represent the population you want to make inferences about, and you must address ethical considerations, including informed consent.
- Define Your Target Population: Determine the population that your study aims to generalize to. Your sample should be representative of this population.
- Recruitment Process: Develop a plan for recruiting participants. Depending on your design, you may need to reach out to specific groups or institutions.
- Informed Consent: Ensure that you obtain informed consent from participants. Clearly explain the nature of the study, potential risks, and their rights as participants.
4. Collect Data
Data collection is a crucial step in Quasi-Experimental research. You must adhere to a consistent and systematic process to gather relevant information before and after the intervention or treatment.
- Pre-Test Measures: If applicable, collect data before introducing the independent variable. Ensure that the pre-test measures are standardized and reliable.
- Post-Test Measures: After the intervention, collect post-test data using the same measures as the pre-test. This allows you to assess changes over time.
- Maintain Data Consistency: Ensure that data collection procedures are consistent across all participants and time points to minimize biases.
5. Analyze Data
Once you've collected your data, it's time to analyze it using appropriate statistical techniques . The choice of analysis depends on your research questions and the type of data you've gathered.
- Statistical Analysis : Use statistical software to analyze your data. Common techniques include t-tests , analysis of variance (ANOVA) , regression analysis , and more, depending on the design and variables.
- Control for Confounding Variables: Be aware of potential confounding variables and include them in your analysis as covariates to ensure accurate results.
Chi-Square Calculator :
t-Test Calculator :
6. Interpret Results
With the analysis complete, you can interpret the results to draw meaningful conclusions about the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
- Examine Effect Sizes: Assess the magnitude of the observed effects to determine their practical significance.
- Consider Significance Levels: Determine whether the observed results are statistically significant . Understand the p-values and their implications.
- Compare Findings to Hypotheses: Evaluate whether your findings support or reject your hypotheses and research questions.
7. Draw Conclusions
Based on your analysis and interpretation of the results, draw conclusions about the research questions and objectives you set out to address.
- Causal Inferences: Discuss the extent to which your study allows for causal inferences. Be transparent about the limitations and potential alternative explanations for your findings.
- Implications and Applications: Consider the practical implications of your research. How do your findings contribute to existing knowledge, and how can they be applied in real-world contexts?
- Future Research: Identify areas for future research and potential improvements in study design. Highlight any limitations or constraints that may have affected your study's outcomes.
By following these steps meticulously, you can conduct a rigorous and informative Quasi-Experimental study that advances knowledge in your field of research.
Quasi-Experimental Design Examples
Quasi-experimental design finds applications in a wide range of research domains, including business-related and market research scenarios. Below, we delve into some detailed examples of how this research methodology is employed in practice:
Example 1: Assessing the Impact of a New Marketing Strategy
Suppose a company wants to evaluate the effectiveness of a new marketing strategy aimed at boosting sales. Conducting a controlled experiment may not be feasible due to the company's existing customer base and the challenge of randomly assigning customers to different marketing approaches. In this scenario, a quasi-experimental design can be employed.
- Independent Variable: The new marketing strategy.
- Dependent Variable: Sales revenue.
- Design: The company could implement the new strategy for one group of customers while maintaining the existing strategy for another group. Both groups are selected based on similar demographics and purchase history , reducing selection bias. Pre-implementation data (sales records) can serve as the baseline, and post-implementation data can be collected to assess the strategy's impact.
Example 2: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Employee Training Programs
In the context of human resources and employee development, organizations often seek to evaluate the impact of training programs. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with random assignment may not be practical or ethical, as some employees may need specific training more than others. Instead, a quasi-experimental design can be employed.
- Independent Variable: Employee training programs.
- Dependent Variable: Employee performance metrics, such as productivity or quality of work.
- Design: The organization can offer training programs to employees who express interest or demonstrate specific needs, creating a self-selected treatment group. A comparable control group can consist of employees with similar job roles and qualifications who did not receive the training. Pre-training performance metrics can serve as the baseline, and post-training data can be collected to assess the impact of the training programs.
Example 3: Analyzing the Effects of a Tax Policy Change
In economics and public policy, researchers often examine the effects of tax policy changes on economic behavior. Conducting a controlled experiment in such cases is practically impossible. Therefore, a quasi-experimental design is commonly employed.
- Independent Variable: Tax policy changes (e.g., tax rate adjustments).
- Dependent Variable: Economic indicators, such as consumer spending or business investments.
- Design: Researchers can analyze data from different regions or jurisdictions where tax policy changes have been implemented. One region could represent the treatment group (with tax policy changes), while a similar region with no tax policy changes serves as the control group. By comparing economic data before and after the policy change in both groups, researchers can assess the impact of the tax policy changes.
These examples illustrate how quasi-experimental design can be applied in various research contexts, providing valuable insights into the effects of independent variables in real-world scenarios where controlled experiments are not feasible or ethical. By carefully selecting comparison groups and controlling for potential biases, researchers can draw meaningful conclusions and inform decision-making processes.
How to Publish Quasi-Experimental Research?
Publishing your Quasi-Experimental research findings is a crucial step in contributing to the academic community's knowledge. We'll explore the essential aspects of reporting and publishing your Quasi-Experimental research effectively.
Structuring Your Research Paper
When preparing your research paper, it's essential to adhere to a well-structured format to ensure clarity and comprehensibility. Here are key elements to include:
Title and Abstract
- Title: Craft a concise and informative title that reflects the essence of your study. It should capture the main research question or hypothesis.
- Abstract: Summarize your research in a structured abstract, including the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Ensure it provides a clear overview of your study.
Introduction
- Background and Rationale: Provide context for your study by discussing the research gap or problem your study addresses. Explain why your research is relevant and essential.
- Research Questions or Hypotheses: Clearly state your research questions or hypotheses and their significance.
Literature Review
- Review of Related Work: Discuss relevant literature that supports your research. Highlight studies with similar methodologies or findings and explain how your research fits within this context.
- Participants: Describe your study's participants, including their characteristics and how you recruited them.
- Quasi-Experimental Design: Explain your chosen design in detail, including the independent and dependent variables, procedures, and any control measures taken.
- Data Collection: Detail the data collection methods , instruments used, and any pre-test or post-test measures.
- Data Analysis: Describe the statistical techniques employed, including any control for confounding variables.
- Presentation of Findings: Present your results clearly, using tables, graphs, and descriptive statistics where appropriate. Include p-values and effect sizes, if applicable.
- Interpretation of Results: Discuss the implications of your findings and how they relate to your research questions or hypotheses.
- Interpretation and Implications: Analyze your results in the context of existing literature and theories. Discuss the practical implications of your findings.
- Limitations: Address the limitations of your study, including potential biases or threats to internal validity.
- Future Research: Suggest areas for future research and how your study contributes to the field.
Ethical Considerations in Reporting
Ethical reporting is paramount in Quasi-Experimental research. Ensure that you adhere to ethical standards, including:
- Informed Consent: Clearly state that informed consent was obtained from all participants, and describe the informed consent process.
- Protection of Participants: Explain how you protected the rights and well-being of your participants throughout the study.
- Confidentiality: Detail how you maintained privacy and anonymity, especially when presenting individual data.
- Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Declare any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the interpretation of your findings.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
When reporting your Quasi-Experimental research, watch out for common pitfalls that can diminish the quality and impact of your work:
- Overgeneralization: Be cautious not to overgeneralize your findings. Clearly state the limits of your study and the populations to which your results can be applied.
- Misinterpretation of Causality: Clearly articulate the limitations in inferring causality in Quasi-Experimental research. Avoid making strong causal claims unless supported by solid evidence.
- Ignoring Ethical Concerns: Ethical considerations are paramount. Failing to report on informed consent, ethical oversight, and participant protection can undermine the credibility of your study.
Guidelines for Transparent Reporting
To enhance the transparency and reproducibility of your Quasi-Experimental research, consider adhering to established reporting guidelines, such as:
- CONSORT Statement: If your study involves interventions or treatments, follow the CONSORT guidelines for transparent reporting of randomized controlled trials.
- STROBE Statement: For observational studies, the STROBE statement provides guidance on reporting essential elements.
- PRISMA Statement: If your research involves systematic reviews or meta-analyses, adhere to the PRISMA guidelines.
- Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs (TREND): TREND guidelines offer specific recommendations for transparently reporting non-randomized designs, including Quasi-Experimental research.
By following these reporting guidelines and maintaining the highest ethical standards, you can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field and ensure the credibility and impact of your Quasi-Experimental research findings.
Quasi-Experimental Design Challenges
Conducting a Quasi-Experimental study can be fraught with challenges that may impact the validity and reliability of your findings. We'll take a look at some common challenges and provide strategies on how you can address them effectively.
Selection Bias
Challenge: Selection bias occurs when non-randomized groups differ systematically in ways that affect the study's outcome. This bias can undermine the validity of your research, as it implies that the groups are not equivalent at the outset of the study.
Addressing Selection Bias:
- Matching: Employ matching techniques to create comparable treatment and control groups. Match participants based on relevant characteristics, such as age, gender, or prior performance, to balance the groups.
- Statistical Controls: Use statistical controls to account for differences between groups. Include covariates in your analysis to adjust for potential biases.
- Sensitivity Analysis: Conduct sensitivity analyses to assess how vulnerable your results are to selection bias. Explore different scenarios to understand the impact of potential bias on your conclusions.
History Effects
Challenge: History effects refer to external events or changes over time that influence the study's results. These external factors can confound your research by introducing variables you did not account for.
Addressing History Effects:
- Collect Historical Data: Gather extensive historical data to understand trends and patterns that might affect your study. By having a comprehensive historical context, you can better identify and account for historical effects.
- Control Groups: Include control groups whenever possible. By comparing the treatment group's results to those of a control group, you can account for external influences that affect both groups equally.
- Time Series Analysis : If applicable, use time series analysis to detect and account for temporal trends. This method helps differentiate between the effects of the independent variable and external events.
Maturation Effects
Challenge: Maturation effects occur when participants naturally change or develop throughout the study, independent of the intervention. These changes can confound your results, making it challenging to attribute observed effects solely to the independent variable.
Addressing Maturation Effects:
- Randomization: If possible, use randomization to distribute maturation effects evenly across treatment and control groups. Random assignment minimizes the impact of maturation as a confounding variable.
- Matched Pairs: If randomization is not feasible, employ matched pairs or statistical controls to ensure that both groups experience similar maturation effects.
- Shorter Time Frames: Limit the duration of your study to reduce the likelihood of significant maturation effects. Shorter studies are less susceptible to long-term maturation.
Regression to the Mean
Challenge: Regression to the mean is the tendency for extreme scores on a variable to move closer to the mean upon retesting. This can create the illusion of an intervention's effectiveness when, in reality, it's a natural statistical phenomenon.
Addressing Regression to the Mean:
- Use Control Groups: Include control groups in your study to provide a baseline for comparison. This helps differentiate genuine intervention effects from regression to the mean.
- Multiple Data Points: Collect numerous data points to identify patterns and trends. If extreme scores regress to the mean in subsequent measurements, it may be indicative of regression to the mean rather than a true intervention effect.
- Statistical Analysis: Employ statistical techniques that account for regression to the mean when analyzing your data. Techniques like analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) can help control for baseline differences.
Attrition and Mortality
Challenge: Attrition refers to the loss of participants over the course of your study, while mortality is the permanent loss of participants. High attrition rates can introduce biases and affect the representativeness of your sample.
Addressing Attrition and Mortality:
- Careful Participant Selection: Select participants who are likely to remain engaged throughout the study. Consider factors that may lead to attrition, such as participant motivation and commitment.
- Incentives: Provide incentives or compensation to participants to encourage their continued participation.
- Follow-Up Strategies: Implement effective follow-up strategies to reduce attrition. Regular communication and reminders can help keep participants engaged.
- Sensitivity Analysis: Conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of attrition and mortality on your results. Compare the characteristics of participants who dropped out with those who completed the study.
Testing Effects
Challenge: Testing effects occur when the mere act of testing or assessing participants affects their subsequent performance. This phenomenon can lead to changes in the dependent variable that are unrelated to the independent variable.
Addressing Testing Effects:
- Counterbalance Testing: If possible, counterbalance the order of tests or assessments between treatment and control groups. This helps distribute the testing effects evenly across groups.
- Control Groups: Include control groups subjected to the same testing or assessment procedures as the treatment group. By comparing the two groups, you can determine whether testing effects have influenced the results.
- Minimize Testing Frequency: Limit the frequency of testing or assessments to reduce the likelihood of testing effects. Conducting fewer assessments can mitigate the impact of repeated testing on participants.
By proactively addressing these common challenges, you can enhance the validity and reliability of your Quasi-Experimental study, making your findings more robust and trustworthy.
Conclusion for Quasi-Expermental Design
Quasi-experimental design is a powerful tool that helps researchers investigate cause-and-effect relationships in real-world situations where strict control is not always possible. By understanding the key concepts, types of designs, and how to address challenges, you can conduct robust research and contribute valuable insights to your field. Remember, quasi-experimental design bridges the gap between controlled experiments and purely observational studies, making it an essential approach in various fields, from business and market research to public policy and beyond. So, whether you're a researcher, student, or decision-maker, the knowledge of quasi-experimental design empowers you to make informed choices and drive positive changes in the world.
How to Supercharge Quasi-Experimental Design with Real-Time Insights?
Introducing Appinio , the real-time market research platform that transforms the world of quasi-experimental design. Imagine having the power to conduct your own market research in minutes, obtaining actionable insights that fuel your data-driven decisions. Appinio takes care of the research and tech complexities, freeing you to focus on what truly matters for your business.
Here's why Appinio stands out:
- Lightning-Fast Insights: From formulating questions to uncovering insights, Appinio delivers results in minutes, ensuring you get the answers you need when you need them.
- No Research Degree Required: Our intuitive platform is designed for everyone, eliminating the need for a PhD in research. Anyone can dive in and start harnessing the power of real-time consumer insights.
- Global Reach, Local Expertise: With access to over 90 countries and the ability to define precise target groups based on 1200+ characteristics, you can conduct Quasi-Experimental research on a global scale while maintaining a local touch.
Get free access to the platform!
Join the loop 💌
Be the first to hear about new updates, product news, and data insights. We'll send it all straight to your inbox.
Get the latest market research news straight to your inbox! 💌
Wait, there's more
19.09.2024 | 8min read
Track Your Customer Retention & Brand Metrics for Post-Holiday Success
16.09.2024 | 10min read
Creative Checkup – Optimize Advertising Slogans & Creatives for ROI
03.09.2024 | 8min read
Get your brand Holiday Ready: 4 Essential Steps to Smash your Q4
- [email protected]
- +91 9884350006
- +1-972-502-9262
- Discovery & Intelligence Services
Publication Support Service
Journal Selection
Pre-Submission Peer Review
Journal Submission
Response To Reviewers
Poster Creation & Design
Formatting Service
Artwork Editing Service
Plagiarism service
Video Abstract
Editing and Translation Services
Scientific Editing
Manuscript Editing
Book Editing
Post Editing
Thesis Editing
Translation with Editing
Editing and Translation Service
Research Services
Medical Writing
Scientific Writing
Systematic Review
Meta Analysis
Original Research Article
Literature Review
Grant writing services
Biostatistical Programming
Experimental Design
Physician Writing Service
Case Report Writing
Patient Education Materials
Literature Search & Citation
Physician Manuscript
Physician Training
Clinical Literature Review
Customized Writing
Research Proposal
Patient Education Content
Statistical Analyses
Biostatistics
Meta-analyses
Bioinformatics
- Data Collection
AI & ML Solutions
Health Economics
Patient journey & Insights -ML
Segmentation
Predictive Anlaysis
Algorithm Development
Interpretation & Visualisation
AI and ML Services
Research Impact
Graphical Abstract
Poster Presentation
Scientific News Report
Simplified Abstract
Medical & Scientific Communication
Leadership Content
Marketing Communication
- Medico Legal Services
- Educational Content
- Our Quality
- Get in Touch
Quasi-Experimental Design Disadvantages
Quasi-experimental research designs lack full randomization and control, making them different from accurate experimental designs. While quasi-experimental designs have their benefits, they also come with several disadvantages that researchers should consider:
- Lack of Randomization: Quasi-experimental designs do not involve randomly assigning participants to treatment and control groups. This introduces the potential for selection biases, as the groups may differ in ways that could affect the outcomes peer review being studied. The lack of randomization limits the ability to make causal inferences with certainty.
- Internal Validity Concerns: Quasi-experimental designs are susceptible to threats to internal validity, such as history, maturation, selection bias, and regression to the mean. Without random assignment, it becomes challenging to attribute the observed effects solely to the treatment or intervention being studied.
- Limited Control over Extraneous Variables: A manuscript review of experimental designs often lacks control over extraneous variables that can influence the outcomes. This makes it difficult to isolate the effects of the independent variable and increases the risk of confounding factors affecting the results.
- Ethical Constraints: Quasi-experimental designs may face ethical constraints in terms of assigning participants to different groups or manipulating variables. Researchers may be limited in their ability to implement specific interventions or treatments due to ethical concerns, which can impact the validity of manuscript examples and the generalizability of the findings.
- Generalizability Issues: The findings from quasi-experimental designs may have limited generalizability beyond the specific context and sample used in the case study . The lack of randomization and control over extraneous variables can make applying the findings to broader populations or settings challenging.
- Limited Causal Inferences: Establishing causal relationships can be difficult due to the inherent limitations of quasi-experimental designs. While quasi-experiments can provide valuable insights and suggest associations, they often fall short of providing strong evidence for causal claims.
Researchers should carefully consider these disadvantages when deciding to use a quasi-experimental design and take appropriate measures to mitigate potential biases and threats to validity. Supplementing quasi-experimental designs with other research methods, such as pre-and post-test measures or comparison groups, can help strengthen the validity of the findings.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while quasi-experimental designs offer certain advantages in terms of their feasibility and applicability in real-world settings, they also come with notable disadvantages. The lack of randomization and limited control over extraneous variables pose significant challenges to establishing causal relationships and ensuring internal validity. Researchers must exercise caution when interpreting the findings derived from quasi-experimental designs. Ultimately, quasi-experimental designs can provide valuable insights into complex phenomena when true experimental designs are not feasible or ethical. However, Purbica researchers should carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages, consider the specific research question and context, and employ appropriate measures to minimize biases and enhance the validity of their findings.
Research your Services with our experts
Delivered on-time or your money back
Give yourself the academic edge today
Each order includes
- On-time delivery or your money back
- A fully qualified writer in your subject
- In-depth proofreading by our Quality Control Team
- 100% confidentiality, the work is never re-sold or published
- Standard 7-day amendment period
- A paper written to the standard ordered
- A detailed plagiarism report
- A comprehensive quality report
WhatsApp us
Definition of Quasi Experimental Design
Quasi Experimental Design is a research method used in social sciences and other fields to study cause-and-effect relationships between different variables. It is called “quasi” experimental because it resembles an experimental design but lacks some key elements, such as random assignment.
Characteristics of Quasi Experimental Design
- Comparison Groups: Quasi experimental design involves at least two groups that are compared to determine the impact of an independent variable on the dependent variable. These groups can be pre-existing or created by the researchers, but they are not randomly assigned.
- Independent Variable: The researcher manipulates or selects an independent variable to observe its effect on the dependent variable.
- Dependent Variable: The variable that is measured or observed to determine changes or differences caused by the independent variable.
- Lack of Randomization: Unlike experimental designs, quasi experimental designs do not involve random assignment of participants to groups. Instead, participants are assigned based on criteria such as convenience, availability, or pre-existing characteristics.
- Real-World Settings: Quasi experimental designs are often conducted in real-world settings, such as schools, communities, or organizations, where it may be difficult or impractical to control all variables.
- Data Collection: Researchers collect data using various methods, such as surveys, observations, or existing records, to evaluate the impact of the independent variable.
- Data Analysis: Statistical techniques, such as regression analysis or analysis of variance (ANOVA), are commonly employed to analyze the data and determine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Advantages and Limitations of Quasi Experimental Design
Advantages:
- Allows researchers to study cause-and-effect relationships that may be unethical or impractical to investigate through experimental designs.
- Provides a middle ground between experimental and purely observational designs.
- Offers high external validity as it can be conducted in real-world settings.
Limitations:
- Lack of randomization limits the ability to establish strong causal relationships.
- Potential for selection bias, as participants are not randomly assigned.
- Difficulty in ruling out alternative explanations for observed results.
- May be less precise due to the absence of control over all variables.
Quasi-Experiment: Understand What It Is, Types & Examples
Discover the concept of quasi-experiment, its various types, real-world examples, and how QuestionPro aids in conducting these studies.
Quasi-experimental research designs have gained significant recognition in the scientific community due to their unique ability to study cause-and-effect relationships in real-world settings. Unlike true experiments, quasi-experiment lack random assignment of participants to groups, making them more practical and ethical in certain situations. In this article, we will delve into the concept, applications, and advantages of quasi-experiments, shedding light on their relevance and significance in the scientific realm.
What Is A Quasi-Experiment Research Design?
Quasi-experimental research designs are research methodologies that resemble true experiments but lack the randomized assignment of participants to groups. In a true experiment, researchers randomly assign participants to either an experimental group or a control group, allowing for a comparison of the effects of an independent variable on the dependent variable. However, in quasi-experiments, this random assignment is often not possible or ethically permissible, leading to the adoption of alternative strategies.
Types Of Quasi-Experimental Designs
There are several types of quasi-experiment designs to study causal relationships in specific contexts. Some common types include:
Non-Equivalent Groups Design
This design involves selecting pre-existing groups that differ in some key characteristics and comparing their responses to the independent variable. Although the researcher does not randomly assign the groups, they can still examine the effects of the independent variable.
Regression Discontinuity
This design utilizes a cutoff point or threshold to determine which participants receive the treatment or intervention. It assumes that participants on either side of the cutoff are similar in all other aspects, except for their exposure to the independent variable.
Interrupted Time Series Design
This design involves measuring the dependent variable multiple times before and after the introduction of an intervention or treatment. By comparing the trends in the dependent variable, researchers can infer the impact of the intervention.
Natural Experiments
Natural experiments take advantage of naturally occurring events or circumstances that mimic the random assignment found in true experiments. Participants are exposed to different conditions in situations identified by researchers without any manipulation from them.
Application of the Quasi-Experiment Design
Quasi-experimental research designs find applications in various fields, ranging from education to public health and beyond. One significant advantage of quasi-experiments is their feasibility in real-world settings where randomization is not always possible or ethical.
Ethical Reasons
Ethical concerns often arise in research when randomizing participants to different groups could potentially deny individuals access to beneficial treatments or interventions. In such cases, quasi-experimental designs provide an ethical alternative, allowing researchers to study the impact of interventions without depriving anyone of potential benefits.
Examples Of Quasi-Experimental Design
Let’s explore a few examples of quasi-experimental designs to understand their application in different contexts.
Design Of Non-Equivalent Groups
Determining the effectiveness of math apps in supplementing math classes.
Imagine a study aiming to determine the effectiveness of math apps in supplementing traditional math classes in a school. Randomly assigning students to different groups might be impractical or disrupt the existing classroom structure. Instead, researchers can select two comparable classes, one receiving the math app intervention and the other continuing with traditional teaching methods. By comparing the performance of the two groups, researchers can draw conclusions about the app’s effectiveness.
To conduct a quasi-experiment study like the one mentioned above, researchers can utilize QuestionPro , an advanced research platform that offers comprehensive survey and data analysis tools. With QuestionPro, researchers can design surveys to collect data, analyze results, and gain valuable insights for their quasi-experimental research.
How QuestionPro Helps In Quasi-Experimental Research?
QuestionPro’s powerful features, such as random assignment of participants, survey branching, and data visualization, enable researchers to efficiently conduct and analyze quasi-experimental studies. The platform provides a user-friendly interface and robust reporting capabilities, empowering researchers to gather data, explore relationships, and draw meaningful conclusions.
In some cases, researchers can leverage natural experiments to examine causal relationships.
Determining The Effectiveness Of Teaching Modern Leadership Techniques In Start-Up Businesses
Consider a study evaluating the effectiveness of teaching modern leadership techniques in start-up businesses. Instead of artificially assigning businesses to different groups, researchers can observe those that naturally adopt modern leadership techniques and compare their outcomes to those of businesses that have not implemented such practices.
Advantages and Disadvantages Of The Quasi-Experimental Design
Quasi-experimental designs offer several advantages over true experiments, making them valuable tools in research:
- Scope of the research : Quasi-experiments allow researchers to study cause-and-effect relationships in real-world settings, providing valuable insights into complex phenomena that may be challenging to replicate in a controlled laboratory environment.
- Regression Discontinuity : Researchers can utilize regression discontinuity to evaluate the effects of interventions or treatments when random assignment is not feasible. This design leverages existing data and naturally occurring thresholds to draw causal inferences.
Disadvantage
Lack of random assignment : Quasi-experimental designs lack the random assignment of participants, which introduces the possibility of confounding variables affecting the results. Researchers must carefully consider potential alternative explanations for observed effects.
What Are The Different Quasi-Experimental Study Designs?
Quasi-experimental designs encompass various approaches, including nonequivalent group designs, interrupted time series designs, and natural experiments. Each design offers unique advantages and limitations, providing researchers with versatile tools to explore causal relationships in different contexts.
Example Of The Natural Experiment Approach
Researchers interested in studying the impact of a public health campaign aimed at reducing smoking rates may take advantage of a natural experiment. By comparing smoking rates in a region that has implemented the campaign to a similar region that has not, researchers can examine the effectiveness of the intervention.
Differences Between Quasi-Experiments And True Experiments
Quasi-experiments and true experiments differ primarily in their ability to randomly assign participants to groups. While true experiments provide a higher level of control, quasi-experiments offer practical and ethical alternatives in situations where randomization is not feasible or desirable.
Example Comparing A True Experiment And Quasi-Experiment
In a true experiment investigating the effects of a new medication on a specific condition, researchers would randomly assign participants to either the experimental group, which receives the medication, or the control group, which receives a placebo. In a quasi-experiment, researchers might instead compare patients who voluntarily choose to take the medication to those who do not, examining the differences in outcomes between the two groups.
Quasi-Experiment: A Quick Wrap-Up
Quasi-experimental research designs play a vital role in scientific inquiry by allowing researchers to investigate cause-and-effect relationships in real-world settings. These designs offer practical and ethical alternatives to true experiments, making them valuable tools in various fields of study. With their versatility and applicability, quasi-experimental designs continue to contribute to our understanding of complex phenomena.
Turn Your Data Into Easy-To-Understand And Dynamic Stories
When you wish to explain any complex data, it’s always advised to break it down into simpler visuals or stories. This is where Mind the Graph comes in. It is a platform that helps researchers and scientists to turn their data into easy-to-understand and dynamic stories, helping the audience understand the concepts better. Sign Up now to explore the library of scientific infographics.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.
Sign Up for Free
Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures
no credit card required
Content tags
- Privacy Policy
Home » Quasi-Experimental Research Design – Types, Methods
Quasi-Experimental Research Design – Types, Methods
Table of Contents
Quasi-Experimental Design
Quasi-experimental design is a research method that seeks to evaluate the causal relationships between variables, but without the full control over the independent variable(s) that is available in a true experimental design.
In a quasi-experimental design, the researcher uses an existing group of participants that is not randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. Instead, the groups are selected based on pre-existing characteristics or conditions, such as age, gender, or the presence of a certain medical condition.
Types of Quasi-Experimental Design
There are several types of quasi-experimental designs that researchers use to study causal relationships between variables. Here are some of the most common types:
Non-Equivalent Control Group Design
This design involves selecting two groups of participants that are similar in every way except for the independent variable(s) that the researcher is testing. One group receives the treatment or intervention being studied, while the other group does not. The two groups are then compared to see if there are any significant differences in the outcomes.
Interrupted Time-Series Design
This design involves collecting data on the dependent variable(s) over a period of time, both before and after an intervention or event. The researcher can then determine whether there was a significant change in the dependent variable(s) following the intervention or event.
Pretest-Posttest Design
This design involves measuring the dependent variable(s) before and after an intervention or event, but without a control group. This design can be useful for determining whether the intervention or event had an effect, but it does not allow for control over other factors that may have influenced the outcomes.
Regression Discontinuity Design
This design involves selecting participants based on a specific cutoff point on a continuous variable, such as a test score. Participants on either side of the cutoff point are then compared to determine whether the intervention or event had an effect.
Natural Experiments
This design involves studying the effects of an intervention or event that occurs naturally, without the researcher’s intervention. For example, a researcher might study the effects of a new law or policy that affects certain groups of people. This design is useful when true experiments are not feasible or ethical.
Data Analysis Methods
Here are some data analysis methods that are commonly used in quasi-experimental designs:
Descriptive Statistics
This method involves summarizing the data collected during a study using measures such as mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation. Descriptive statistics can help researchers identify trends or patterns in the data, and can also be useful for identifying outliers or anomalies.
Inferential Statistics
This method involves using statistical tests to determine whether the results of a study are statistically significant. Inferential statistics can help researchers make generalizations about a population based on the sample data collected during the study. Common statistical tests used in quasi-experimental designs include t-tests, ANOVA, and regression analysis.
Propensity Score Matching
This method is used to reduce bias in quasi-experimental designs by matching participants in the intervention group with participants in the control group who have similar characteristics. This can help to reduce the impact of confounding variables that may affect the study’s results.
Difference-in-differences Analysis
This method is used to compare the difference in outcomes between two groups over time. Researchers can use this method to determine whether a particular intervention has had an impact on the target population over time.
Interrupted Time Series Analysis
This method is used to examine the impact of an intervention or treatment over time by comparing data collected before and after the intervention or treatment. This method can help researchers determine whether an intervention had a significant impact on the target population.
Regression Discontinuity Analysis
This method is used to compare the outcomes of participants who fall on either side of a predetermined cutoff point. This method can help researchers determine whether an intervention had a significant impact on the target population.
Steps in Quasi-Experimental Design
Here are the general steps involved in conducting a quasi-experimental design:
- Identify the research question: Determine the research question and the variables that will be investigated.
- Choose the design: Choose the appropriate quasi-experimental design to address the research question. Examples include the pretest-posttest design, non-equivalent control group design, regression discontinuity design, and interrupted time series design.
- Select the participants: Select the participants who will be included in the study. Participants should be selected based on specific criteria relevant to the research question.
- Measure the variables: Measure the variables that are relevant to the research question. This may involve using surveys, questionnaires, tests, or other measures.
- Implement the intervention or treatment: Implement the intervention or treatment to the participants in the intervention group. This may involve training, education, counseling, or other interventions.
- Collect data: Collect data on the dependent variable(s) before and after the intervention. Data collection may also include collecting data on other variables that may impact the dependent variable(s).
- Analyze the data: Analyze the data collected to determine whether the intervention had a significant impact on the dependent variable(s).
- Draw conclusions: Draw conclusions about the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. If the results suggest a causal relationship, then appropriate recommendations may be made based on the findings.
Quasi-Experimental Design Examples
Here are some examples of real-time quasi-experimental designs:
- Evaluating the impact of a new teaching method: In this study, a group of students are taught using a new teaching method, while another group is taught using the traditional method. The test scores of both groups are compared before and after the intervention to determine whether the new teaching method had a significant impact on student performance.
- Assessing the effectiveness of a public health campaign: In this study, a public health campaign is launched to promote healthy eating habits among a targeted population. The behavior of the population is compared before and after the campaign to determine whether the intervention had a significant impact on the target behavior.
- Examining the impact of a new medication: In this study, a group of patients is given a new medication, while another group is given a placebo. The outcomes of both groups are compared to determine whether the new medication had a significant impact on the targeted health condition.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of a job training program : In this study, a group of unemployed individuals is enrolled in a job training program, while another group is not enrolled in any program. The employment rates of both groups are compared before and after the intervention to determine whether the training program had a significant impact on the employment rates of the participants.
- Assessing the impact of a new policy : In this study, a new policy is implemented in a particular area, while another area does not have the new policy. The outcomes of both areas are compared before and after the intervention to determine whether the new policy had a significant impact on the targeted behavior or outcome.
Applications of Quasi-Experimental Design
Here are some applications of quasi-experimental design:
- Educational research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions, such as new teaching methods, technology-based learning, or educational policies.
- Health research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the effectiveness of health interventions, such as new medications, public health campaigns, or health policies.
- Social science research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to investigate the impact of social interventions, such as job training programs, welfare policies, or criminal justice programs.
- Business research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the impact of business interventions, such as marketing campaigns, new products, or pricing strategies.
- Environmental research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the impact of environmental interventions, such as conservation programs, pollution control policies, or renewable energy initiatives.
When to use Quasi-Experimental Design
Here are some situations where quasi-experimental designs may be appropriate:
- When the research question involves investigating the effectiveness of an intervention, policy, or program : In situations where it is not feasible or ethical to randomly assign participants to intervention and control groups, quasi-experimental designs can be used to evaluate the impact of the intervention on the targeted outcome.
- When the sample size is small: In situations where the sample size is small, it may be difficult to randomly assign participants to intervention and control groups. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to investigate the impact of an intervention without requiring a large sample size.
- When the research question involves investigating a naturally occurring event : In some situations, researchers may be interested in investigating the impact of a naturally occurring event, such as a natural disaster or a major policy change. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to evaluate the impact of the event on the targeted outcome.
- When the research question involves investigating a long-term intervention: In situations where the intervention or program is long-term, it may be difficult to randomly assign participants to intervention and control groups for the entire duration of the intervention. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to evaluate the impact of the intervention over time.
- When the research question involves investigating the impact of a variable that cannot be manipulated : In some situations, it may not be possible or ethical to manipulate a variable of interest. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to investigate the relationship between the variable and the targeted outcome.
Purpose of Quasi-Experimental Design
The purpose of quasi-experimental design is to investigate the causal relationship between two or more variables when it is not feasible or ethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Quasi-experimental designs attempt to emulate the randomized control trial by mimicking the control group and the intervention group as much as possible.
The key purpose of quasi-experimental design is to evaluate the impact of an intervention, policy, or program on a targeted outcome while controlling for potential confounding factors that may affect the outcome. Quasi-experimental designs aim to answer questions such as: Did the intervention cause the change in the outcome? Would the outcome have changed without the intervention? And was the intervention effective in achieving its intended goals?
Quasi-experimental designs are useful in situations where randomized controlled trials are not feasible or ethical. They provide researchers with an alternative method to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, policies, and programs in real-life settings. Quasi-experimental designs can also help inform policy and practice by providing valuable insights into the causal relationships between variables.
Overall, the purpose of quasi-experimental design is to provide a rigorous method for evaluating the impact of interventions, policies, and programs while controlling for potential confounding factors that may affect the outcome.
Advantages of Quasi-Experimental Design
Quasi-experimental designs have several advantages over other research designs, such as:
- Greater external validity : Quasi-experimental designs are more likely to have greater external validity than laboratory experiments because they are conducted in naturalistic settings. This means that the results are more likely to generalize to real-world situations.
- Ethical considerations: Quasi-experimental designs often involve naturally occurring events, such as natural disasters or policy changes. This means that researchers do not need to manipulate variables, which can raise ethical concerns.
- More practical: Quasi-experimental designs are often more practical than experimental designs because they are less expensive and easier to conduct. They can also be used to evaluate programs or policies that have already been implemented, which can save time and resources.
- No random assignment: Quasi-experimental designs do not require random assignment, which can be difficult or impossible in some cases, such as when studying the effects of a natural disaster. This means that researchers can still make causal inferences, although they must use statistical techniques to control for potential confounding variables.
- Greater generalizability : Quasi-experimental designs are often more generalizable than experimental designs because they include a wider range of participants and conditions. This can make the results more applicable to different populations and settings.
Limitations of Quasi-Experimental Design
There are several limitations associated with quasi-experimental designs, which include:
- Lack of Randomization: Quasi-experimental designs do not involve randomization of participants into groups, which means that the groups being studied may differ in important ways that could affect the outcome of the study. This can lead to problems with internal validity and limit the ability to make causal inferences.
- Selection Bias: Quasi-experimental designs may suffer from selection bias because participants are not randomly assigned to groups. Participants may self-select into groups or be assigned based on pre-existing characteristics, which may introduce bias into the study.
- History and Maturation: Quasi-experimental designs are susceptible to history and maturation effects, where the passage of time or other events may influence the outcome of the study.
- Lack of Control: Quasi-experimental designs may lack control over extraneous variables that could influence the outcome of the study. This can limit the ability to draw causal inferences from the study.
- Limited Generalizability: Quasi-experimental designs may have limited generalizability because the results may only apply to the specific population and context being studied.
About the author
Muhammad Hassan
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
You may also like
Descriptive Research Design – Types, Methods and...
Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide
One-to-One Interview – Methods and Guide
Applied Research – Types, Methods and Examples
Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types...
Qualitative Research Methods
Research Methodologies Guide
- Action Research
- Bibliometrics
- Case Studies
- Content Analysis
- Digital Scholarship This link opens in a new window
- Documentary
- Ethnography
- Focus Groups
- Grounded Theory
- Life Histories/Autobiographies
- Longitudinal
- Participant Observation
- Qualitative Research (General)
Quasi-Experimental Design
- Usability Studies
Quasi-Experimental Design is a unique research methodology because it is characterized by what is lacks. For example, Abraham & MacDonald (2011) state:
" Quasi-experimental research is similar to experimental research in that there is manipulation of an independent variable. It differs from experimental research because either there is no control group, no random selection, no random assignment, and/or no active manipulation. "
This type of research is often performed in cases where a control group cannot be created or random selection cannot be performed. This is often the case in certain medical and psychological studies.
For more information on quasi-experimental design, review the resources below:
Where to Start
Below are listed a few tools and online guides that can help you start your Quasi-experimental research. These include free online resources and resources available only through ISU Library.
- Quasi-Experimental Research Designs by Bruce A. Thyer This pocket guide describes the logic, design, and conduct of the range of quasi-experimental designs, encompassing pre-experiments, quasi-experiments making use of a control or comparison group, and time-series designs. An introductory chapter describes the valuable role these types of studies have played in social work, from the 1930s to the present. Subsequent chapters delve into each design type's major features, the kinds of questions it is capable of answering, and its strengths and limitations.
- Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research by Donald T. Campbell; Julian C. Stanley. Call Number: Q175 C152e Written 1967 but still used heavily today, this book examines research designs for experimental and quasi-experimental research, with examples and judgments about each design's validity.
Online Resources
- Quasi-Experimental Design From the Web Center for Social Research Methods, this is a very good overview of quasi-experimental design.
- Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research From Colorado State University.
- Quasi-experimental design--Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia can be a useful place to start your research- check the citations at the bottom of the article for more information.
- << Previous: Qualitative Research (General)
- Next: Sampling >>
- Last Updated: Sep 11, 2024 11:05 AM
- URL: https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/researchmethods
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- J Am Med Inform Assoc
- v.13(1); Jan-Feb 2006
The Use and Interpretation of Quasi-Experimental Studies in Medical Informatics
Associated data.
Quasi-experimental study designs, often described as nonrandomized, pre-post intervention studies, are common in the medical informatics literature. Yet little has been written about the benefits and limitations of the quasi-experimental approach as applied to informatics studies. This paper outlines a relative hierarchy and nomenclature of quasi-experimental study designs that is applicable to medical informatics intervention studies. In addition, the authors performed a systematic review of two medical informatics journals, the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) and the International Journal of Medical Informatics (IJMI), to determine the number of quasi-experimental studies published and how the studies are classified on the above-mentioned relative hierarchy. They hope that future medical informatics studies will implement higher level quasi-experimental study designs that yield more convincing evidence for causal links between medical informatics interventions and outcomes.
Quasi-experimental studies encompass a broad range of nonrandomized intervention studies. These designs are frequently used when it is not logistically feasible or ethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial. Examples of quasi-experimental studies follow. As one example of a quasi-experimental study, a hospital introduces a new order-entry system and wishes to study the impact of this intervention on the number of medication-related adverse events before and after the intervention. As another example, an informatics technology group is introducing a pharmacy order-entry system aimed at decreasing pharmacy costs. The intervention is implemented and pharmacy costs before and after the intervention are measured.
In medical informatics, the quasi-experimental, sometimes called the pre-post intervention, design often is used to evaluate the benefits of specific interventions. The increasing capacity of health care institutions to collect routine clinical data has led to the growing use of quasi-experimental study designs in the field of medical informatics as well as in other medical disciplines. However, little is written about these study designs in the medical literature or in traditional epidemiology textbooks. 1 , 2 , 3 In contrast, the social sciences literature is replete with examples of ways to implement and improve quasi-experimental studies. 4 , 5 , 6
In this paper, we review the different pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study designs, their nomenclature, and the relative hierarchy of these designs with respect to their ability to establish causal associations between an intervention and an outcome. The example of a pharmacy order-entry system aimed at decreasing pharmacy costs will be used throughout this article to illustrate the different quasi-experimental designs. We discuss limitations of quasi-experimental designs and offer methods to improve them. We also perform a systematic review of four years of publications from two informatics journals to determine the number of quasi-experimental studies, classify these studies into their application domains, determine whether the potential limitations of quasi-experimental studies were acknowledged by the authors, and place these studies into the above-mentioned relative hierarchy.
The authors reviewed articles and book chapters on the design of quasi-experimental studies. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Most of the reviewed articles referenced two textbooks that were then reviewed in depth. 4 , 6
Key advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experimental studies, as they pertain to the study of medical informatics, were identified. The potential methodological flaws of quasi-experimental medical informatics studies, which have the potential to introduce bias, were also identified. In addition, a summary table outlining a relative hierarchy and nomenclature of quasi-experimental study designs is described. In general, the higher the design is in the hierarchy, the greater the internal validity that the study traditionally possesses because the evidence of the potential causation between the intervention and the outcome is strengthened. 4
We then performed a systematic review of four years of publications from two informatics journals. First, we determined the number of quasi-experimental studies. We then classified these studies on the above-mentioned hierarchy. We also classified the quasi-experimental studies according to their application domain. The categories of application domains employed were based on categorization used by Yearbooks of Medical Informatics 1992–2005 and were similar to the categories of application domains employed by Annual Symposiums of the American Medical Informatics Association. 11 The categories were (1) health and clinical management; (2) patient records; (3) health information systems; (4) medical signal processing and biomedical imaging; (5) decision support, knowledge representation, and management; (6) education and consumer informatics; and (7) bioinformatics. Because the quasi-experimental study design has recognized limitations, we sought to determine whether authors acknowledged the potential limitations of this design. Examples of acknowledgment included mention of lack of randomization, the potential for regression to the mean, the presence of temporal confounders and the mention of another design that would have more internal validity.
All original scientific manuscripts published between January 2000 and December 2003 in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) and the International Journal of Medical Informatics (IJMI) were reviewed. One author (ADH) reviewed all the papers to identify the number of quasi-experimental studies. Other authors (ADH, JCM, JF) then independently reviewed all the studies identified as quasi-experimental. The three authors then convened as a group to resolve any disagreements in study classification, application domain, and acknowledgment of limitations.
Results and Discussion
What is a quasi-experiment.
Quasi-experiments are studies that aim to evaluate interventions but that do not use randomization. Similar to randomized trials, quasi-experiments aim to demonstrate causality between an intervention and an outcome. Quasi-experimental studies can use both preintervention and postintervention measurements as well as nonrandomly selected control groups.
Using this basic definition, it is evident that many published studies in medical informatics utilize the quasi-experimental design. Although the randomized controlled trial is generally considered to have the highest level of credibility with regard to assessing causality, in medical informatics, researchers often choose not to randomize the intervention for one or more reasons: (1) ethical considerations, (2) difficulty of randomizing subjects, (3) difficulty to randomize by locations (e.g., by wards), (4) small available sample size. Each of these reasons is discussed below.
Ethical considerations typically will not allow random withholding of an intervention with known efficacy. Thus, if the efficacy of an intervention has not been established, a randomized controlled trial is the design of choice to determine efficacy. But if the intervention under study incorporates an accepted, well-established therapeutic intervention, or if the intervention has either questionable efficacy or safety based on previously conducted studies, then the ethical issues of randomizing patients are sometimes raised. In the area of medical informatics, it is often believed prior to an implementation that an informatics intervention will likely be beneficial and thus medical informaticians and hospital administrators are often reluctant to randomize medical informatics interventions. In addition, there is often pressure to implement the intervention quickly because of its believed efficacy, thus not allowing researchers sufficient time to plan a randomized trial.
For medical informatics interventions, it is often difficult to randomize the intervention to individual patients or to individual informatics users. So while this randomization is technically possible, it is underused and thus compromises the eventual strength of concluding that an informatics intervention resulted in an outcome. For example, randomly allowing only half of medical residents to use pharmacy order-entry software at a tertiary care hospital is a scenario that hospital administrators and informatics users may not agree to for numerous reasons.
Similarly, informatics interventions often cannot be randomized to individual locations. Using the pharmacy order-entry system example, it may be difficult to randomize use of the system to only certain locations in a hospital or portions of certain locations. For example, if the pharmacy order-entry system involves an educational component, then people may apply the knowledge learned to nonintervention wards, thereby potentially masking the true effect of the intervention. When a design using randomized locations is employed successfully, the locations may be different in other respects (confounding variables), and this further complicates the analysis and interpretation.
In situations where it is known that only a small sample size will be available to test the efficacy of an intervention, randomization may not be a viable option. Randomization is beneficial because on average it tends to evenly distribute both known and unknown confounding variables between the intervention and control group. However, when the sample size is small, randomization may not adequately accomplish this balance. Thus, alternative design and analytical methods are often used in place of randomization when only small sample sizes are available.
What Are the Threats to Establishing Causality When Using Quasi-experimental Designs in Medical Informatics?
The lack of random assignment is the major weakness of the quasi-experimental study design. Associations identified in quasi-experiments meet one important requirement of causality since the intervention precedes the measurement of the outcome. Another requirement is that the outcome can be demonstrated to vary statistically with the intervention. Unfortunately, statistical association does not imply causality, especially if the study is poorly designed. Thus, in many quasi-experiments, one is most often left with the question: “Are there alternative explanations for the apparent causal association?” If these alternative explanations are credible, then the evidence of causation is less convincing. These rival hypotheses, or alternative explanations, arise from principles of epidemiologic study design.
Shadish et al. 4 outline nine threats to internal validity that are outlined in ▶ . Internal validity is defined as the degree to which observed changes in outcomes can be correctly inferred to be caused by an exposure or an intervention. In quasi-experimental studies of medical informatics, we believe that the methodological principles that most often result in alternative explanations for the apparent causal effect include (a) difficulty in measuring or controlling for important confounding variables, particularly unmeasured confounding variables, which can be viewed as a subset of the selection threat in ▶ ; (b) results being explained by the statistical principle of regression to the mean . Each of these latter two principles is discussed in turn.
Threats to Internal Validity
1. Ambiguous temporal precedence: Lack of clarity about whether intervention occurred before outcome |
2. Selection: Systematic differences over conditions in respondent characteristics that could also cause the observed effect |
3. History: Events occurring concurrently with intervention could cause the observed effect |
4. Maturation: Naturally occurring changes over time could be confused with a treatment effect |
5. Regression: When units are selected for their extreme scores, they will often have less extreme subsequent scores, an occurrence that can be confused with an intervention effect |
6. Attrition: Loss of respondents can produce artifactual effects if that loss is correlated with intervention |
7. Testing: Exposure to a test can affect scores on subsequent exposures to that test |
8. Instrumentation: The nature of a measurement may change over time or conditions |
9. Interactive effects: The impact of an intervention may depend on the level of another intervention |
Adapted from Shadish et al. 4
An inability to sufficiently control for important confounding variables arises from the lack of randomization. A variable is a confounding variable if it is associated with the exposure of interest and is also associated with the outcome of interest; the confounding variable leads to a situation where a causal association between a given exposure and an outcome is observed as a result of the influence of the confounding variable. For example, in a study aiming to demonstrate that the introduction of a pharmacy order-entry system led to lower pharmacy costs, there are a number of important potential confounding variables (e.g., severity of illness of the patients, knowledge and experience of the software users, other changes in hospital policy) that may have differed in the preintervention and postintervention time periods ( ▶ ). In a multivariable regression, the first confounding variable could be addressed with severity of illness measures, but the second confounding variable would be difficult if not nearly impossible to measure and control. In addition, potential confounding variables that are unmeasured or immeasurable cannot be controlled for in nonrandomized quasi-experimental study designs and can only be properly controlled by the randomization process in randomized controlled trials.
Example of confounding. To get the true effect of the intervention of interest, we need to control for the confounding variable.
Another important threat to establishing causality is regression to the mean. 12 , 13 , 14 This widespread statistical phenomenon can result in wrongly concluding that an effect is due to the intervention when in reality it is due to chance. The phenomenon was first described in 1886 by Francis Galton who measured the adult height of children and their parents. He noted that when the average height of the parents was greater than the mean of the population, the children tended to be shorter than their parents, and conversely, when the average height of the parents was shorter than the population mean, the children tended to be taller than their parents.
In medical informatics, what often triggers the development and implementation of an intervention is a rise in the rate above the mean or norm. For example, increasing pharmacy costs and adverse events may prompt hospital informatics personnel to design and implement pharmacy order-entry systems. If this rise in costs or adverse events is really just an extreme observation that is still within the normal range of the hospital's pharmaceutical costs (i.e., the mean pharmaceutical cost for the hospital has not shifted), then the statistical principle of regression to the mean predicts that these elevated rates will tend to decline even without intervention. However, often informatics personnel and hospital administrators cannot wait passively for this decline to occur. Therefore, hospital personnel often implement one or more interventions, and if a decline in the rate occurs, they may mistakenly conclude that the decline is causally related to the intervention. In fact, an alternative explanation for the finding could be regression to the mean.
What Are the Different Quasi-experimental Study Designs?
In the social sciences literature, quasi-experimental studies are divided into four study design groups 4 , 6 :
- Quasi-experimental designs without control groups
- Quasi-experimental designs that use control groups but no pretest
- Quasi-experimental designs that use control groups and pretests
- Interrupted time-series designs
There is a relative hierarchy within these categories of study designs, with category D studies being sounder than categories C, B, or A in terms of establishing causality. Thus, if feasible from a design and implementation point of view, investigators should aim to design studies that fall in to the higher rated categories. Shadish et al. 4 discuss 17 possible designs, with seven designs falling into category A, three designs in category B, and six designs in category C, and one major design in category D. In our review, we determined that most medical informatics quasi-experiments could be characterized by 11 of 17 designs, with six study designs in category A, one in category B, three designs in category C, and one design in category D because the other study designs were not used or feasible in the medical informatics literature. Thus, for simplicity, we have summarized the 11 study designs most relevant to medical informatics research in ▶ .
Relative Hierarchy of Quasi-experimental Designs
Quasi-experimental Study Designs | Design Notation |
---|---|
A. Quasi-experimental designs without control groups | |
1. The one-group posttest-only design | X O1 |
2. The one-group pretest-posttest design | O1 X O2 |
3. The one-group pretest-posttest design using a double pretest | O1 O2 X O3 |
4. The one-group pretest-posttest design using a nonequivalent dependent variable | (O1a, O1b) X (O2a, O2b) |
5. The removed-treatment design | O1 X O2 O3 removeX O4 |
6. The repeated-treatment design | O1 X O2 removeX O3 X O4 |
B. Quasi-experimental designs that use a control group but no pretest | |
1. Posttest-only design with nonequivalent groups | Intervention group: X O1 |
Control group: O2 | |
C. Quasi-experimental designs that use control groups and pretests | |
1. Untreated control group with dependent pretest and posttest samples | Intervention group: O1a X O2a |
Control group: O1b O2b | |
2. Untreated control group design with dependent pretest and posttest samples using a double pretest | Intervention group: O1a O2a X O3a |
Control group: O1b O2b O3b | |
3. Untreated control group design with dependent pretest and posttest samples using switching replications | Intervention group: O1a X O2a O3a |
Control group: O1b O2b X O3b | |
D. Interrupted time-series design | |
1. Multiple pretest and posttest observations spaced at equal intervals of time | O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 X O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 |
O = Observational Measurement; X = Intervention Under Study. Time moves from left to right.
The nomenclature and relative hierarchy were used in the systematic review of four years of JAMIA and the IJMI. Similar to the relative hierarchy that exists in the evidence-based literature that assigns a hierarchy to randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series, the hierarchy in ▶ is not absolute in that in some cases, it may be infeasible to perform a higher level study. For example, there may be instances where an A6 design established stronger causality than a B1 design. 15 , 16 , 17
Quasi-experimental Designs without Control Groups
Here, X is the intervention and O is the outcome variable (this notation is continued throughout the article). In this study design, an intervention (X) is implemented and a posttest observation (O1) is taken. For example, X could be the introduction of a pharmacy order-entry intervention and O1 could be the pharmacy costs following the intervention. This design is the weakest of the quasi-experimental designs that are discussed in this article. Without any pretest observations or a control group, there are multiple threats to internal validity. Unfortunately, this study design is often used in medical informatics when new software is introduced since it may be difficult to have pretest measurements due to time, technical, or cost constraints.
This is a commonly used study design. A single pretest measurement is taken (O1), an intervention (X) is implemented, and a posttest measurement is taken (O2). In this instance, period O1 frequently serves as the “control” period. For example, O1 could be pharmacy costs prior to the intervention, X could be the introduction of a pharmacy order-entry system, and O2 could be the pharmacy costs following the intervention. Including a pretest provides some information about what the pharmacy costs would have been had the intervention not occurred.
The advantage of this study design over A2 is that adding a second pretest prior to the intervention helps provide evidence that can be used to refute the phenomenon of regression to the mean and confounding as alternative explanations for any observed association between the intervention and the posttest outcome. For example, in a study where a pharmacy order-entry system led to lower pharmacy costs (O3 < O2 and O1), if one had two preintervention measurements of pharmacy costs (O1 and O2) and they were both elevated, this would suggest that there was a decreased likelihood that O3 is lower due to confounding and regression to the mean. Similarly, extending this study design by increasing the number of measurements postintervention could also help to provide evidence against confounding and regression to the mean as alternate explanations for observed associations.
This design involves the inclusion of a nonequivalent dependent variable ( b ) in addition to the primary dependent variable ( a ). Variables a and b should assess similar constructs; that is, the two measures should be affected by similar factors and confounding variables except for the effect of the intervention. Variable a is expected to change because of the intervention X, whereas variable b is not. Taking our example, variable a could be pharmacy costs and variable b could be the length of stay of patients. If our informatics intervention is aimed at decreasing pharmacy costs, we would expect to observe a decrease in pharmacy costs but not in the average length of stay of patients. However, a number of important confounding variables, such as severity of illness and knowledge of software users, might affect both outcome measures. Thus, if the average length of stay did not change following the intervention but pharmacy costs did, then the data are more convincing than if just pharmacy costs were measured.
The Removed-Treatment Design
This design adds a third posttest measurement (O3) to the one-group pretest-posttest design and then removes the intervention before a final measure (O4) is made. The advantage of this design is that it allows one to test hypotheses about the outcome in the presence of the intervention and in the absence of the intervention. Thus, if one predicts a decrease in the outcome between O1 and O2 (after implementation of the intervention), then one would predict an increase in the outcome between O3 and O4 (after removal of the intervention). One caveat is that if the intervention is thought to have persistent effects, then O4 needs to be measured after these effects are likely to have disappeared. For example, a study would be more convincing if it demonstrated that pharmacy costs decreased after pharmacy order-entry system introduction (O2 and O3 less than O1) and that when the order-entry system was removed or disabled, the costs increased (O4 greater than O2 and O3 and closer to O1). In addition, there are often ethical issues in this design in terms of removing an intervention that may be providing benefit.
The Repeated-Treatment Design
The advantage of this design is that it demonstrates reproducibility of the association between the intervention and the outcome. For example, the association is more likely to be causal if one demonstrates that a pharmacy order-entry system results in decreased pharmacy costs when it is first introduced and again when it is reintroduced following an interruption of the intervention. As for design A5, the assumption must be made that the effect of the intervention is transient, which is most often applicable to medical informatics interventions. Because in this design, subjects may serve as their own controls, this may yield greater statistical efficiency with fewer numbers of subjects.
Quasi-experimental Designs That Use a Control Group but No Pretest
An intervention X is implemented for one group and compared to a second group. The use of a comparison group helps prevent certain threats to validity including the ability to statistically adjust for confounding variables. Because in this study design, the two groups may not be equivalent (assignment to the groups is not by randomization), confounding may exist. For example, suppose that a pharmacy order-entry intervention was instituted in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) and not the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). O1 would be pharmacy costs in the MICU after the intervention and O2 would be pharmacy costs in the SICU after the intervention. The absence of a pretest makes it difficult to know whether a change has occurred in the MICU. Also, the absence of pretest measurements comparing the SICU to the MICU makes it difficult to know whether differences in O1 and O2 are due to the intervention or due to other differences in the two units (confounding variables).
Quasi-experimental Designs That Use Control Groups and Pretests
The reader should note that with all the studies in this category, the intervention is not randomized. The control groups chosen are comparison groups. Obtaining pretest measurements on both the intervention and control groups allows one to assess the initial comparability of the groups. The assumption is that if the intervention and the control groups are similar at the pretest, the smaller the likelihood there is of important confounding variables differing between the two groups.
The use of both a pretest and a comparison group makes it easier to avoid certain threats to validity. However, because the two groups are nonequivalent (assignment to the groups is not by randomization), selection bias may exist. Selection bias exists when selection results in differences in unit characteristics between conditions that may be related to outcome differences. For example, suppose that a pharmacy order-entry intervention was instituted in the MICU and not the SICU. If preintervention pharmacy costs in the MICU (O1a) and SICU (O1b) are similar, it suggests that it is less likely that there are differences in the important confounding variables between the two units. If MICU postintervention costs (O2a) are less than preintervention MICU costs (O1a), but SICU costs (O1b) and (O2b) are similar, this suggests that the observed outcome may be causally related to the intervention.
In this design, the pretests are administered at two different times. The main advantage of this design is that it controls for potentially different time-varying confounding effects in the intervention group and the comparison group. In our example, measuring points O1 and O2 would allow for the assessment of time-dependent changes in pharmacy costs, e.g., due to differences in experience of residents, preintervention between the intervention and control group, and whether these changes were similar or different.
With this study design, the researcher administers an intervention at a later time to a group that initially served as a nonintervention control. The advantage of this design over design C2 is that it demonstrates reproducibility in two different settings. This study design is not limited to two groups; in fact, the study results have greater validity if the intervention effect is replicated in different groups at multiple times. In the example of a pharmacy order-entry system, one could implement or intervene in the MICU and then at a later time, intervene in the SICU. This latter design is often very applicable to medical informatics where new technology and new software is often introduced or made available gradually.
Interrupted Time-Series Designs
An interrupted time-series design is one in which a string of consecutive observations equally spaced in time is interrupted by the imposition of a treatment or intervention. The advantage of this design is that with multiple measurements both pre- and postintervention, it is easier to address and control for confounding and regression to the mean. In addition, statistically, there is a more robust analytic capability, and there is the ability to detect changes in the slope or intercept as a result of the intervention in addition to a change in the mean values. 18 A change in intercept could represent an immediate effect while a change in slope could represent a gradual effect of the intervention on the outcome. In the example of a pharmacy order-entry system, O1 through O5 could represent monthly pharmacy costs preintervention and O6 through O10 monthly pharmacy costs post the introduction of the pharmacy order-entry system. Interrupted time-series designs also can be further strengthened by incorporating many of the design features previously mentioned in other categories (such as removal of the treatment, inclusion of a nondependent outcome variable, or the addition of a control group).
Systematic Review Results
The results of the systematic review are in ▶ . In the four-year period of JAMIA publications that the authors reviewed, 25 quasi-experimental studies among 22 articles were published. Of these 25, 15 studies were of category A, five studies were of category B, two studies were of category C, and no studies were of category D. Although there were no studies of category D (interrupted time-series analyses), three of the studies classified as category A had data collected that could have been analyzed as an interrupted time-series analysis. Nine of the 25 studies (36%) mentioned at least one of the potential limitations of the quasi-experimental study design. In the four-year period of IJMI publications reviewed by the authors, nine quasi-experimental studies among eight manuscripts were published. Of these nine, five studies were of category A, one of category B, one of category C, and two of category D. Two of the nine studies (22%) mentioned at least one of the potential limitations of the quasi-experimental study design.
Systematic Review of Four Years of Quasi-designs in JAMIA
Study | Journal | Informatics Topic Category | Quasi-experimental Design | Limitation of Quasi-design Mentioned in Article |
---|---|---|---|---|
Staggers and Kobus | JAMIA | 1 | Counterbalanced study design | Yes |
Schriger et al. | JAMIA | 1 | A5 | Yes |
Patel et al. | JAMIA | 2 | A5 (study 1, phase 1) | No |
Patel et al. | JAMIA | 2 | A2 (study 1, phase 2) | No |
Borowitz | JAMIA | 1 | A2 | No |
Patterson and Harasym | JAMIA | 6 | C1 | Yes |
Rocha et al. | JAMIA | 5 | A2 | Yes |
Lovis et al. | JAMIA | 1 | Counterbalanced study design | No |
Hersh et al. | JAMIA | 6 | B1 | No |
Makoul et al. | JAMIA | 2 | B1 | Yes |
Ruland | JAMIA | 3 | B1 | No |
DeLusignan et al. | JAMIA | 1 | A1 | No |
Mekhjian et al. | JAMIA | 1 | A2 (study design 1) | Yes |
Mekhjian et al. | JAMIA | 1 | B1 (study design 2) | Yes |
Ammenwerth et al. | JAMIA | 1 | A2 | No |
Oniki et al. | JAMIA | 5 | C1 | Yes |
Liederman and Morefield | JAMIA | 1 | A1 (study 1) | No |
Liederman and Morefield | JAMIA | 1 | A2 (study 2) | No |
Rotich et al. | JAMIA | 2 | A2 | No |
Payne et al. | JAMIA | 1 | A1 | No |
Hoch et al. | JAMIA | 3 | A2 | No |
Laerum et al. | JAMIA | 1 | B1 | Yes |
Devine et al. | JAMIA | 1 | Counterbalanced study design | |
Dunbar et al. | JAMIA | 6 | A1 | |
Lenert et al. | JAMIA | 6 | A2 | |
Koide et al. | IJMI | 5 | D4 | No |
Gonzalez-Hendrich et al. | IJMI | 2 | A1 | No |
Anantharaman and Swee Han | IJMI | 3 | B1 | No |
Chae et al. | IJMI | 6 | A2 | No |
Lin et al. | IJMI | 3 | A1 | No |
Mikulich et al. | IJMI | 1 | A2 | Yes |
Hwang et al. | IJMI | 1 | A2 | Yes |
Park et al. | IJMI | 1 | C2 | No |
Park et al. | IJMI | 1 | D4 | No |
JAMIA = Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association; IJMI = International Journal of Medical Informatics.
In addition, three studies from JAMIA were based on a counterbalanced design. A counterbalanced design is a higher order study design than other studies in category A. The counterbalanced design is sometimes referred to as a Latin-square arrangement. In this design, all subjects receive all the different interventions but the order of intervention assignment is not random. 19 This design can only be used when the intervention is compared against some existing standard, for example, if a new PDA-based order entry system is to be compared to a computer terminal–based order entry system. In this design, all subjects receive the new PDA-based order entry system and the old computer terminal-based order entry system. The counterbalanced design is a within-participants design, where the order of the intervention is varied (e.g., one group is given software A followed by software B and another group is given software B followed by software A). The counterbalanced design is typically used when the available sample size is small, thus preventing the use of randomization. This design also allows investigators to study the potential effect of ordering of the informatics intervention.
Although quasi-experimental study designs are ubiquitous in the medical informatics literature, as evidenced by 34 studies in the past four years of the two informatics journals, little has been written about the benefits and limitations of the quasi-experimental approach. As we have outlined in this paper, a relative hierarchy and nomenclature of quasi-experimental study designs exist, with some designs being more likely than others to permit causal interpretations of observed associations. Strengths and limitations of a particular study design should be discussed when presenting data collected in the setting of a quasi-experimental study. Future medical informatics investigators should choose the strongest design that is feasible given the particular circumstances.
Supplementary Material
Dr. Harris was supported by NIH grants K23 AI01752-01A1 and R01 AI60859-01A1. Dr. Perencevich was supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) Research Career Development Award (RCD-02026-1). Dr. Finkelstein was supported by NIH grant RO1 HL71690.
Quasi-Experiment Advantages & Disadvantages
Katherine bradley, 27 aug 2018.
Experimental research has been touted as one of the most rigorous research designs, due to a built-in safeguard for internal validity known as randomization. A quasi-experimental design is very similar to an experimental research design, but lacks the key element of randomization. Both designs feature an experimental group and a control group, but the manner of group selection differs. Therefore, the researcher ends up with non-equivalent groups. This design is referred to as a non-equivalent groups design, the most common quasi-experimental design. There are advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experimental designs.
Explore this article
- Limited Ability to Compare
- Weaknesses of Quasi-Experimental Design
- Logistically Easy to Manage
- Generalization Possible with Control Group
1 Limited Ability to Compare
Using a sampling method other than random sampling increases the potential for constructing non-equivalent groups. Ideally, researchers endeavor to obtain experimental and control groups that are alike. The best study design is most effectively achieved and most likely to occur through random selection. Quasi-experimental designs do not use random sampling in constructing experimental and control groups. Using non-uniform comparison groups can limit generalization of the findings because non-controlled variables may have influenced the results.
2 Weaknesses of Quasi-Experimental Design
Beginning research with non-equivalent groups presents a threat to internal validity and can be weaknesses of quasi-experimental design. Internal validity refers to the degree to which a researcher can be sure that the treatment was responsible for the change in the experimental group. If the researcher does not start with equivalent groups, then the researcher cannot be sure that the treatment was the sole factor causing change. Weaknesses of quasi-experimental design may contribute to the change. Therefore, not using random sampling methods to construct the experimental and control groups, increases the potential for low internal validity.
3 Logistically Easy to Manage
Quasi-experimental designs are commonly utilized in social research. These designs are also used in education to test the effectiveness of a program. In a typical quasi-experimental design, two classes may be selected, a pretest given to both and then the program or treatment that is given to the experimental group. A post test is conducted to determine if there was a change in the groups. In education, these groups often come pre-determined such as in a school or class. Therefore, the researcher is not required to group individuals as they come pre-grouped.
4 Generalization Possible with Control Group
Some quasi-experimental research designs offer the benefit of comparison between groups that can be statistically analyzed as quasi experiment strengths and weaknesses. For example, if an experimental group of elderly arthritis sufferers is given treatment and the control group receives no treatment, the findings could potentially reveal a statistically significant difference in pain relief or increased mobility among the treated group. This is a major advantage because it helps the researcher to make inferences about the possible existence of a cause and effect relationship of the treatment.
- 1 Research Connections: Experiments and Quasi-Experiments
- 2 Energypedia: Quasi-Experimental or Non-Experimental Designs
About the Author
Katherine Bradley began writing in 2006. Her education and leadership articles have been published on Education.com, Montessori Leadership Online and the Georgia Educational Researcher. Bradley completed a Ph.D. in educational leadership from Mercer University in 2009.
Related Articles
Methods of Research Design
Characteristics of a Comparative Research Design
Research Study Design Types
Advantages & Disadvantages of Multi-Stage Sampling
How to Format a Quantitative Research Design
Independent vs. Dependent Variables in Sociology
Descriptive Research Techniques
How to Interpret the Shapiro-Wilk Test
Correlational Methods vs. Experimental Methods
The Advantages of Exploratory Research Design
How to Determine Which Research Design to Use
What Are the Advantages & Disadvantages of Non-Experimental...
Different Types of Methodologies
What Is a Quasi Experimental Study?
What Is a Group Contingency?
Major Types of Research Design
Strengths & Weaknesses of Descriptive Research
How to Form a Theoretical Study of a Dissertation
What Are the Advantages & Disadvantages of Correlation...
The Advantages of a Questionnaire Research Project
Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.
- Accessibility
- Terms of Use
- Privacy Policy
- Copyright Policy
- Manage Preferences
© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .
Skip to content
Get Revising
Join get revising, already a member.
Quasi experiment
- Created by: Sarah18
- Created on: 21-10-13 21:51
Examples of this study:Milgram and Grifiths (1994)Baron Cohen (1997) |
- Experiments
No comments have yet been made
Similar Psychology resources:
Methods in AS psychology 0.0 / 5
Strengths and limitations of natural + quasi experiments 0.0 / 5
Types of Experiments 0.0 / 5
Research Methods - Types of Experiment 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
Research methods 3.0 / 5 based on 2 ratings
Natural And Quasi-experiments 0.0 / 5
Advantages and Disadvantages of Experiment Types 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating Teacher recommended
Research methods 1.5 / 5 based on 2 ratings
Pyschology 3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
AS RESEARCH METHODS 0.0 / 5
Instant insights, infinite possibilities
The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental design
Last updated
6 February 2023
Reviewed by
Miroslav Damyanov
Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead
- What is a quasi-experimental design?
Commonly used in medical informatics (a field that uses digital information to ensure better patient care), researchers generally use this design to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment – perhaps a type of antibiotic or psychotherapy, or an educational or policy intervention.
Even though quasi-experimental design has been used for some time, relatively little is known about it. Read on to learn the ins and outs of this research design.
Make research less tedious
Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights
- When to use a quasi-experimental design
A quasi-experimental design is used when it's not logistically feasible or ethical to conduct randomized, controlled trials. As its name suggests, a quasi-experimental design is almost a true experiment. However, researchers don't randomly select elements or participants in this type of research.
Researchers prefer to apply quasi-experimental design when there are ethical or practical concerns. Let's look at these two reasons more closely.
Ethical reasons
In some situations, the use of randomly assigned elements can be unethical. For instance, providing public healthcare to one group and withholding it to another in research is unethical. A quasi-experimental design would examine the relationship between these two groups to avoid physical danger.
Practical reasons
Randomized controlled trials may not be the best approach in research. For instance, it's impractical to trawl through large sample sizes of participants without using a particular attribute to guide your data collection .
Recruiting participants and properly designing a data-collection attribute to make the research a true experiment requires a lot of time and effort, and can be expensive if you don’t have a large funding stream.
A quasi-experimental design allows researchers to take advantage of previously collected data and use it in their study.
- Examples of quasi-experimental designs
Quasi-experimental research design is common in medical research, but any researcher can use it for research that raises practical and ethical concerns. Here are a few examples of quasi-experimental designs used by different researchers:
Example 1: Determining the effectiveness of math apps in supplementing math classes
A school wanted to supplement its math classes with a math app. To select the best app, the school decided to conduct demo tests on two apps before selecting the one they will purchase.
Scope of the research
Since every grade had two math teachers, each teacher used one of the two apps for three months. They then gave the students the same math exams and compared the results to determine which app was most effective.
Reasons why this is a quasi-experimental study
This simple study is a quasi-experiment since the school didn't randomly assign its students to the applications. They used a pre-existing class structure to conduct the study since it was impractical to randomly assign the students to each app.
Example 2: Determining the effectiveness of teaching modern leadership techniques in start-up businesses
A hypothetical quasi-experimental study was conducted in an economically developing country in a mid-sized city.
Five start-ups in the textile industry and five in the tech industry participated in the study. The leaders attended a six-week workshop on leadership style, team management, and employee motivation.
After a year, the researchers assessed the performance of each start-up company to determine growth. The results indicated that the tech start-ups were further along in their growth than the textile companies.
The basis of quasi-experimental research is a non-randomized subject-selection process. This study didn't use specific aspects to determine which start-up companies should participate. Therefore, the results may seem straightforward, but several aspects may determine the growth of a specific company, apart from the variables used by the researchers.
Example 3: A study to determine the effects of policy reforms and of luring foreign investment on small businesses in two mid-size cities
In a study to determine the economic impact of government reforms in an economically developing country, the government decided to test whether creating reforms directed at small businesses or luring foreign investments would spur the most economic development.
The government selected two cities with similar population demographics and sizes. In one of the cities, they implemented specific policies that would directly impact small businesses, and in the other, they implemented policies to attract foreign investment.
After five years, they collected end-of-year economic growth data from both cities. They looked at elements like local GDP growth, unemployment rates, and housing sales.
The study used a non-randomized selection process to determine which city would participate in the research. Researchers left out certain variables that would play a crucial role in determining the growth of each city. They used pre-existing groups of people based on research conducted in each city, rather than random groups.
- Advantages of a quasi-experimental design
Some advantages of quasi-experimental designs are:
Researchers can manipulate variables to help them meet their study objectives.
It offers high external validity, making it suitable for real-world applications, specifically in social science experiments.
Integrating this methodology into other research designs is easier, especially in true experimental research. This cuts down on the time needed to determine your outcomes.
- Disadvantages of a quasi-experimental design
Despite the pros that come with a quasi-experimental design, there are several disadvantages associated with it, including the following:
It has a lower internal validity since researchers do not have full control over the comparison and intervention groups or between time periods because of differences in characteristics in people, places, or time involved. It may be challenging to determine whether all variables have been used or whether those used in the research impacted the results.
There is the risk of inaccurate data since the research design borrows information from other studies.
There is the possibility of bias since researchers select baseline elements and eligibility.
- What are the different quasi-experimental study designs?
There are three distinct types of quasi-experimental designs:
Nonequivalent
Regression discontinuity, natural experiment.
This is a hybrid of experimental and quasi-experimental methods and is used to leverage the best qualities of the two. Like the true experiment design, nonequivalent group design uses pre-existing groups believed to be comparable. However, it doesn't use randomization, the lack of which is a crucial element for quasi-experimental design.
Researchers usually ensure that no confounding variables impact them throughout the grouping process. This makes the groupings more comparable.
Example of a nonequivalent group design
A small study was conducted to determine whether after-school programs result in better grades. Researchers randomly selected two groups of students: one to implement the new program, the other not to. They then compared the results of the two groups.
This type of quasi-experimental research design calculates the impact of a specific treatment or intervention. It uses a criterion known as "cutoff" that assigns treatment according to eligibility.
Researchers often assign participants above the cutoff to the treatment group. This puts a negligible distinction between the two groups (treatment group and control group).
Example of regression discontinuity
Students must achieve a minimum score to be enrolled in specific US high schools. Since the cutoff score used to determine eligibility for enrollment is arbitrary, researchers can assume that the disparity between students who only just fail to achieve the cutoff point and those who barely pass is a small margin and is due to the difference in the schools that these students attend.
Researchers can then examine the long-term effects of these two groups of kids to determine the effect of attending certain schools. This information can be applied to increase the chances of students being enrolled in these high schools.
This research design is common in laboratory and field experiments where researchers control target subjects by assigning them to different groups. Researchers randomly assign subjects to a treatment group using nature or an external event or situation.
However, even with random assignment, this research design cannot be called a true experiment since nature aspects are observational. Researchers can also exploit these aspects despite having no control over the independent variables.
Example of the natural experiment approach
An example of a natural experiment is the 2008 Oregon Health Study.
Oregon intended to allow more low-income people to participate in Medicaid.
Since they couldn't afford to cover every person who qualified for the program, the state used a random lottery to allocate program slots.
Researchers assessed the program's effectiveness by assigning the selected subjects to a randomly assigned treatment group, while those that didn't win the lottery were considered the control group.
- Differences between quasi-experiments and true experiments
There are several differences between a quasi-experiment and a true experiment:
Participants in true experiments are randomly assigned to the treatment or control group, while participants in a quasi-experiment are not assigned randomly.
In a quasi-experimental design, the control and treatment groups differ in unknown or unknowable ways, apart from the experimental treatments that are carried out. Therefore, the researcher should try as much as possible to control these differences.
Quasi-experimental designs have several "competing hypotheses," which compete with experimental manipulation to explain the observed results.
Quasi-experiments tend to have lower internal validity (the degree of confidence in the research outcomes) than true experiments, but they may offer higher external validity (whether findings can be extended to other contexts) as they involve real-world interventions instead of controlled interventions in artificial laboratory settings.
Despite the distinct difference between true and quasi-experimental research designs, these two research methodologies share the following aspects:
Both study methods subject participants to some form of treatment or conditions.
Researchers have the freedom to measure some of the outcomes of interest.
Researchers can test whether the differences in the outcomes are associated with the treatment.
- An example comparing a true experiment and quasi-experiment
Imagine you wanted to study the effects of junk food on obese people. Here's how you would do this as a true experiment and a quasi-experiment:
How to carry out a true experiment
In a true experiment, some participants would eat junk foods, while the rest would be in the control group, adhering to a regular diet. At the end of the study, you would record the health and discomfort of each group.
This kind of experiment would raise ethical concerns since the participants assigned to the treatment group are required to eat junk food against their will throughout the experiment. This calls for a quasi-experimental design.
How to carry out a quasi-experiment
In quasi-experimental research, you would start by finding out which participants want to try junk food and which prefer to stick to a regular diet. This allows you to assign these two groups based on subject choice.
In this case, you didn't assign participants to a particular group, so you can confidently use the results from the study.
When is a quasi-experimental design used?
Quasi-experimental designs are used when researchers don’t want to use randomization when evaluating their intervention.
What are the characteristics of quasi-experimental designs?
Some of the characteristics of a quasi-experimental design are:
Researchers don't randomly assign participants into groups, but study their existing characteristics and assign them accordingly.
Researchers study the participants in pre- and post-testing to determine the progress of the groups.
Quasi-experimental design is ethical since it doesn’t involve offering or withholding treatment at random.
Quasi-experimental design encompasses a broad range of non-randomized intervention studies. This design is employed when it is not ethical or logistically feasible to conduct randomized controlled trials. Researchers typically employ it when evaluating policy or educational interventions, or in medical or therapy scenarios.
How do you analyze data in a quasi-experimental design?
You can use two-group tests, time-series analysis, and regression analysis to analyze data in a quasi-experiment design. Each option has specific assumptions, strengths, limitations, and data requirements.
Should you be using a customer insights hub?
Do you want to discover previous research faster?
Do you share your research findings with others?
Do you analyze research data?
Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster
Editor’s picks
Last updated: 18 April 2023
Last updated: 27 February 2023
Last updated: 22 August 2024
Last updated: 5 February 2023
Last updated: 16 April 2023
Last updated: 9 March 2023
Last updated: 30 April 2024
Last updated: 12 December 2023
Last updated: 11 March 2024
Last updated: 4 July 2024
Last updated: 6 March 2024
Last updated: 5 March 2024
Last updated: 13 May 2024
Latest articles
Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.
Get started for free
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Learning
- Reference work entry
- pp 1223–1229
- Cite this reference work entry
- Norbert M. Seel 2
1747 Accesses
5 Citations
Research designs
Research on learning applies various designs which refer to plans that outline how information is to be gathered for testing a hypothesis or theoretical assumption. Research designs are the heart of quantitative research. They include systematic observations, measures, treatments, their random assignment to groups, and time. Accordingly, research designs include identifying the data gathering method(s), the instruments to be used or created for assessment, how the instruments will be administered, and how the information will be organized and analyzed in accordance with the subject to be investigated. Among the various designs to consider in the area of research on learning are
Experimental designs
Quasi-experimental designs
Nonexperimental designs
Each design offers its particular advantages and disadvantages concerning validity, reliability, and feasibility. Although all experiments share common features, their applications vary in accordance with...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Durable hardcover edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5 (4), 437–474.
Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Church, R. (2003). Animal learning. In I. B. Weiner, D. K. Freedheim, J. A. Schinka, & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Research methods in psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 271–288). Huboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings . Chicago: Rand MacNally.
Cox, D. R. (1990). Role of models in statistical analysis. Statistical Science, 5 , 169–174.
Article Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers . Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
Kirk, R. E. (2003). Experimental design. In I. B. Weiner, D. K. Freedheim, J. A. Schinka, & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Research methods in psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 3–32). Huboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalised causal inference . New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Wilcox, R. D. (2003). Power: Basics, practical problems, and possible solution. In I. B. Weiner, D. K. Freedheim, J. A. Schinka, & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Research methods in psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 65–86). Huboken, NJ: Wiley.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Education, University of Freiburg, Rempartstr. 11, 3. OG, Freiburg, 79098, Germany
Prof. Norbert M. Seel ( Faculty of Economics and Behavioral Sciences )
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Norbert M. Seel .
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
Faculty of Economics and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Education, University of Freiburg, 79085, Freiburg, Germany
Norbert M. Seel
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this entry
Cite this entry.
Seel, N.M. (2012). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Learning. In: Seel, N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_716
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_716
Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-1427-9
Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-1428-6
eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education
Share this entry
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
- Form Builder
- Survey Maker
- AI Form Generator
- AI Survey Tool
- AI Quiz Maker
- Store Builder
- WordPress Plugin
HubSpot CRM
Google Sheets
Google Analytics
Microsoft Excel
- Popular Forms
- Job Application Form Template
- Rental Application Form Template
- Hotel Accommodation Form Template
- Online Registration Form Template
- Employment Application Form Template
- Application Forms
- Booking Forms
- Consent Forms
- Contact Forms
- Donation Forms
- Customer Satisfaction Surveys
- Employee Satisfaction Surveys
- Evaluation Surveys
- Feedback Surveys
- Market Research Surveys
- Personality Quiz Template
- Geography Quiz Template
- Math Quiz Template
- Science Quiz Template
- Vocabulary Quiz Template
Try without registration Quick Start
Read engaging stories, how-to guides, learn about forms.app features.
Inspirational ready-to-use templates for getting started fast and powerful.
Spot-on guides on how to use forms.app and make the most out of it.
See the technical measures we take and learn how we keep your data safe and secure.
- Integrations
- Help Center
- Sign In Sign Up Free
- What is quasi-experimental research: Types & examples
Defne Çobanoğlu
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the word quasi is “used to show that something is almost, but not completely, the thing described.” And as the name suggests, quasi-experiments are almost experiments because of the way they are conducted. What actually differentiates this type of experiment from true experimental research is the way the subjects are divided.
In a true experiment, sample groups are assigned to an experimental group and to a treatment group randomly. However, there are some studies in which the use of random assignment would not be possible because that would be unethical or impractical. These studies follow a quasi-experimental research design. Let us see exactly what is a quasi-experimental design and give some examples.
- The definition of quasi-experimental research
Quasi-experimental research is a type of experiment where the researcher does not randomly assigns subjects. Rather, unlike a true experiment, subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria. The researchers may manipulate an independent variable and observe the effect on a dependent variable. However, they cannot randomly assign participants to the groups being studied.
The reason for this could be a practicality issue or ethical rules, as you can not deliberately deprive someone of treatment or give them intentional harm. As a consequence, quasi-experimental research can suggest cause-and-effect relationships, but it can not do so with the confidence that true experimental research can.
What is quasi-experimental research?
- Types of quasi-experimental research
Even though it is now quite clear that in quasi-experimental research, researchers do not randomly assign people to control or study groups. There are different aspects that let the experts divide people. These different types are called nonequivalent group design, regression discontinuity, and natural experiments. Here is an explanation of these types and some examples:
Nonequivalent groups design:
In true experimental research, the only variable that divides the two groups is the variable you want. However, in a quasi-experimental approach, the groups may have more than one difference as you can not study them and divide them equally and randomly. Therefore, this is the part where it makes this type nonequivalent. This is the most popular type as it is the one most fits the criteria.
Example of nonequivalent groups:
Let us say there is a new teaching method a school has implemented for its students. And, as a researcher, you want to know if this teaching method has a positive effect. As you can not divide the school in half as you would do in a true experimental design, you can go with pre-existing groups, such as choosing another school that does not implement this method.
Afterward, you can do the research and see if there is a major difference in the outcome of the success of students. However, as there are different confounding variables between the two groups, they could affect the outcomes. To minimize the differences, researchers would need to control for factors such as prior academic performance, student demographics, or teaching experience in their analysis.
Regression discontinuity:
Regression discontinuity means that the researcher does not randomly assign participants to a treatment and control group. Instead, this type of experiment relies on the presence of a natural threshold or dividing point . And only people above or below the threshold get treatment, while the other group does not. As the divide between the two groups is minimal, the differences between them would be minimal as well. Therefore, it provides a good starting point.
Example of regression discontinuity:
A good example of regression discontinuity would be researching the impact of giving financial aid to students who have more than a 3.0 GPA. Only the students whose scores are higher would receive financial aid, and students whose scores are just below 3.0 or similar would be included in the study as a second group.
Afterward, the next step would be to compare the two group’s outcomes ( e.g., graduation rates, job placements, or incomes ) to estimate the effect of the financial aid program. This is a good example of quasi-experimental research design and how to conduct them without interfering much.
Natural experiments:
Normally, in a true experiment, researchers assign people to either a control group or a treatment group. Instead, a random or irregular assignment of patients to the treatment group takes place in a natural experiment as an external scenario (“nature”). Natural experiments are not qualified as actual experiments because they are observational.
Example of natural experiments:
A birth control shot will be made available to low-income villages in third-world countries. And a number of villages want to receive the treatment for free. However, there are not enough stocks to get to everyone. In that scenario, the experts can do a random lottery to distribute the medicine.
Experts could investigate the program’s impact by utilizing enrolled villages as a treatment group and those who were qualified but did not get picked as an experimental group.
Applications of quasi-experimental research: When to use & how?
Although true experiments have a higher internal validity, sometimes it would be useful to conduct a quasi-experimental design for different reasons. As you can not deliberately withhold or provide some people with treatment, sometimes conducting an experimental study would be unethical . If there is a cure for an illness, you can not randomly assign people to receive the treatment or not. But, if there is a different reason why not everyone can get the same medicine, that gives you a place to start.
Secondly, conducting a true experiment could be unfeasible, too expensive, or too much work for it to be practical. If the researchers do not have enough funding or experimental subjects, a quasi-experiment could be helpful to do the research. And there are different approaches the researcher can take in an experiment like this.
Secondary Data Collection:
When doing any kind of research, it is a good way to start going through existing data, as someone may have done a similar study already. This can give you a pre-knowledge of what to expect. And it is quite an affordable option.
Online surveys:
Researchers can build online surveys to collect data from study participants in a short amount of time. They can also send periodic surveys to keep collecting data as time passes. It is a very effortless and affordable option, and the participants can answer questions anytime, anywhere.
- Advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experimental research
Quasi-experimental designs have various pros and cons compared to other types of studies. It is up to the researchers and experts to decide whether to go with a true or quasi-experimental design. And it is important to remember that even though you want to have a true experiment, you can only do one for a variety of reasons. Now, let us go through some of the advantages and disadvantages.
✅Quasi-experimental designs often involve real-world situations instead of artificial laboratory settings, therefore, have higher external validity.
✅Higher internal validity than other non-experimental research types as this allows you to control for confounding variables better than other studies.
✅Because the control or comparison group participants are not randomized, the nonequivalent dependent variables in the research can be more controlled, targeted, and efficient.
✅Allows to make studies in areas where experimenting would be unethical or impractical.
✅When working on a tight budget, a quasi-experiment helps conclude without needing to pay as much for studies.
❌Lack of randomization makes it more challenging, or even impossible, to rule out confounding variables and their effect on the relationship that the research is about.
❌The use of secondary data already collected for other purposes can be inaccurate, incomplete, or difficult to access.
❌Quasi-experimental studies aren’t as effective in establishing causality.
❌Because a quasi-experimental design often borrows information from other experimental methods, there’s a chance that the data is not complete or accurate.
In conclusion, quasi-experimental is a type of experiment with its own advantages and disadvantages. It works as an option when doing a true experiment does not work because of different reasons. And online surveys and secondary data collection are good methods to go within this type of experiment. The best tool that can help with any research is forms.app!
forms.app is a great survey maker and is the helper everyone needs. It has more than 1000 ready-to-go templates and is very easy to use. You can check it out today and start doing your own research without any trouble!
Defne is a content writer at forms.app. She is also a translator specializing in literary translation. Defne loves reading, writing, and translating professionally and as a hobby. Her expertise lies in survey research, research methodologies, content writing, and translation.
- Form Features
- Data Collection
Table of Contents
- Applications of quasi-experimental research: When to use & how?
Related Posts
20+ First impressions survey questions for your website
Primary research: definition, methods & examples
5 great customer satisfaction metrics
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research
Guide Title: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research Guide ID: 64
You approach a stainless-steel wall, separated vertically along its middle where two halves meet. After looking to the left, you see two buttons on the wall to the right. You press the top button and it lights up. A soft tone sounds and the two halves of the wall slide apart to reveal a small room. You step into the room. Looking to the left, then to the right, you see a panel of more buttons. You know that you seek a room marked with the numbers 1-0-1-2, so you press the button marked "10." The halves slide shut and enclose you within the cubicle, which jolts upward. Soon, the soft tone sounds again. The door opens again. On the far wall, a sign silently proclaims, "10th floor."
You have engaged in a series of experiments. A ride in an elevator may not seem like an experiment, but it, and each step taken towards its ultimate outcome, are common examples of a search for a causal relationship-which is what experimentation is all about.
You started with the hypothesis that this is in fact an elevator. You proved that you were correct. You then hypothesized that the button to summon the elevator was on the left, which was incorrect, so then you hypothesized it was on the right, and you were correct. You hypothesized that pressing the button marked with the up arrow would not only bring an elevator to you, but that it would be an elevator heading in the up direction. You were right.
As this guide explains, the deliberate process of testing hypotheses and reaching conclusions is an extension of commonplace testing of cause and effect relationships.
Basic Concepts of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research
Discovering causal relationships is the key to experimental research. In abstract terms, this means the relationship between a certain action, X, which alone creates the effect Y. For example, turning the volume knob on your stereo clockwise causes the sound to get louder. In addition, you could observe that turning the knob clockwise alone, and nothing else, caused the sound level to increase. You could further conclude that a causal relationship exists between turning the knob clockwise and an increase in volume; not simply because one caused the other, but because you are certain that nothing else caused the effect.
Independent and Dependent Variables
Beyond discovering causal relationships, experimental research further seeks out how much cause will produce how much effect; in technical terms, how the independent variable will affect the dependent variable. You know that turning the knob clockwise will produce a louder noise, but by varying how much you turn it, you see how much sound is produced. On the other hand, you might find that although you turn the knob a great deal, sound doesn't increase dramatically. Or, you might find that turning the knob just a little adds more sound than expected. The amount that you turned the knob is the independent variable, the variable that the researcher controls, and the amount of sound that resulted from turning it is the dependent variable, the change that is caused by the independent variable.
Experimental research also looks into the effects of removing something. For example, if you remove a loud noise from the room, will the person next to you be able to hear you? Or how much noise needs to be removed before that person can hear you?
Treatment and Hypothesis
The term treatment refers to either removing or adding a stimulus in order to measure an effect (such as turning the knob a little or a lot, or reducing the noise level a little or a lot). Experimental researchers want to know how varying levels of treatment will affect what they are studying. As such, researchers often have an idea, or hypothesis, about what effect will occur when they cause something. Few experiments are performed where there is no idea of what will happen. From past experiences in life or from the knowledge we possess in our specific field of study, we know how some actions cause other reactions. Experiments confirm or reconfirm this fact.
Experimentation becomes more complex when the causal relationships they seek aren't as clear as in the stereo knob-turning examples. Questions like "Will olestra cause cancer?" or "Will this new fertilizer help this plant grow better?" present more to consider. For example, any number of things could affect the growth rate of a plant-the temperature, how much water or sun it receives, or how much carbon dioxide is in the air. These variables can affect an experiment's results. An experimenter who wants to show that adding a certain fertilizer will help a plant grow better must ensure that it is the fertilizer, and nothing else, affecting the growth patterns of the plant. To do this, as many of these variables as possible must be controlled.
Matching and Randomization
In the example used in this guide (you'll find the example below), we discuss an experiment that focuses on three groups of plants -- one that is treated with a fertilizer named MegaGro, another group treated with a fertilizer named Plant!, and yet another that is not treated with fetilizer (this latter group serves as a "control" group). In this example, even though the designers of the experiment have tried to remove all extraneous variables, results may appear merely coincidental. Since the goal of the experiment is to prove a causal relationship in which a single variable is responsible for the effect produced, the experiment would produce stronger proof if the results were replicated in larger treatment and control groups.
Selecting groups entails assigning subjects in the groups of an experiment in such a way that treatment and control groups are comparable in all respects except the application of the treatment. Groups can be created in two ways: matching and randomization. In the MegaGro experiment discussed below, the plants might be matched according to characteristics such as age, weight and whether they are blooming. This involves distributing these plants so that each plant in one group exactly matches characteristics of plants in the other groups. Matching may be problematic, though, because it "can promote a false sense of security by leading [the experimenter] to believe that [the] experimental and control groups were really equated at the outset, when in fact they were not equated on a host of variables" (Jones, 291). In other words, you may have flowers for your MegaGro experiment that you matched and distributed among groups, but other variables are unaccounted for. It would be difficult to have equal groupings.
Randomization, then, is preferred to matching. This method is based on the statistical principle of normal distribution. Theoretically, any arbitrarily selected group of adequate size will reflect normal distribution. Differences between groups will average out and become more comparable. The principle of normal distribution states that in a population most individuals will fall within the middle range of values for a given characteristic, with increasingly fewer toward either extreme (graphically represented as the ubiquitous "bell curve").
Differences between Quasi-Experimental and Experimental Research
Thus far, we have explained that for experimental research we need:
- a hypothesis for a causal relationship;
- a control group and a treatment group;
- to eliminate confounding variables that might mess up the experiment and prevent displaying the causal relationship; and
- to have larger groups with a carefully sorted constituency; preferably randomized, in order to keep accidental differences from fouling things up.
But what if we don't have all of those? Do we still have an experiment? Not a true experiment in the strictest scientific sense of the term, but we can have a quasi-experiment, an attempt to uncover a causal relationship, even though the researcher cannot control all the factors that might affect the outcome.
A quasi-experimenter treats a given situation as an experiment even though it is not wholly by design. The independent variable may not be manipulated by the researcher, treatment and control groups may not be randomized or matched, or there may be no control group. The researcher is limited in what he or she can say conclusively.
The significant element of both experiments and quasi-experiments is the measure of the dependent variable, which it allows for comparison. Some data is quite straightforward, but other measures, such as level of self-confidence in writing ability, increase in creativity or in reading comprehension are inescapably subjective. In such cases, quasi-experimentation often involves a number of strategies to compare subjectivity, such as rating data, testing, surveying, and content analysis.
Rating essentially is developing a rating scale to evaluate data. In testing, experimenters and quasi-experimenters use ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and ANCOVA (Analysis of Co-Variance) tests to measure differences between control and experimental groups, as well as different correlations between groups.
Since we're mentioning the subject of statistics, note that experimental or quasi-experimental research cannot state beyond a shadow of a doubt that a single cause will always produce any one effect. They can do no more than show a probability that one thing causes another. The probability that a result is the due to random chance is an important measure of statistical analysis and in experimental research.
Example: Causality
Let's say you want to determine that your new fertilizer, MegaGro, will increase the growth rate of plants. You begin by getting a plant to go with your fertilizer. Since the experiment is concerned with proving that MegaGro works, you need another plant, using no fertilizer at all on it, to compare how much change your fertilized plant displays. This is what is known as a control group.
Set up with a control group, which will receive no treatment, and an experimental group, which will get MegaGro, you must then address those variables that could invalidate your experiment. This can be an extensive and exhaustive process. You must ensure that you use the same plant; that both groups are put in the same kind of soil; that they receive equal amounts of water and sun; that they receive the same amount of exposure to carbon-dioxide-exhaling researchers, and so on. In short, any other variable that might affect the growth of those plants, other than the fertilizer, must be the same for both plants. Otherwise, you can't prove absolutely that MegaGro is the only explanation for the increased growth of one of those plants.
Such an experiment can be done on more than two groups. You may not only want to show that MegaGro is an effective fertilizer, but that it is better than its competitor brand of fertilizer, Plant! All you need to do, then, is have one experimental group receiving MegaGro, one receiving Plant! and the other (the control group) receiving no fertilizer. Those are the only variables that can be different between the three groups; all other variables must be the same for the experiment to be valid.
Controlling variables allows the researcher to identify conditions that may affect the experiment's outcome. This may lead to alternative explanations that the researcher is willing to entertain in order to isolate only variables judged significant. In the MegaGro experiment, you may be concerned with how fertile the soil is, but not with the plants'; relative position in the window, as you don't think that the amount of shade they get will affect their growth rate. But what if it did? You would have to go about eliminating variables in order to determine which is the key factor. What if one receives more shade than the other and the MegaGro plant, which received more shade, died? This might prompt you to formulate a plausible alternative explanation, which is a way of accounting for a result that differs from what you expected. You would then want to redo the study with equal amounts of sunlight.
Methods: Five Steps
Experimental research can be roughly divided into five phases:
Identifying a research problem
The process starts by clearly identifying the problem you want to study and considering what possible methods will affect a solution. Then you choose the method you want to test, and formulate a hypothesis to predict the outcome of the test.
For example, you may want to improve student essays, but you don't believe that teacher feedback is enough. You hypothesize that some possible methods for writing improvement include peer workshopping, or reading more example essays. Favoring the former, your experiment would try to determine if peer workshopping improves writing in high school seniors. You state your hypothesis: peer workshopping prior to turning in a final draft will improve the quality of the student's essay.
Planning an experimental research study
The next step is to devise an experiment to test your hypothesis. In doing so, you must consider several factors. For example, how generalizable do you want your end results to be? Do you want to generalize about the entire population of high school seniors everywhere, or just the particular population of seniors at your specific school? This will determine how simple or complex the experiment will be. The amount of time funding you have will also determine the size of your experiment.
Continuing the example from step one, you may want a small study at one school involving three teachers, each teaching two sections of the same course. The treatment in this experiment is peer workshopping. Each of the three teachers will assign the same essay assignment to both classes; the treatment group will participate in peer workshopping, while the control group will receive only teacher comments on their drafts.
Conducting the experiment
At the start of an experiment, the control and treatment groups must be selected. Whereas the "hard" sciences have the luxury of attempting to create truly equal groups, educators often find themselves forced to conduct their experiments based on self-selected groups, rather than on randomization. As was highlighted in the Basic Concepts section, this makes the study a quasi-experiment, since the researchers cannot control all of the variables.
For the peer workshopping experiment, let's say that it involves six classes and three teachers with a sample of students randomly selected from all the classes. Each teacher will have a class for a control group and a class for a treatment group. The essay assignment is given and the teachers are briefed not to change any of their teaching methods other than the use of peer workshopping. You may see here that this is an effort to control a possible variable: teaching style variance.
Analyzing the data
The fourth step is to collect and analyze the data. This is not solely a step where you collect the papers, read them, and say your methods were a success. You must show how successful. You must devise a scale by which you will evaluate the data you receive, therefore you must decide what indicators will be, and will not be, important.
Continuing our example, the teachers' grades are first recorded, then the essays are evaluated for a change in sentence complexity, syntactical and grammatical errors, and overall length. Any statistical analysis is done at this time if you choose to do any. Notice here that the researcher has made judgments on what signals improved writing. It is not simply a matter of improved teacher grades, but a matter of what the researcher believes constitutes improved use of the language.
Writing the paper/presentation describing the findings
Once you have completed the experiment, you will want to share findings by publishing academic paper (or presentations). These papers usually have the following format, but it is not necessary to follow it strictly. Sections can be combined or not included, depending on the structure of the experiment, and the journal to which you submit your paper.
- Abstract : Summarize the project: its aims, participants, basic methodology, results, and a brief interpretation.
- Introduction : Set the context of the experiment.
- Review of Literature : Provide a review of the literature in the specific area of study to show what work has been done. Should lead directly to the author's purpose for the study.
- Statement of Purpose : Present the problem to be studied.
- Participants : Describe in detail participants involved in the study; e.g., how many, etc. Provide as much information as possible.
- Materials and Procedures : Clearly describe materials and procedures. Provide enough information so that the experiment can be replicated, but not so much information that it becomes unreadable. Include how participants were chosen, the tasks assigned them, how they were conducted, how data were evaluated, etc.
- Results : Present the data in an organized fashion. If it is quantifiable, it is analyzed through statistical means. Avoid interpretation at this time.
- Discussion : After presenting the results, interpret what has happened in the experiment. Base the discussion only on the data collected and as objective an interpretation as possible. Hypothesizing is possible here.
- Limitations : Discuss factors that affect the results. Here, you can speculate how much generalization, or more likely, transferability, is possible based on results. This section is important for quasi-experimentation, since a quasi-experiment cannot control all of the variables that might affect the outcome of a study. You would discuss what variables you could not control.
- Conclusion : Synthesize all of the above sections.
- References : Document works cited in the correct format for the field.
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research: Issues and Commentary
Several issues are addressed in this section, including the use of experimental and quasi-experimental research in educational settings, the relevance of the methods to English studies, and ethical concerns regarding the methods.
Using Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research in Educational Settings
Charting causal relationships in human settings.
Any time a human population is involved, prediction of casual relationships becomes cloudy and, some say, impossible. Many reasons exist for this; for example,
- researchers in classrooms add a disturbing presence, causing students to act abnormally, consciously or unconsciously;
- subjects try to please the researcher, just because of an apparent interest in them (known as the Hawthorne Effect); or, perhaps
- the teacher as researcher is restricted by bias and time pressures.
But such confounding variables don't stop researchers from trying to identify causal relationships in education. Educators naturally experiment anyway, comparing groups, assessing the attributes of each, and making predictions based on an evaluation of alternatives. They look to research to support their intuitive practices, experimenting whenever they try to decide which instruction method will best encourage student improvement.
Combining Theory, Research, and Practice
The goal of educational research lies in combining theory, research, and practice. Educational researchers attempt to establish models of teaching practice, learning styles, curriculum development, and countless other educational issues. The aim is to "try to improve our understanding of education and to strive to find ways to have understanding contribute to the improvement of practice," one writer asserts (Floden 1996, p. 197).
In quasi-experimentation, researchers try to develop models by involving teachers as researchers, employing observational research techniques. Although results of this kind of research are context-dependent and difficult to generalize, they can act as a starting point for further study. The "educational researcher . . . provides guidelines and interpretive material intended to liberate the teacher's intelligence so that whatever artistry in teaching the teacher can achieve will be employed" (Eisner 1992, p. 8).
Bias and Rigor
Critics contend that the educational researcher is inherently biased, sample selection is arbitrary, and replication is impossible. The key to combating such criticism has to do with rigor. Rigor is established through close, proper attention to randomizing groups, time spent on a study, and questioning techniques. This allows more effective application of standards of quantitative research to qualitative research.
Often, teachers cannot wait to for piles of experimentation data to be analyzed before using the teaching methods (Lauer and Asher 1988). They ultimately must assess whether the results of a study in a distant classroom are applicable in their own classrooms. And they must continuously test the effectiveness of their methods by using experimental and qualitative research simultaneously. In addition to statistics (quantitative), researchers may perform case studies or observational research (qualitative) in conjunction with, or prior to, experimentation.
Relevance to English Studies
Situations in english studies that might encourage use of experimental methods.
Whenever a researcher would like to see if a causal relationship exists between groups, experimental and quasi-experimental research can be a viable research tool. Researchers in English Studies might use experimentation when they believe a relationship exists between two variables, and they want to show that these two variables have a significant correlation (or causal relationship).
A benefit of experimentation is the ability to control variables, such as the amount of treatment, when it is given, to whom and so forth. Controlling variables allows researchers to gain insight into the relationships they believe exist. For example, a researcher has an idea that writing under pseudonyms encourages student participation in newsgroups. Researchers can control which students write under pseudonyms and which do not, then measure the outcomes. Researchers can then analyze results and determine if this particular variable alone causes increased participation.
Transferability-Applying Results
Experimentation and quasi-experimentation allow for generating transferable results and accepting those results as being dependent upon experimental rigor. It is an effective alternative to generalizability, which is difficult to rely upon in educational research. English scholars, reading results of experiments with a critical eye, ultimately decide if results will be implemented and how. They may even extend that existing research by replicating experiments in the interest of generating new results and benefiting from multiple perspectives. These results will strengthen the study or discredit findings.
Concerns English Scholars Express about Experiments
Researchers should carefully consider if a particular method is feasible in humanities studies, and whether it will yield the desired information. Some researchers recommend addressing pertinent issues combining several research methods, such as survey, interview, ethnography, case study, content analysis, and experimentation (Lauer and Asher, 1988).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research: Discussion
In educational research, experimentation is a way to gain insight into methods of instruction. Although teaching is context specific, results can provide a starting point for further study. Often, a teacher/researcher will have a "gut" feeling about an issue which can be explored through experimentation and looking at causal relationships. Through research intuition can shape practice .
A preconception exists that information obtained through scientific method is free of human inconsistencies. But, since scientific method is a matter of human construction, it is subject to human error . The researcher's personal bias may intrude upon the experiment , as well. For example, certain preconceptions may dictate the course of the research and affect the behavior of the subjects. The issue may be compounded when, although many researchers are aware of the affect that their personal bias exerts on their own research, they are pressured to produce research that is accepted in their field of study as "legitimate" experimental research.
The researcher does bring bias to experimentation, but bias does not limit an ability to be reflective . An ethical researcher thinks critically about results and reports those results after careful reflection. Concerns over bias can be leveled against any research method.
Often, the sample may not be representative of a population, because the researcher does not have an opportunity to ensure a representative sample. For example, subjects could be limited to one location, limited in number, studied under constrained conditions and for too short a time.
Despite such inconsistencies in educational research, the researcher has control over the variables , increasing the possibility of more precisely determining individual effects of each variable. Also, determining interaction between variables is more possible.
Even so, artificial results may result . It can be argued that variables are manipulated so the experiment measures what researchers want to examine; therefore, the results are merely contrived products and have no bearing in material reality. Artificial results are difficult to apply in practical situations, making generalizing from the results of a controlled study questionable. Experimental research essentially first decontextualizes a single question from a "real world" scenario, studies it under controlled conditions, and then tries to recontextualize the results back on the "real world" scenario. Results may be difficult to replicate .
Perhaps, groups in an experiment may not be comparable . Quasi-experimentation in educational research is widespread because not only are many researchers also teachers, but many subjects are also students. With the classroom as laboratory, it is difficult to implement randomizing or matching strategies. Often, students self-select into certain sections of a course on the basis of their own agendas and scheduling needs. Thus when, as often happens, one class is treated and the other used for a control, the groups may not actually be comparable. As one might imagine, people who register for a class which meets three times a week at eleven o'clock in the morning (young, no full-time job, night people) differ significantly from those who register for one on Monday evenings from seven to ten p.m. (older, full-time job, possibly more highly motivated). Each situation presents different variables and your group might be completely different from that in the study. Long-term studies are expensive and hard to reproduce. And although often the same hypotheses are tested by different researchers, various factors complicate attempts to compare or synthesize them. It is nearly impossible to be as rigorous as the natural sciences model dictates.
Even when randomization of students is possible, problems arise. First, depending on the class size and the number of classes, the sample may be too small for the extraneous variables to cancel out. Second, the study population is not strictly a sample, because the population of students registered for a given class at a particular university is obviously not representative of the population of all students at large. For example, students at a suburban private liberal-arts college are typically young, white, and upper-middle class. In contrast, students at an urban community college tend to be older, poorer, and members of a racial minority. The differences can be construed as confounding variables: the first group may have fewer demands on its time, have less self-discipline, and benefit from superior secondary education. The second may have more demands, including a job and/or children, have more self-discipline, but an inferior secondary education. Selecting a population of subjects which is representative of the average of all post-secondary students is also a flawed solution, because the outcome of a treatment involving this group is not necessarily transferable to either the students at a community college or the students at the private college, nor are they universally generalizable.
When a human population is involved, experimental research becomes concerned if behavior can be predicted or studied with validity. Human response can be difficult to measure . Human behavior is dependent on individual responses. Rationalizing behavior through experimentation does not account for the process of thought, making outcomes of that process fallible (Eisenberg, 1996).
Nevertheless, we perform experiments daily anyway . When we brush our teeth every morning, we are experimenting to see if this behavior will result in fewer cavities. We are relying on previous experimentation and we are transferring the experimentation to our daily lives.
Moreover, experimentation can be combined with other research methods to ensure rigor . Other qualitative methods such as case study, ethnography, observational research and interviews can function as preconditions for experimentation or conducted simultaneously to add validity to a study.
We have few alternatives to experimentation. Mere anecdotal research , for example is unscientific, unreplicatable, and easily manipulated. Should we rely on Ed walking into a faculty meeting and telling the story of Sally? Sally screamed, "I love writing!" ten times before she wrote her essay and produced a quality paper. Therefore, all the other faculty members should hear this anecdote and know that all other students should employ this similar technique.
On final disadvantage: frequently, political pressure drives experimentation and forces unreliable results. Specific funding and support may drive the outcomes of experimentation and cause the results to be skewed. The reader of these results may not be aware of these biases and should approach experimentation with a critical eye.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research: Quick Reference List
Experimental and quasi-experimental research can be summarized in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. This section combines and elaborates upon many points mentioned previously in this guide.
|
|
gain insight into methods of instruction | subject to human error |
intuitive practice shaped by research | personal bias of researcher may intrude |
teachers have bias but can be reflective | sample may not be representative |
researcher can have control over variables | can produce artificial results |
humans perform experiments anyway | results may only apply to one situation and may be difficult to replicate |
can be combined with other research methods for rigor | groups may not be comparable |
use to determine what is best for population | human response can be difficult to measure |
provides for greater transferability than anecdotal research | political pressure may skew results |
Ethical Concerns
Experimental research may be manipulated on both ends of the spectrum: by researcher and by reader. Researchers who report on experimental research, faced with naive readers of experimental research, encounter ethical concerns. While they are creating an experiment, certain objectives and intended uses of the results might drive and skew it. Looking for specific results, they may ask questions and look at data that support only desired conclusions. Conflicting research findings are ignored as a result. Similarly, researchers, seeking support for a particular plan, look only at findings which support that goal, dismissing conflicting research.
Editors and journals do not publish only trouble-free material. As readers of experiments members of the press might report selected and isolated parts of a study to the public, essentially transferring that data to the general population which may not have been intended by the researcher. Take, for example, oat bran. A few years ago, the press reported how oat bran reduces high blood pressure by reducing cholesterol. But that bit of information was taken out of context. The actual study found that when people ate more oat bran, they reduced their intake of saturated fats high in cholesterol. People started eating oat bran muffins by the ton, assuming a causal relationship when in actuality a number of confounding variables might influence the causal link.
Ultimately, ethical use and reportage of experimentation should be addressed by researchers, reporters and readers alike.
Reporters of experimental research often seek to recognize their audience's level of knowledge and try not to mislead readers. And readers must rely on the author's skill and integrity to point out errors and limitations. The relationship between researcher and reader may not sound like a problem, but after spending months or years on a project to produce no significant results, it may be tempting to manipulate the data to show significant results in order to jockey for grants and tenure.
Meanwhile, the reader may uncritically accept results that receive validity by being published in a journal. However, research that lacks credibility often is not published; consequentially, researchers who fail to publish run the risk of being denied grants, promotions, jobs, and tenure. While few researchers are anything but earnest in their attempts to conduct well-designed experiments and present the results in good faith, rhetorical considerations often dictate a certain minimization of methodological flaws.
Concerns arise if researchers do not report all, or otherwise alter, results. This phenomenon is counterbalanced, however, in that professionals are also rewarded for publishing critiques of others' work. Because the author of an experimental study is in essence making an argument for the existence of a causal relationship, he or she must be concerned not only with its integrity, but also with its presentation. Achieving persuasiveness in any kind of writing involves several elements: choosing a topic of interest, providing convincing evidence for one's argument, using tone and voice to project credibility, and organizing the material in a way that meets expectations for a logical sequence. Of course, what is regarded as pertinent, accepted as evidence, required for credibility, and understood as logical varies according to context. If the experimental researcher hopes to make an impact on the community of professionals in their field, she must attend to the standards and orthodoxy's of that audience.
Related Links
Contrasts: Traditional and computer-supported writing classrooms. This Web presents a discussion of the Transitions Study, a year-long exploration of teachers and students in computer-supported and traditional writing classrooms. Includes description of study, rationale for conducting the study, results and implications of the study.
http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/2.2/features/reflections/page1.htm
Annotated Bibliography
A cozy world of trivial pursuits? (1996, June 28) The Times Educational Supplement . 4174, pp. 14-15.
A critique discounting the current methods Great Britain employs to fund and disseminate educational research. The belief is that research is performed for fellow researchers not the teaching public and implications for day to day practice are never addressed.
Anderson, J. A. (1979, Nov. 10-13). Research as argument: the experimental form. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
In this paper, the scientist who uses the experimental form does so in order to explain that which is verified through prediction.
Anderson, Linda M. (1979). Classroom-based experimental studies of teaching effectiveness in elementary schools . (Technical Report UTR&D-R- 4102). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
Three recent large-scale experimental studies have built on a database established through several correlational studies of teaching effectiveness in elementary school.
Asher, J. W. (1976). Educational research and evaluation methods . Boston: Little, Brown.
Abstract unavailable by press time.
Babbie, Earl R. (1979). The Practice of Social Research . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
A textbook containing discussions of several research methodologies used in social science research.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1993). The word processor as instructional tool: a meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63 (1), 69-93.
Beach, R. (1993). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English, 13 , 111-119.
The question of whether teacher evaluation or guided self-evaluation of rough drafts results in increased revision was addressed in Beach's study. Differences in the effects of teacher evaluations, guided self-evaluation (using prepared guidelines,) and no evaluation of rough drafts were examined. The final drafts of students (10th, 11th, and 12th graders) were compared with their rough drafts and rated by judges according to degree of change.
Beishuizen, J. & Moonen, J. (1992). Research in technology enriched schools: a case for cooperation between teachers and researchers . (ERIC Technical Report ED351006).
This paper describes the research strategies employed in the Dutch Technology Enriched Schools project to encourage extensive and intensive use of computers in a small number of secondary schools, and to study the effects of computer use on the classroom, the curriculum, and school administration and management.
Borg, W. P. (1989). Educational Research: an Introduction . (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
An overview of educational research methodology, including literature review and discussion of approaches to research, experimental design, statistical analysis, ethics, and rhetorical presentation of research findings.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
A classic overview of research designs.
Campbell, D.T. (1988). Methodology and epistemology for social science: selected papers . ed. E. S. Overman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
This is an overview of Campbell's 40-year career and his work. It covers in seven parts measurement, experimental design, applied social experimentation, interpretive social science, epistemology and sociology of science. Includes an extensive bibliography.
Caporaso, J. A., & Roos, Jr., L. L. (Eds.). Quasi-experimental approaches: Testing theory and evaluating policy. Evanston, WA: Northwestern University Press.
A collection of articles concerned with explicating the underlying assumptions of quasi-experimentation and relating these to true experimentation. With an emphasis on design. Includes a glossary of terms.
Collier, R. Writing and the word processor: How wary of the gift-giver should we be? Unpublished manuscript.
Unpublished typescript. Charts the developments to date in computers and composition and speculates about the future within the framework of Willie Sypher's model of the evolution of creative discovery.
Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
The authors write that this book "presents some quasi-experimental designs and design features that can be used in many social research settings. The designs serve to probe causal hypotheses about a wide variety of substantive issues in both basic and applied research."
Cutler, A. (1970). An experimental method for semantic field study. Linguistic Communication, 2 , N. pag.
This paper emphasizes the need for empirical research and objective discovery procedures in semantics, and illustrates a method by which these goals may be obtained.
Daniels, L. B. (1996, Summer). Eisenberg's Heisenberg: The indeterminancies of rationality. Curriculum Inquiry, 26 , 181-92.
Places Eisenberg's theories in relation to the death of foundationalism by showing that he distorts rational studies into a form of relativism. He looks at Eisenberg's ideas on indeterminacy, methods and evidence, what he is against and what we should think of what he says.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danzinger stresses the importance of being aware of the framework in which research operates and of the essentially social nature of scientific activity.
Diener, E., et al. (1972, December). Leakage of experimental information to potential future subjects by debriefed subjects. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality , 264-67.
Research regarding research: an investigation of the effects on the outcome of an experiment in which information about the experiment had been leaked to subjects. The study concludes that such leakage is not a significant problem.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Rhodes, L. K. (1989). Reflecting on a close encounter with experimental research. Canadian Journal of English Language Arts. 12 , 24-28.
Researchers, Dudley-Marling and Rhodes, address some problems they met in their experimental approach to a study of reading comprehension. This article discusses the limitations of experimental research, and presents an alternative to experimental or quantitative research.
Edgington, E. S. (1985). Random assignment and experimental research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21 , N. pag.
Edgington explores ways on which random assignment can be a part of field studies. The author discusses both non-experimental and experimental research and the need for using random assignment.
Eisenberg, J. (1996, Summer). Response to critiques by R. Floden, J. Zeuli, and L. Daniels. Curriculum Inquiry, 26 , 199-201.
A response to critiques of his argument that rational educational research methods are at best suspect and at worst futile. He believes indeterminacy controls this method and worries that chaotic research is failing students.
Eisner, E. (1992, July). Are all causal claims positivistic? A reply to Francis Schrag. Educational Researcher, 21 (5), 8-9.
Eisner responds to Schrag who claimed that critics like Eisner cannot escape a positivistic paradigm whatever attempts they make to do so. Eisner argues that Schrag essentially misses the point for trying to argue for the paradigm solely on the basis of cause and effect without including the rest of positivistic philosophy. This weakens his argument against multiple modal methods, which Eisner argues provides opportunities to apply the appropriate research design where it is most applicable.
Floden, R.E. (1996, Summer). Educational research: limited, but worthwhile and maybe a bargain. (response to J.A. Eisenberg). Curriculum Inquiry, 26 , 193-7.
Responds to John Eisenberg critique of educational research by asserting the connection between improvement of practice and research results. He places high value of teacher discrepancy and knowledge that research informs practice.
Fortune, J. C., & Hutson, B. A. (1994, March/April). Selecting models for measuring change when true experimental conditions do not exist. Journal of Educational Research, 197-206.
This article reviews methods for minimizing the effects of nonideal experimental conditions by optimally organizing models for the measurement of change.
Fox, R. F. (1980). Treatment of writing apprehension and tts effects on composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 14 , 39-49.
The main purpose of Fox's study was to investigate the effects of two methods of teaching writing on writing apprehension among entry level composition students, A conventional teaching procedure was used with a control group, while a workshop method was employed with the treatment group.
Gadamer, H-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics . (D. E. Linge, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
A collection of essays with the common themes of the mediation of experience through language, the impossibility of objectivity, and the importance of context in interpretation.
Gaise, S. J. (1981). Experimental vs. non-experimental research on classroom second language learning. Bilingual Education Paper Series, 5 , N. pag.
Aims on classroom-centered research on second language learning and teaching are considered and contrasted with the experimental approach.
Giordano, G. (1983). Commentary: Is experimental research snowing us? Journal of Reading, 27 , 5-7.
Do educational research findings actually benefit teachers and students? Giordano states his opinion that research may be helpful to teaching, but is not essential and often is unnecessary.
Goldenson, D. R. (1978, March). An alternative view about the role of the secondary school in political socialization: A field-experimental study of theory and research in social education. Theory and Research in Social Education , 44-72.
This study concludes that when political discussion among experimental groups of secondary school students is led by a teacher, the degree to which the students' views were impacted is proportional to the credibility of the teacher.
Grossman, J., and J. P. Tierney. (1993, October). The fallibility of comparison groups. Evaluation Review , 556-71.
Grossman and Tierney present evidence to suggest that comparison groups are not the same as nontreatment groups.
Harnisch, D. L. (1992). Human judgment and the logic of evidence: A critical examination of research methods in special education transition literature. In D. L. Harnisch et al. (Eds.), Selected readings in transition.
This chapter describes several common types of research studies in special education transition literature and the threats to their validity.
Hawisher, G. E. (1989). Research and recommendations for computers and composition. In G. Hawisher and C. Selfe. (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Computers and Composition Instruction . (pp. 44-69). New York: Teacher's College Press.
An overview of research in computers and composition to date. Includes a synthesis grid of experimental research.
Hillocks, G. Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16 , 261-278.
Hillock conducted a study using three treatments: observational or data collecting activities prior to writing, use of revisions or absence of same, and either brief or lengthy teacher comments to identify effective methods of teaching composition to seventh and eighth graders.
Jenkinson, J. C. (1989). Research design in the experimental study of intellectual disability. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 69-84.
This article catalogues the difficulties of conducting experimental research where the subjects are intellectually disables and suggests alternative research strategies.
Jones, R. A. (1985). Research Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc..
A textbook designed to provide an overview of research strategies in the social sciences, including survey, content analysis, ethnographic approaches, and experimentation. The author emphasizes the importance of applying strategies appropriately and in variety.
Kamil, M. L., Langer, J. A., & Shanahan, T. (1985). Understanding research in reading and writing . Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Examines a wide variety of problems in reading and writing, with a broad range of techniques, from different perspectives.
Kennedy, J. L. (1985). An Introduction to the Design and Analysis of Experiments in Behavioral Research . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
An introductory textbook of psychological and educational research.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: a researcher's handbook . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
This updates Keppel's earlier book subtitled "a student's handbook." Focuses on extensive information about analytical research and gives a basic picture of research in psychology. Covers a range of statistical topics. Includes a subject and name index, as well as a glossary.
Knowles, G., Elija, R., & Broadwater, K. (1996, Spring/Summer). Teacher research: enhancing the preparation of teachers? Teaching Education, 8 , 123-31.
Researchers looked at one teacher candidate who participated in a class which designed their own research project correlating to a question they would like answered in the teaching world. The goal of the study was to see if preservice teachers developed reflective practice by researching appropriate classroom contexts.
Lace, J., & De Corte, E. (1986, April 16-20). Research on media in western Europe: A myth of sisyphus? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.
Identifies main trends in media research in western Europe, with emphasis on three successive stages since 1960: tools technology, systems technology, and reflective technology.
Latta, A. (1996, Spring/Summer). Teacher as researcher: selected resources. Teaching Education, 8 , 155-60.
An annotated bibliography on educational research including milestones of thought, practical applications, successful outcomes, seminal works, and immediate practical applications.
Lauer. J.M. & Asher, J. W. (1988). Composition research: Empirical designs . New York: Oxford University Press.
Approaching experimentation from a humanist's perspective to it, authors focus on eight major research designs: Case studies, ethnographies, sampling and surveys, quantitative descriptive studies, measurement, true experiments, quasi-experiments, meta-analyses, and program evaluations. It takes on the challenge of bridging language of social science with that of the humanist. Includes name and subject indexes, as well as a glossary and a glossary of symbols.
Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind? Harvard Educational Review, 49 , 1-19.
Contextual importance has been largely ignored by traditional research approaches in social/behavioral sciences and in their application to the education field. Developmental and social psychologists have increasingly noted the inadequacies of this approach. Drawing examples for phenomenology, sociolinguistics, and ethnomethodology, the author proposes alternative approaches for studying meaning in context.
Mitroff, I., & Bonoma, T. V. (1978, May). Psychological assumptions, experimentations, and real world problems: A critique and an alternate approach to evaluation. Evaluation Quarterly , 235-60.
The authors advance the notion of dialectic as a means to clarify and examine the underlying assumptions of experimental research methodology, both in highly controlled situations and in social evaluation.
Muller, E. W. (1985). Application of experimental and quasi-experimental research designs to educational software evaluation. Educational Technology, 25 , 27-31.
Muller proposes a set of guidelines for the use of experimental and quasi-experimental methods of research in evaluating educational software. By obtaining empirical evidence of student performance, it is possible to evaluate if programs are making the desired learning effect.
Murray, S., et al. (1979, April 8-12). Technical issues as threats to internal validity of experimental and quasi-experimental designs . San Francisco: University of California.
The article reviews three evaluation models and analyzes the flaws common to them. Remedies are suggested.
Muter, P., & Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: The paperless office revisited? Behavior and Information Technology, 10 (4), 257-66.
The researchers test for reading and skimming effectiveness, defined as accuracy combined with speed, for written text compared to text on a computer monitor. They conclude that, given optimal on-line conditions, both are equally effective.
O'Donnell, A., Et al. (1992). The impact of cooperative writing. In J. R. Hayes, et al. (Eds.). Reading empirical research studies: The rhetoric of research . (pp. 371-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
A model of experimental design. The authors investigate the efficacy of cooperative writing strategies, as well as the transferability of skills learned to other, individual writing situations.
Palmer, D. (1988). Looking at philosophy . Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
An introductory text with incisive but understandable discussions of the major movements and thinkers in philosophy from the Pre-Socratics through Sartre. With illustrations by the author. Includes a glossary.
Phelps-Gunn, T., & Phelps-Terasaki, D. (1982). Written language instruction: Theory and remediation . London: Aspen Systems Corporation.
The lack of research in written expression is addressed and an application on the Total Writing Process Model is presented.
Poetter, T. (1996, Spring/Summer). From resistance to excitement: becoming qualitative researchers and reflective practitioners. Teaching Education , 8109-19.
An education professor reveals his own problematic research when he attempted to institute a educational research component to a teacher preparation program. He encountered dissent from students and cooperating professionals and ultimately was rewarded with excitement towards research and a recognized correlation to practice.
Purves, A. C. (1992). Reflections on research and assessment in written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26 .
Three issues concerning research and assessment is writing are discussed: 1) School writing is a matter of products not process, 2) school writing is an ill-defined domain, 3) the quality of school writing is what observers report they see. Purves discusses these issues while looking at data collected in a ten-year study of achievement in written composition in fourteen countries.
Rathus, S. A. (1987). Psychology . (3rd ed.). Poughkeepsie, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
An introductory psychology textbook. Includes overviews of the major movements in psychology, discussions of prominent examples of experimental research, and a basic explanation of relevant physiological factors. With chapter summaries.
Reiser, R. A. (1982). Improving the research skills of instructional designers. Educational Technology, 22 , 19-21.
In his paper, Reiser starts by stating the importance of research in advancing the field of education, and points out that graduate students in instructional design lack the proper skills to conduct research. The paper then goes on to outline the practicum in the Instructional Systems Program at Florida State University which includes: 1) Planning and conducting an experimental research study; 2) writing the manuscript describing the study; 3) giving an oral presentation in which they describe their research findings.
Report on education research . (Journal). Washington, DC: Capitol Publication, Education News Services Division.
This is an independent bi-weekly newsletter on research in education and learning. It has been publishing since Sept. 1969.
Rossell, C. H. (1986). Why is bilingual education research so bad?: Critique of the Walsh and Carballo study of Massachusetts bilingual education programs . Boston: Center for Applied Social Science, Boston University. (ERIC Working Paper 86-5).
The Walsh and Carballo evaluation of the effectiveness of transitional bilingual education programs in five Massachusetts communities has five flaws and the five flaws are discussed in detail.
Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender-typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26.
This study was designed to find out whether the writing styles of men and women differ. Rubin and Green discuss the pre-suppositions that women are better writers than men.
Sawin, E. (1992). Reaction: Experimental research in the context of other methods. School of Education Review, 4 , 18-21.
Sawin responds to Gage's article on methodologies and issues in educational research. He agrees with most of the article but suggests the concept of scientific should not be regarded in absolute terms and recommends more emphasis on scientific method. He also questions the value of experiments over other types of research.
Schoonmaker, W. E. (1984). Improving classroom instruction: A model for experimental research. The Technology Teacher, 44, 24-25.
The model outlined in this article tries to bridge the gap between classroom practice and laboratory research, using what Schoonmaker calls active research. Research is conducted in the classroom with the students and is used to determine which two methods of classroom instruction chosen by the teacher is more effective.
Schrag, F. (1992). In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educational Researcher, 21, (5), 5-8.
The controversial defense of the use of positivistic research methods to evaluate educational strategies; the author takes on Eisner, Erickson, and Popkewitz.
Smith, J. (1997). The stories educational researchers tell about themselves. Educational Researcher, 33 (3), 4-11.
Recapitulates main features of an on-going debate between advocates for using vocabularies of traditional language arts and whole language in educational research. An "impasse" exists were advocates "do not share a theoretical disposition concerning both language instruction and the nature of research," Smith writes (p. 6). He includes a very comprehensive history of the debate of traditional research methodology and qualitative methods and vocabularies. Definitely worth a read by graduates.
Smith, N. L. (1980). The feasibility and desirability of experimental methods in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning: An International Journal , 251-55.
Smith identifies the conditions under which experimental research is most desirable. Includes a review of current thinking and controversies.
Stewart, N. R., & Johnson, R. G. (1986, March 16-20). An evaluation of experimental methodology in counseling and counselor education research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of experimental research in counseling and counselor education published from 1976 through 1984.
Spector, P. E. (1990). Research Designs. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
In this book, Spector introduces the basic principles of experimental and nonexperimental design in the social sciences.
Tait, P. E. (1984). Do-it-yourself evaluation of experimental research. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 78 , 356-363 .
Tait's goal is to provide the reader who is unfamiliar with experimental research or statistics with the basic skills necessary for the evaluation of research studies.
Walsh, S. M. (1990). The current conflict between case study and experimental research: A breakthrough study derives benefits from both . (ERIC Document Number ED339721).
This paper describes a study that was not experimentally designed, but its major findings were generalizable to the overall population of writers in college freshman composition classes. The study was not a case study, but it provided insights into the attitudes and feelings of small clusters of student writers.
Waters, G. R. (1976). Experimental designs in communication research. Journal of Business Communication, 14 .
The paper presents a series of discussions on the general elements of experimental design and the scientific process and relates these elements to the field of communication.
Welch, W. W. (March 1969). The selection of a national random sample of teachers for experimental curriculum evaluation. Scholastic Science and Math , 210-216.
Members of the evaluation section of Harvard project physics describe what is said to be the first attempt to select a national random sample of teachers, and list 6 steps to do so. Cost and comparison with a volunteer group are also discussed.
Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design , (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Combines theory and application discussions to give readers a better understanding of the logic behind statistical aspects of experimental design. Introduces the broad topic of design, then goes into considerable detail. Not for light reading. Bring your aspirin if you like statistics. Bring morphine is you're a humanist.
Winn, B. (1986, January 16-21). Emerging trends in educational technology research. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communication Technology.
This examination of the topic of research in educational technology addresses four major areas: (1) why research is conducted in this area and the characteristics of that research; (2) the types of research questions that should or should not be addressed; (3) the most appropriate methodologies for finding answers to research questions; and (4) the characteristics of a research report that make it good and ultimately suitable for publication.
Citation Information
Luann Barnes, Jennifer Hauser, Luana Heikes, Anthony J. Hernandez, Paul Tim Richard, Katherine Ross, Guo Hua Yang, and Mike Palmquist. (1994-2024). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research. The WAC Clearinghouse. Colorado State University. Available at https://wac.colostate.edu/repository/writing/guides/.
Copyright Information
Copyright © 1994-2024 Colorado State University and/or this site's authors, developers, and contributors . Some material displayed on this site is used with permission.
We Trust in Human Precision
20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.
API Solutions
- API Pricing
- Cost estimate
- Customer loyalty program
- Educational Discount
- Non-Profit Discount
- Green Initiative Discount1
Value-Driven Pricing
Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.
- Special Discounts
- Enterprise transcription solutions
- Enterprise translation solutions
- Transcription/Caption API
- AI Transcription Proofreading API
Trusted by Global Leaders
GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.
GoTranscript
One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.
Speaker 1: In this video, we're going to look at research design for quantitative studies. We'll start by first explaining what research design is, and then we'll explore the four most common research designs for quantitative studies. Speaking of which, if you are currently working on a dissertation or a thesis, be sure to grab our free chapter templates. These are going to help you fast track your write-up. These tried and tested templates provide a detailed roadmap to guide you through each chapter step by step. If that sounds helpful, you can find the link in the description. So let's start with the basics and ask the question, what exactly is research design? Well, simply put, research design refers to the overall plan or strategy that guides a research project, from its conception to the final analysis of data. A good research design serves as a blueprint for how you, as the researcher, will collect and analyze data while ensuring consistency, reliability, and validity throughout your study. Within quantitative research, the four most common research designs are descriptive, correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental. Having a good understanding of the different research design options available to you is essential. Without a clear, big-picture view of how you'll design your research, you run the risk of making misaligned choices in terms of your methodology, I mean, especially the data collection and analysis-related decisions. In this video, we will look specifically at research design for quantitative studies, but if you're interested in the qualitative side of things, we've got a video covering that too. You can find the link in the description. So now that we've defined research design, let's dive into the four most popular design options for quantitative studies. First up is descriptive research design. As the name suggests, descriptive research focuses on describing existing conditions, behaviors, or characteristics. Importantly, this is achieved by systematically gathering information without manipulating any variables. In other words, there's no intervention on the researcher's part, only data collection. For example, if you were studying the prevalence of smartphone addiction among adolescents in your community, you could deploy a survey to a sample of teens, asking them to rate their agreement with certain statements that relate to smartphone addiction. The collected data would then provide insight regarding how widespread the issue may be. In other words, it would describe the situation. The key defining attribute of this type of design is that it purely describes the characteristics of the data. In other words, descriptive research generally doesn't explore relationships between different variables, nor the causes that underlie those relationships. This doesn't mean that descriptive research is inferior to other research design types. Actually, on the contrary, descriptive research is perfect for addressing what, who, where, and when type research aims and research questions. By doing so, it can deliver valuable insights and can also be used as a precursor to other research design types, which is coming up next. Next up, we've got correlational research design. This type of design is a popular choice for researchers looking to identify and measure relationships between two or more variables without manipulating them. In other words, this research design is useful when you want to know whether a change in one thing tends to be accompanied by a change in another thing. For example, if you wanted to explore the relationship between exercise frequency and overall health, you could use a correlational design to help you achieve this. In this case, you might gather data on participants' exercise habits along with records of their health indicators, such as blood pressure, heart rate, or body mass index. You could then use a statistical test to assess whether there's a relationship between the two variables, exercise frequency and health. As you can see, correlational research design is useful when you want to explore potential relationships between variables that can't be manipulated or controlled, whether that's because of ethical, practical, or logistical reasons. Also, since correlational design doesn't involve the manipulation of variables, it can be implemented at a larger scale more easily than experimental design types, which we'll look at soon. That being said, it's important to keep in mind that correlational research design does have limitations, just like any design type. Most notably, it cannot be used to establish causality. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. So, be sure to exercise caution when you interpret correlational findings and don't make the mistake of drawing casual inferences based solely on correlational research. To establish causality, you need to move into the realm of experimental design, up next. Experimental research design is used to determine if there's a causal relationship between variables. With this type of research design, you, as the researcher, manipulate one variable, the independent variable, while controlling others, the dependent variables. Doing so allows you to observe the effect of the former on the latter and draw conclusions about potential causality. For example, if you wanted to measure how different types of fertilizer affect plant growth, you could set up several groups of plants, with each group receiving a different type of fertilizer, as well as one with no fertilizer at all. You could then measure how each plant group grew, on average, over time and compare the results from the different groups to see which fertilizer was most effective. Naturally, experimental research design provides researchers with a powerful way to identify and measure causal relationships and their directionality between variables. However, developing a rigorous experimental design can be challenging, as it's not always easy to control all of the variables in a study. This often results in smaller sample sizes, which can reduce the statistical power and generalizability of the results. Another challenge with experimental research design is that it requires random assignment. This means assigning participants to different groups or conditions in a way that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to any group. Note that this is not the same as random sampling. You can learn more about that in our sampling video up here. Assigning participants randomly helps reduce the potential for bias and confounding variables, but it can lead to ethics-related challenges. For example, withholding a potentially beneficial medical treatment from a control group of patients may be considered unethical in certain situations. So, as with any research design option, experimental design comes with its unique set of pros and cons. Hey, if you're enjoying this video so far, please help us out by hitting that like button. You can also subscribe for loads of plain language actionable advice. If you're new to research, check out our free dissertation writing course, which covers everything that you need to get started on your research project. As always, you can find the link in the description. Last but not least, we've got quasi-experimental research. This type of design is used when the research aims involve investigating causal relationships, but the researcher cannot or does not want to randomly assign participants to different groups, whether it's for practical or ethical reasons. Instead, with a quasi-experimental design, the researcher relies on existing groups or pre-existing conditions to form groups for comparison. For example, if you were studying the effects of a new teaching method on students' achievement in a particular school district, you might not be able to randomly assign students to different classes using different teaching methods. In that case, you'd have to choose classes or schools that already use different teaching methods. This way, you'd still achieve separate groups without having to assign the participants to specific groups yourself. Naturally, quasi-experimental research designs have limitations when compared to experimental designs. Given that participant assignment is not random, it's more difficult to confidently establish causality between variables. Moreover, you have less control over other variables that may impact findings, which increases the risk of confounding variables. All that said, quasi-experimental designs can still be incredibly valuable in research contexts where random assignment just isn't possible. Notably, this design type can often be undertaken on a much larger scale than experimental research, which means greater statistical power. What's important is that you, as the researcher, understand the limitations and conduct your quasi-experiment as rigorously as possible, paying careful attention to any potential confounding variables. All right, so there you have it. In this video, we've explored four popular quantitative research designs, descriptive, correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental. If you got value from this video, please hit that like button. That way, more students can find this content. For more videos like this, check out the Grad Coach channel and be sure to subscribe for plain language, actionable research tips, and advice. Also, if you're looking for one-on-one support with your dissertation, thesis, or research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service where we hold your hand throughout the research process step by step. You can learn more about that and book a free consultation at gradcoach.com.
Dadang Oray
Website for E-commerce Business
A website for eCommerce business is a digital platform that allows businesses to sell products or services online, reaching a global audience and offering 24/7 accessibility. These websites are designed with features such as product catalogs, secure payment gateways, and inventory management, providing a seamless shopping experience for customers. Additionally, they offer tools for marketing, customer engagement, and business scalability.
Conducting an eCommerce evaluation helps businesses assess the effectiveness of their website, focusing on user experience, conversion rates, SEO performance, and overall functionality. A well-optimized website for eCommerce business is essential for maximizing sales, building credibility, and fostering customer loyalty in today’s digital marketplace.
List of Popular Websites for E-commerce Business
E-commerce has revolutionized the way businesses operate, providing entrepreneurs with the ability to sell products and services globally. A strong online presence is essential for success, and choosing the right platform to host an e-commerce business is crucial.
Here is a list of some of the most popular e-commerce platforms that cater to different business needs, offering various features and functionalities to help businesses thrive online.
Shopify is one of the most widely used e-commerce platforms globally, known for its ease of use and versatility. It is ideal for businesses of all sizes, from small startups to large enterprises. Shopify provides a user-friendly interface, a variety of customizable templates, and an extensive app marketplace to enhance your store’s functionality. Key features include integrated payment processing, inventory management, SEO optimization, and multichannel selling through platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Amazon.
- Best for: Small to medium-sized businesses, beginners
- Key features: Easy setup, built-in SEO, wide range of apps
- Pricing: Starts at $39 per month
2. WooCommerce
WooCommerce is a free WordPress plugin that turns any WordPress website into an e-commerce store. It is one of the most popular platforms due to its flexibility and customization options. Since WooCommerce operates within WordPress, users have access to a vast library of themes and plugins, allowing businesses to build a fully customized online store. WooCommerce is highly scalable and works well for businesses that want to manage their store content, blog, and products all in one place.
- Best for: Businesses with a WordPress website, those seeking high customization
- Key features: Free to use, highly customizable, open-source
- Pricing: Free (with optional paid extensions)
3. BigCommerce
BigCommerce is a robust e-commerce platform designed to cater to businesses looking for scalability. It offers a range of features like mobile optimization, secure payment gateways, and tools for handling larger product catalogs. BigCommerce’s strong built-in SEO features help businesses rank higher on search engines, making it a great choice for brands looking to grow rapidly. It also supports selling on multiple channels, such as Amazon, eBay, and social media.
- Best for: Large-scale businesses or fast-growing startups
- Key features: Advanced SEO tools, scalability, multichannel selling
4. Magento (Adobe Commerce)
Magento , now part of Adobe Commerce, is a powerful and flexible open-source e-commerce platform that is popular among large enterprises. It offers extensive customization options, allowing businesses to create unique and tailored shopping experiences. While Magento offers a free community version, the enterprise-level version is designed for companies with high traffic and complex needs. Its strong features include advanced analytics, high scalability, and the ability to handle large volumes of products and transactions.
- Best for: Large enterprises with technical expertise
- Key features: Highly customizable, scalable, powerful analytics
- Pricing: Free (community version) or enterprise pricing (based on needs)
5. Wix eCommerce
Wix eCommerce is an affordable and easy-to-use platform ideal for small businesses or beginners. Wix provides drag-and-drop website building tools, making it accessible even for those without technical knowledge. Its templates are visually appealing, and it includes basic e-commerce functionalities like payment processing, product galleries, and mobile optimization. Wix is great for businesses looking to create a simple and attractive store quickly.
- Best for: Small businesses, freelancers, or those seeking simplicity
- Key features: Drag-and-drop website builder, visually appealing templates, ease of use
- Pricing: Starts at $27 per month
6. Squarespace
Squarespace is known for its beautifully designed templates and is often used by creative professionals and businesses that value aesthetics. In addition to its strong visual appeal, Squarespace offers e-commerce functionality, allowing businesses to create an online store, sell products, manage inventory, and track orders. It’s a great platform for small to medium-sized businesses, especially those in design-centric industries.
- Best for: Creative professionals, small businesses
- Key features: Stunning design templates, all-in-one platform, built-in SEO
- Pricing: Starts at $33 per month for e-commerce plans
Etsy is a marketplace tailored to artisans, crafters, and sellers of handmade or vintage products. Unlike the other platforms, Etsy is not a website builder but an online marketplace that allows small businesses and individuals to sell their products on a global scale. It provides a simple way to reach a large audience, and its built-in search functionality helps sellers connect with potential customers quickly.
- Best for: Artisans, crafters, sellers of handmade or vintage items
- Key features: Built-in marketplace audience, low setup effort
- Pricing: Listing fees and transaction fees per sale
8. Weebly (by Square)
Weebly , now owned by Square, is a simple and affordable e-commerce platform that is ideal for small businesses, freelancers, and entrepreneurs who need a basic online store. Its drag-and-drop builder makes it easy to design a store without any coding knowledge. Weebly also integrates seamlessly with Square for payment processing, which is perfect for businesses that also operate physical stores.
- Best for: Small businesses, freelancers, entrepreneurs
- Key features: Easy-to-use drag-and-drop builder, seamless integration with Square
- Pricing: Starts at $12 per month for the basic e-commerce plan
Ecwid is a versatile e-commerce platform that allows businesses to add an online store to their existing website or social media pages. It is easy to integrate with platforms like WordPress, Wix, and social media channels, making it ideal for businesses that already have a website or a strong social media presence. Ecwid provides essential e-commerce tools like payment processing, inventory management, and multichannel selling at an affordable price.
- Best for: Businesses with existing websites or strong social media presence
- Key features: Easily integrates with existing websites, multichannel selling
- Pricing: Free for basic plan, with premium plans starting at $15 per month
10. PrestaShop
PrestaShop is an open-source e-commerce platform that offers flexibility and scalability for businesses with technical expertise. It provides a robust platform for building highly customized stores. PrestaShop is ideal for businesses that want full control over their store’s design and functionality, though it requires more technical knowledge compared to other platforms. It offers a variety of modules and themes to suit various business needs.
- Best for: Tech-savvy businesses, medium to large companies
- Key features: Open-source, highly customizable, scalability
- Pricing: Free (with paid modules and themes)
Choosing the right e-commerce platform depends on your business needs, budget, and technical expertise. Whether you’re a small business looking for simplicity and affordability or a large enterprise in need of advanced customization and scalability, there is an e-commerce platform tailored for you. Platforms like Shopify, WooCommerce, BigCommerce, and Magento offer various features that can cater to different types of businesses, ensuring a seamless and successful online selling experience.
The Importance of a Website for an E-commerce Business
In this section, we will discuss the key reasons why a website is crucial for e-commerce businesses, focusing on accessibility, credibility, customer engagement, and business growth.
1. Global Accessibility and Convenience
The most significant advantage of an e-commerce website is the ability to reach customers globally, 24/7. Unlike a physical store that operates within certain hours and serves a limited geographical area, a website is accessible to anyone with an internet connection. This increased accessibility allows businesses to expand their customer base beyond local boundaries and tap into international markets.
For customers, the convenience of shopping anytime, anywhere—whether from a smartphone, tablet, or computer—adds immense value to the shopping experience. They no longer need to visit physical stores or adhere to store hours, making shopping more efficient and enjoyable.
2. Building Credibility and Trust
In today’s market, consumers often expect businesses to have an online presence. A well-structured website is a powerful tool for building credibility. When customers visit a professional-looking website with clear product descriptions, pricing, and contact information, they are more likely to trust the business.
E-commerce websites that feature customer reviews, secure payment methods, and easy return policies further enhance this trust. In contrast, businesses without an online presence may be viewed as outdated or less reliable. Therefore, a website not only serves as a sales platform but also as a credibility booster for the brand.
3. Enhanced Customer Engagement
A website is more than just an online storefront; it is a platform for customer interaction. With features such as chatbots, customer reviews, and personalized product recommendations, businesses can engage with customers in real time and offer a personalized shopping experience.
Moreover, e-commerce websites provide valuable insights into customer behavior through data analytics, helping businesses tailor their offerings to meet customer preferences.
By creating a user-friendly interface and offering excellent customer service, businesses can foster customer loyalty and encourage repeat purchases.
4. Cost-Effective Marketing and Scalability
Traditional brick-and-mortar stores come with high operational costs, including rent, utilities, and staff wages. In contrast, an e-commerce website significantly reduces these expenses while providing an efficient and scalable platform for business growth.
Digital marketing strategies such as search engine optimization (SEO), social media advertising, and email campaigns are more cost-effective than traditional marketing methods.
A website also allows businesses to quickly update product listings, launch new items, and adjust pricing without the need for physical inventory changes.
As the business grows, the website can scale accordingly, handling higher traffic and a larger product catalog without the limitations of a physical store.
5. Increased Sales and Revenue Opportunities
An e-commerce website allows businesses to operate beyond local markets, which in turn increases sales potential. Customers can shop from different time zones, and with targeted marketing efforts, businesses can attract a wider audience. Furthermore, online stores provide opportunities for upselling and cross-selling through personalized product recommendations and promotions.
By offering a variety of payment methods and a streamlined checkout process, businesses can reduce cart abandonment rates and improve their conversion rates, ultimately boosting revenue.
6. Leveraging Data and Analytics
One of the most valuable aspects of an e-commerce website is the ability to collect and analyze customer data. Website analytics provide insights into customer demographics, shopping behavior, and purchasing trends. This data allows businesses to make informed decisions about inventory management, marketing strategies, and product development.
By understanding customer preferences, businesses can optimize their product offerings and enhance the overall shopping experience, leading to increased customer satisfaction and business growth.
In conclusion, a website is indispensable for any e-commerce business in today’s digital economy. It offers global accessibility, builds credibility, enhances customer engagement, and provides cost-effective marketing opportunities. More importantly, it allows businesses to scale, increase sales, and leverage data to make strategic decisions. As more consumers continue to embrace online shopping, e-commerce businesses must invest in creating a robust, user-friendly, and secure website to remain competitive and meet the evolving needs of their customers. The future of retail is undoubtedly digital, and having a strong online presence is key to thriving in this new era.
Reference Library
Collections
- See what's new
- All Resources
- Student Resources
- Assessment Resources
- Teaching Resources
- CPD Courses
- Livestreams
Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!
Psychology news, insights and enrichment
Currated collections of free resources
Browse resources by topic
- All Psychology Resources
Resource Selections
Currated lists of resources
Quasi Experiment
Quasi-experiments contain a naturally occurring IV. However, in a quasi-experiment the naturally occurring IV is a difference between people that already exists (i.e. gender, age). The researcher examines the effect of this variable on the dependent variable (DV).
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share by Email
Types of Experiment: Overview
Study Notes
Research Methods: MCQ Revision Test 1 for AQA A Level Psychology
Topic Videos
Example Answers for Research Methods: A Level Psychology, Paper 2, June 2018 (AQA)
Exam Support
A Level Psychology Topic Quiz - Research Methods
Quizzes & Activities
Our subjects
- › Criminology
- › Economics
- › Geography
- › Health & Social Care
- › Psychology
- › Sociology
- › Teaching & learning resources
- › Student revision workshops
- › Online student courses
- › CPD for teachers
- › Livestreams
- › Teaching jobs
Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885
- › Contact us
- › Terms of use
- › Privacy & cookies
© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.
Cookies on GOV.UK
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.
We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.
We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.
You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.
You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.
Quasi-experimental study: comparative studies
How to use a quasi-experimental study to evaluate your digital health product.
Experimental and quasi-experimental studies can both be used to evaluate whether a digital health product achieves its aims. Randomised controlled trials are classed as experiments. They provide a high level of evidence for the relationship between cause (your digital product) and effect (the outcomes). There are particular things you must do to demonstrate cause and effect, such as randomising participants to groups. A quasi-experiment lacks at least one of these requirements; for example, you are unable to assign your participants to groups. However, quasi-experimental studies can still be used to evaluate how well your product is working.
The phrase ‘quasi-experimental’ often refers to the approach taken rather than a specific method. There are several designs of quasi-experimental studies.
What to use it for
A quasi-experimental study can help you to find out whether your digital product or service achieves its aims, so it can be useful when you have developed your product (summative evaluation). Quasi-experimental methods are often used in economic studies. You could also use them during development (formative or iterative evaluation) to find out how you can improve your product.
Benefits of quasi-experiments include:
- they can mimic an experiment and provide a high level of evidence without randomisation
- there are several designs to choose from that you can adapt depending on your context
- they can be used when there are practical or ethical reasons why participants can’t be randomised
Drawbacks of quasi-experiments include:
- you cannot rule out that other factors out of your control caused the results of your evaluation, although you can minimise this risk
- choosing an appropriate comparison group can be difficult
How to carry out a quasi-experimental study
There are 3 requirements for demonstrating cause and effect:
- randomisation – participants are randomly allocated to groups to make sure the groups are as similar to each other as possible, allowing comparison
- control – a control group is used to compare with the group receiving the product or intervention
- manipulation – the researcher manipulates aspects of what happens, such as assigning participants to different groups
These features make sure that your product has caused the outcomes you found. Otherwise, you cannot rule out that other influencing factors may have distorted your results and conclusions:
Confounding variables
Confounding variables are other variables that might influence the results. If participants in different groups systematically differ on these variables, the difference in outcomes between the groups may be because of the confounding variable rather than the experimental manipulation. The only way to get rid of all confounding variables is through randomisation because when we randomise, the variables will be present in equal numbers in both groups, even if we haven’t identified what these confounding variables are.
Bias means any process that produces systematic errors in the study, for example, errors in recruiting participants, collecting data or analysis, and drawing conclusions. This influences the results and conclusions of your study.
When you carry out a quasi-experimental study you should minimise biases and confounders. If you cannot randomise, you can increase the strength of your research design by:
- comparing your participants to an appropriate group that did not have access to your digital product
- measuring your outcomes before and after your product was introduced
Based on these 3 routes, here is an overview of different types of quasi-experimental designs.
Quasi-experimental designs with a comparison
One way to increase the strength of your results is by finding a comparison group that has similar attributes to your participants and then comparing the outcomes between the groups.
Because you have not randomly assigned participants, pre-existing differences between the people who had access to your product and those who did not may exist. These are called selection differences. It is important to choose your comparison appropriately to reduce this.
For example, if your digital product was introduced in one region, you could compare outcomes in another region. However, people in different regions may have different outcomes for other reasons (confounding variables). One region may be wealthier than another or have better access to alternative health services. The age profile may be different. You could consider what confounding variables might exist and pick a comparison region that has a similar profile.
Quasi-experimental designs with a before-after assessment
In this design, you assess outcomes for participants both before and after your product is introduced, and then compare. This is another way to minimise the effects of not randomly assigning participants.
Potential differences between participants in your evaluation could still have an impact on the results, but assessing participants before they used your product helps to decrease the influence of confounders and biases.
Be aware of additional issues associated with observing participants over time, for example:
- testing effects – participants’ scores are influenced by them repeating the same tests
- regression towards the mean – if you select participants on the basis that they have high or low scores on some measure, their scores may become more moderate over time because their initial extreme score was just random chance
- background changes – for example, demand for a service may be increasing over time, putting stresses on the service and leading to poorer outcomes
Time series designs
These quasi-experiments involve repeating data collection at many points in time before and after treatment.
There are a variety of designs that use time series:
- basic time series – assesses outcomes multiple times before and after your digital product is introduced
- control time series – introduces results from a comparison group
- turning the intervention on and off throughout the study to compare the effects
- interrupted time series – collects data before and after an interruption
In the analysis, the patterns of change over time are compared.
Digital technology is particularly suitable for time series design because digital devices allow you to collect data automatically and frequently. Ecological momentary assessment can be used to collect data.
By including multiple before-and-after assessments, you may be able to minimise problems of the weaker designs, such as simple one group before/after designs described above. There are also different ways to increase the strength of your design, for example by introducing multiple baselines.
Quasi-experimental designs with comparison and before-after assessment
Both including a comparison group and conducting a before-after assessment of the outcomes increases the strength of your design. This gives you greater confidence that your results are caused by the digital product you introduced.
Remember that not randomly assigning participants to the comparison groups and repeated measurements create some challenges with this design compared to a randomised experimental design.
If you cannot use comparison or before-after assessment
If there is no appropriate comparison group and you cannot compare participants before and after your digital product was introduced, drawing any conclusions around cause and effect of your digital product will be challenging.
This type of quasi-experimental design is most susceptible to biases and confounders that may affect the results of your evaluation. Still, using a design with one group and only testing participants after they receive the intervention will give you some insights about how your product is performing and will give you valuable directions for designing a stronger evaluation plan.
Causal methods
Causal inference methods use statistical methods to try and infer causal relationships from data that does not come from an experiment. They rely on identifying any confounding variables and on data being available for individuals for these variables. Read Pearl (2010), An introduction to causal inference for more information.
Examples of quasi-experimental methods
Case-control study , interrupted time-series , N-of-1 , before-and-after study and ecological momentary assessment can be seen as examples of quasi-experimental methods.
More information and resources
Sage research methods (2010), Quasi-experimental design . This explores the threats to the validity of quasi-experimental studies that you want to look out for when designing your study.
Pearl (2010), An introduction to causal inference . Information about causal methods.
Examples of quasi-experimental studies in digital health
Faudjar and others (2020), Field testing of a digital health information system for primary health care: A quasi-experimental study from India . Researchers developed a comprehensive digital tool for primary care and used a quasi-experimental study to evaluate it by comparing 2 communities.
Mitchel and others (2020), Commercial app use linked with sustained physical activity in two Canadian provinces: a 12-month quasi-experimental study . This study assessed one group before and after they gained access to an app that gives incentives for engaging in physical activity.
Peyman and others (2018), Digital Media-based Health Intervention on the promotion of Women’s physical activity: a quasi-experimental study . Researchers wanted to evaluate the impact of digital health on promoting physical activity in women. Eight active health centres were randomly selected to the intervention and control.
Updates to this page
Sign up for emails or print this page, related content, is this page useful.
- Yes this page is useful
- No this page is not useful
Help us improve GOV.UK
Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.
To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
See why leading organizations rely on MasterClass for learning & development. A quasi-experimental design can be a great option when ethical or practical concerns make true experiments impossible, but the research methodology does have its drawbacks. Learn all the ins and outs of a quasi-experimental design.
Quasi-experimental design is a research method that aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship without random assignment. Learn about the differences, types, advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments compared to true experiments.
The researchers test whether differences in this outcome are related to the treatment. Differences between true experiments and quasi-experiments: In a true experiment, participants are randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control group, whereas they are not assigned randomly in a quasi-experiment. In a quasi-experiment, the control ...
A quasi-experimental (QE) study is one that compares outcomes between intervention groups where, for reasons related to ethics or feasibility, participants are not randomized to their respective interventions; an example is the historical comparison of pregnancy outcomes in women who did versus did not receive antidepressant medication during pregnancy.
Quasi experimental design is a method for identifying causal relationships that does not randomly assign participants to the experimental groups. Learn about its advantages, disadvantages, and types, such as natural experiments, nonequivalent groups, and regression discontinuity.
Disadvantages; Pre-Post with Non-equivalent control group: Comparison of those receiving the intervention with those not receiving it. ... It has been observed that it is more difficult to conduct a good quasi-experiment than to conduct a good randomized trial . Although QEDs are increasingly used, it is important to note that randomized ...
Quasi-Experimental Design Disadvantages. However, quasi-experimental design also comes with its share of challenges and disadvantages: Limited Control: Unlike controlled experiments, where researchers have full control over variables, quasi-experimental design lacks the same level of control. This limited control can result in confounding ...
A quasi-experiment is an empirical interventional study used to estimate the causal impact of an intervention on target population without random assignment. ... Disadvantages also include the study groups may provide weaker evidence because of the lack of randomness. Randomness brings a lot of useful information to a study because it broadens ...
While quasi-experiments can provide valuable insights and suggest associations, they often fall short of providing strong evidence for causal claims. Researchers should carefully consider these disadvantages when deciding to use a quasi-experimental design and take appropriate measures to mitigate potential biases and threats to validity.
Quasi Experimental Design is a research method used in social sciences and other fields to study cause-and-effect relationships between different variables. It is called "quasi" experimental because it resembles an experimental design but lacks some key elements, such as random assignment. Characteristics of Quasi Experimental Design
Quasi-experimental research designs play a vital role in scientific inquiry by allowing researchers to investigate cause-and-effect relationships in real-world settings. These designs offer practical and ethical alternatives to true experiments, making them valuable tools in various fields of study. With their versatility and applicability ...
Quasi-experimental design is a research method that seeks to evaluate the causal relationships between variables, but without the full control over the independent variable (s) that is available in a true experimental design. In a quasi-experimental design, the researcher uses an existing group of participants that is not randomly assigned to ...
Quasi-Experimental Research Designs by Bruce A. Thyer. This pocket guide describes the logic, design, and conduct of the range of quasi-experimental designs, encompassing pre-experiments, quasi-experiments making use of a control or comparison group, and time-series designs. An introductory chapter describes the valuable role these types of ...
Key advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experimental studies, as they pertain to the study of medical informatics, were identified. The potential methodological flaws of quasi-experimental medical informatics studies, which have the potential to introduce bias, were also identified. ... Quasi-experiments are studies that aim to evaluate ...
Advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experimental design relate to the randomization research safeguard of the design. Experimental research and quasi-experimental design are similar with control groups but quasi-experimental design lacks key randomization and chooses control groups differently.
Quasi experiment. Advantages. Useful when it's unethical to manipulate the IV. Studies the 'real effects' so there is increased realism and ecological validaty. Disadvantages. Confounding environmental variables are more likely= less reliable. Must wait for the IV to occur. Can only be used where conditions vary naturally.
A quasi-experimental design is used when it's not logistically feasible or ethical to conduct randomized, controlled trials. As its name suggests, a quasi-experimental design is almost a true experiment. However, researchers don't randomly select elements or participants in this type of research. Researchers prefer to apply quasi-experimental ...
Definition. Research on learning applies various designs which refer to plans that outline how information is to be gathered for testing a hypothesis or theoretical assumption. Research designs are the heart of quantitative research. They include systematic observations, measures, treatments, their random assignment to groups, and time.
Quasi-experimental studies aren't as effective in establishing causality. Because a quasi-experimental design often borrows information from other experimental methods, there's a chance that the data is not complete or accurate. Conclusion. In conclusion, quasi-experimental is a type of experiment with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Not a true experiment in the strictest scientific sense of the term, but we can have a quasi-experiment, an attempt to uncover a causal relationship, even though the researcher cannot control all the factors that might affect the outcome. ... Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research: Quick Reference List. Experimental and quasi ...
A good research design serves as a blueprint for how you, as the researcher, will collect and analyze data while ensuring consistency, reliability, and validity throughout your study. Within quantitative research, the four most common research designs are descriptive, correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental.
Quasi experiment psychology involves conducting research studies that emulate the design and procedures of a true experiment but lacks certain essential elements. This article will delve into the advantages and disadvantages of quasi experiment psychology, shedding light on its implications for researchers and the field of psychology as a whole.
Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400. Quasi-experiments contain a naturally occurring IV. However, in a quasi-experiment the naturally occurring IV is a difference between people that already exists (i.e. gender, age). The researcher examines the effect of this variable on the dependent variable (DV).
Sage research methods (2010), Quasi-experimental design. This explores the threats to the validity of quasi-experimental studies that you want to look out for when designing your study.