what is a non experimental design in quantitative research

6.1 Overview of Non-Experimental Research

Learning objectives.

• Define non-experimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct non-experimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Non-Experimental Research?

Non-experimental research  is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable. Rather than manipulating an independent variable, researchers conducting non-experimental research simply measure variables as they naturally occur (in the lab or real world).

Most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This is because although experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, non-experimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability to make causal conclusions does not mean that non-experimental research is less important than experimental research.

When to Use Non-Experimental Research

As we saw in the last chapter , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable. It stands to reason, therefore, that non-experimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many times in which non-experimental research is preferred, including when:

• the research question or hypothesis relates to a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., How accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• the research question pertains to a non-causal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• the research question is about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions for practical or ethical reasons (e.g., does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• the research question is broad and exploratory, or is about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., what is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and non-experimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. Recall the three goals of science are to describe, to predict, and to explain. If the goal is to explain and the research question pertains to causal relationships, then the experimental approach is typically preferred. If the goal is to describe or to predict, a non-experimental approach will suffice. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, Similarly, after his original study, Milgram conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974) [1] .

Types of Non-Experimental Research

Non-experimental research falls into three broad categories: cross-sectional research, correlational research, and observational research. 

First, cross-sectional research  involves comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people. What makes this approach non-experimental is that there is no manipulation of an independent variable and no random assignment of participants to groups. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels” like a between-subjects experiment, it is a cross-sectional study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. As another example, if we wanted to compare the memory test performance of a group of cannabis users with a group of non-users, this would be considered a cross-sectional study because for ethical and practical reasons we would not be able to randomly assign participants to the cannabis user and non-user groups. Rather we would need to compare these pre-existing groups which could introduce a selection bias (the groups may differ in other ways that affect their responses on the dependent variable). For instance, cannabis users are more likely to use more alcohol and other drugs and these differences may account for differences in the dependent variable across groups, rather than cannabis use per se.

Cross-sectional designs are commonly used by developmental psychologists who study aging and by researchers interested in sex differences. Using this design, developmental psychologists compare groups of people of different ages (e.g., young adults spanning from 18-25 years of age versus older adults spanning 60-75 years of age) on various dependent variables (e.g., memory, depression, life satisfaction). Of course, the primary limitation of using this design to study the effects of aging is that differences between the groups other than age may account for differences in the dependent variable. For instance, differences between the groups may reflect the generation that people come from (a cohort effect) rather than a direct effect of age. For this reason, longitudinal studies in which one group of people is followed as they age offer a superior means of studying the effects of aging. Once again, cross-sectional designs are also commonly used to study sex differences. Since researchers cannot practically or ethically manipulate the sex of their participants they must rely on cross-sectional designs to compare groups of men and women on different outcomes (e.g., verbal ability, substance use, depression). Using these designs researchers have discovered that men are more likely than women to suffer from substance abuse problems while women are more likely than men to suffer from depression. But, using this design it is unclear what is causing these differences. So, using this design it is unclear whether these differences are due to environmental factors like socialization or biological factors like hormones?

When researchers use a participant characteristic to create groups (nationality, cannabis use, age, sex), the independent variable is usually referred to as an experimenter-selected independent variable (as opposed to the experimenter-manipulated independent variables used in experimental research). Figure 6.1 shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a cross-sectional study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated by the researcher or simply selected by the researcher. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then the independent variable was experimenter-manipulated and it is a true experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists or not, then the independent variable it is experimenter-selected and the study is cross-sectional. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a cross-sectional study, it could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative effect on people’s ability to plan ahead. Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed. The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or cross-sectional l is not the variables being studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to analyze the data. It is how the study is conducted.

Figure 6.1  Results of a Hypothetical Study on Whether People Who Make Daily To-Do Lists Experience Less Stress Than People Who Do Not Make Such Lists

Second, the most common type of non-experimental research conducted in Psychology is correlational research. Correlational research is considered non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable.  More specifically, in correlational research , the researcher measures two continuous variables with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. As an example, a researcher interested in the relationship between self-esteem and school achievement could collect data on students’ self-esteem and their GPAs to see if the two variables are statistically related. Correlational research is very similar to cross-sectional research, and sometimes these terms are used interchangeably. The distinction that will be made in this book is that, rather than comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people as is done with cross-sectional research, correlational research involves correlating two continuous variables (groups are not formed and compared).

Third,   observational research  is non-experimental because it focuses on making observations of behavior in a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything. Milgram’s original obedience study was non-experimental in this way. He was primarily interested in the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of observational research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the researchers asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories.

The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. But as you will learn in this chapter, many observational research studies are more qualitative in nature. In  qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s observational study of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semi-public room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256) [2] . Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.  Figure 6.2  shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental (correlational) research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest in internal validity because the use of manipulation (of the independent variable) and control (of extraneous variables) help to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Non-experimental (correlational) research is lowest in internal validity because these designs fail to use manipulation or control. Quasi-experimental research (which will be described in more detail in a subsequent chapter) is in the middle because it contains some, but not all, of the features of a true experiment. For instance, it may fail to use random assignment to assign participants to groups or fail to use counterbalancing to control for potential order effects. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an anti-bullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” While a comparison is being made with a control condition, the lack of random assignment of children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying (e.g., there may be a selection effect).

Figure 6.2 Internal Validity of Correlation, Quasi-Experimental, and Experimental Studies. Experiments are generally high in internal validity, quasi-experiments lower, and correlation studies lower still.

Notice also in  Figure 6.2  that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well-designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider, as noted in Chapter 5.

Key Takeaways

• Non-experimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable.
• There are two broad types of non-experimental research. Correlational research that focuses on statistical relationships between variables that are measured but not manipulated, and observational research in which participants are observed and their behavior is recorded without the researcher interfering or manipulating any variables.
• In general, experimental research is high in internal validity, correlational research is low in internal validity, and quasi-experimental research is in between.
• A researcher conducts detailed interviews with unmarried teenage fathers to learn about how they feel and what they think about their role as fathers and summarizes their feelings in a written narrative.
• A researcher measures the impulsivity of a large sample of drivers and looks at the statistical relationship between this variable and the number of traffic tickets the drivers have received.
• A researcher randomly assigns patients with low back pain either to a treatment involving hypnosis or to a treatment involving exercise. She then measures their level of low back pain after 3 months.
• A college instructor gives weekly quizzes to students in one section of his course but no weekly quizzes to students in another section to see whether this has an effect on their test performance.
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row. ↵
• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Quantitative Research Designs: Non-Experimental vs. Experimental

While there are many types of quantitative research designs, they generally fall under one of three umbrellas: experimental research, quasi-experimental research, and non-experimental research.

Experimental research designs are what many people think of when they think of research; they typically involve the manipulation of variables and random assignment of participants to conditions. A traditional experiment may involve the comparison of a control group to an experimental group who receives a treatment (i.e., a variable is manipulated). When done correctly, experimental designs can provide evidence for cause and effect. Because of their ability to determine causation, experimental designs are the gold-standard for research in medicine, biology, and so on. However, such designs can also be used in the “soft sciences,” like social science. Experimental research has strict standards for control within the research design and for establishing validity. These designs may also be very resource and labor intensive. Additionally, it can be hard to justify the generalizability of the results in a very tightly controlled or artificial experimental setting. However, if done well, experimental research methods can lead to some very convincing and interesting results.

Need help with your research?

Schedule a time to speak with an expert using the calendar below.

Non-experimental research, on the other hand, can be just as interesting, but you cannot draw the same conclusions from it as you can with experimental research. Non-experimental research is usually descriptive or correlational, which means that you are either describing a situation or phenomenon simply as it stands, or you are describing a relationship between two or more variables, all without any interference from the researcher. This means that you do not manipulate any variables (e.g., change the conditions that an experimental group undergoes) or randomly assign participants to a control or treatment group. Without this level of control, you cannot determine any causal effects. While validity is still a concern in non-experimental research, the concerns are more about the validity of the measurements, rather than the validity of the effects.

Finally, a quasi-experimental design is a combination of the two designs described above. For quasi-experimental designs you still can manipulate a variable in the experimental group, but there is no random assignment into groups. Quasi-experimental designs are the most common when the researcher uses a convenience sample to recruit participants. For example, let’s say you were interested in studying the effect of stress on student test scores at the school that you work for. You teach two separate classes so you decide to just use each class as a different group. Class A becomes the experimental group who experiences the stressor manipulation and class B becomes the control group. Because you are sampling from two different pre-existing groups, without any random assignment, this would be known as a quasi-experimental design. These types of designs are very useful for when you want to find a causal relationship between variables but cannot randomly assign people to groups for practical or ethical reasons, such as working with a population of clinically depressed people or looking for gender differences (we can’t randomly assign people to be clinically depressed or to be a different gender). While these types of studies sometimes have higher external validity than a true experimental design, since they involve real world interventions and group rather than a laboratory setting, because of the lack of random assignment in these groups, the generalizability of the study is severely limited.

So, how do you choose between these designs? This will depend on your topic, your available resources, and desired goal. For example, do you want to see if a particular intervention relieves feelings of anxiety? The most convincing results for that would come from a true experimental design with random sampling and random assignment to groups. Ultimately, this is a decision that should be made in close collaboration with your advisor. Therefore, I recommend discussing the pros and cons of each type of research, what it might mean for your personal dissertation process, and what is required of each design before making a decision.

Take the Course: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research Design

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.1 Overview of Nonexperimental Research

Learning objectives.

• Define nonexperimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct nonexperimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Nonexperimental Research?

Nonexperimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both.

In a sense, it is unfair to define this large and diverse set of approaches collectively by what they are not . But doing so reflects the fact that most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and nonexperimental research to be an extremely important one. This is because while experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, nonexperimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this does not mean that nonexperimental research is less important than experimental research or inferior to it in any general sense.

When to Use Nonexperimental Research

As we saw in Chapter 6 “Experimental Research” , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable and randomly assign participants to conditions or to orders of conditions. It stands to reason, therefore, that nonexperimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many ways in which this can be the case.

• The research question or hypothesis can be about a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., How accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• The research question can be about a noncausal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., Is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• The research question can be about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (e.g., Does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• The research question can be broad and exploratory, or it can be about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., What is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and nonexperimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. If it is about a causal relationship and involves an independent variable that can be manipulated, the experimental approach is typically preferred. Otherwise, the nonexperimental approach is preferred. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, nonexperimental studies establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behavior have been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001). Similarly, after his original study, Milgram conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974).

Types of Nonexperimental Research

Nonexperimental research falls into three broad categories: single-variable research, correlational and quasi-experimental research, and qualitative research. First, research can be nonexperimental because it focuses on a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables. Although there is no widely shared term for this kind of research, we will call it single-variable research . Milgram’s original obedience study was nonexperimental in this way. He was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of single-variable research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the research asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories.)

As these examples make clear, single-variable research can answer interesting and important questions. What it cannot do, however, is answer questions about statistical relationships between variables. This is a point that beginning researchers sometimes miss. Imagine, for example, a group of research methods students interested in the relationship between children’s being the victim of bullying and the children’s self-esteem. The first thing that is likely to occur to these researchers is to obtain a sample of middle-school students who have been bullied and then to measure their self-esteem. But this would be a single-variable study with self-esteem as the only variable. Although it would tell the researchers something about the self-esteem of children who have been bullied, it would not tell them what they really want to know, which is how the self-esteem of children who have been bullied compares with the self-esteem of children who have not. Is it lower? Is it the same? Could it even be higher? To answer this question, their sample would also have to include middle-school students who have not been bullied.

Research can also be nonexperimental because it focuses on a statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both. This kind of research takes two basic forms: correlational research and quasi-experimental research. In correlational research , the researcher measures the two variables of interest with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. A research methods student who finds out whether each of several middle-school students has been bullied and then measures each student’s self-esteem is conducting correlational research. In quasi-experimental research , the researcher manipulates an independent variable but does not randomly assign participants to conditions or orders of conditions. For example, a researcher might start an antibullying program (a kind of treatment) at one school and compare the incidence of bullying at that school with the incidence at a similar school that has no antibullying program.

The final way in which research can be nonexperimental is that it can be qualitative. The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. In qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and are analyzed using nonstatistical techniques. Rosenhan’s study of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semipublic room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256).

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable. Figure 7.1 shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest because it addresses the directionality and third-variable problems through manipulation and the control of extraneous variables through random assignment. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Correlational research is lowest because it fails to address either problem. If the average score on the dependent variable differs across levels of the independent variable, it could be that the independent variable is responsible, but there are other interpretations. In some situations, the direction of causality could be reversed. In others, there could be a third variable that is causing differences in both the independent and dependent variables. Quasi-experimental research is in the middle because the manipulation of the independent variable addresses some problems, but the lack of random assignment and experimental control fails to address others. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an antibullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” There is no directionality problem because clearly the number of bullying incidents did not determine which school got the program. However, the lack of random assignment of children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying.

Experiments are generally high in internal validity, quasi-experiments lower, and correlational studies lower still.

Notice also in Figure 7.1 that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables.

Key Takeaways

• Nonexperimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, control of extraneous variables through random assignment, or both.
• There are three broad types of nonexperimental research. Single-variable research focuses on a single variable rather than a relationship between variables. Correlational and quasi-experimental research focus on a statistical relationship but lack manipulation or random assignment. Qualitative research focuses on broader research questions, typically involves collecting large amounts of data from a small number of participants, and analyzes the data nonstatistically.
• In general, experimental research is high in internal validity, correlational research is low in internal validity, and quasi-experimental research is in between.

Discussion: For each of the following studies, decide which type of research design it is and explain why.

• A researcher conducts detailed interviews with unmarried teenage fathers to learn about how they feel and what they think about their role as fathers and summarizes their feelings in a written narrative.
• A researcher measures the impulsivity of a large sample of drivers and looks at the statistical relationship between this variable and the number of traffic tickets the drivers have received.
• A researcher randomly assigns patients with low back pain either to a treatment involving hypnosis or to a treatment involving exercise. She then measures their level of low back pain after 3 months.
• A college instructor gives weekly quizzes to students in one section of his course but no weekly quizzes to students in another section to see whether this has an effect on their test performance.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 7: Nonexperimental Research

Overview of Nonexperimental Research

Learning Objectives

• Define nonexperimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct nonexperimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Nonexperimental Research?

Nonexperimental research  is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both.

In a sense, it is unfair to define this large and diverse set of approaches collectively by what they are  not . But doing so reflects the fact that most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and nonexperimental research to be an extremely important one. This distinction is because although experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, nonexperimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability does not mean that nonexperimental research is less important than experimental research or inferior to it in any general sense.

When to Use Nonexperimental Research

As we saw in  Chapter 6 , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable and randomly assign participants to conditions or to orders of conditions. It stands to reason, therefore, that nonexperimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many ways in which preferring nonexperimental research can be the case.

• The research question or hypothesis can be about a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., How accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• The research question can be about a noncausal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., Is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• The research question can be about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (e.g., Does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• The research question can be broad and exploratory, or it can be about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., What is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and nonexperimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. If it is about a causal relationship and involves an independent variable that can be manipulated, the experimental approach is typically preferred. Otherwise, the nonexperimental approach is preferred. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, nonexperimental studies establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behaviour have been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001) [1] . Similarly, after his original study, Milgram conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974) [2] .

Types of Nonexperimental Research

Nonexperimental research falls into three broad categories: single-variable research, correlational and quasi-experimental research, and qualitative research. First, research can be nonexperimental because it focuses on a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables. Although there is no widely shared term for this kind of research, we will call it  single-variable research . Milgram’s original obedience study was nonexperimental in this way. He was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of single-variable research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the research asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories.)

As these examples make clear, single-variable research can answer interesting and important questions. What it cannot do, however, is answer questions about statistical relationships between variables. This detail is a point that beginning researchers sometimes miss. Imagine, for example, a group of research methods students interested in the relationship between children’s being the victim of bullying and the children’s self-esteem. The first thing that is likely to occur to these researchers is to obtain a sample of middle-school students who have been bullied and then to measure their self-esteem. But this design would be a single-variable study with self-esteem as the only variable. Although it would tell the researchers something about the self-esteem of children who have been bullied, it would not tell them what they really want to know, which is how the self-esteem of children who have been bullied  compares  with the self-esteem of children who have not. Is it lower? Is it the same? Could it even be higher? To answer this question, their sample would also have to include middle-school students who have not been bullied thereby introducing another variable.

Research can also be nonexperimental because it focuses on a statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both. This kind of research takes two basic forms: correlational research and quasi-experimental research. In correlational research , the researcher measures the two variables of interest with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. A research methods student who finds out whether each of several middle-school students has been bullied and then measures each student’s self-esteem is conducting correlational research. In  quasi-experimental research , the researcher manipulates an independent variable but does not randomly assign participants to conditions or orders of conditions. For example, a researcher might start an antibullying program (a kind of treatment) at one school and compare the incidence of bullying at that school with the incidence at a similar school that has no antibullying program.

The final way in which research can be nonexperimental is that it can be qualitative. The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. In  qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s study of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semipublic room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256). [3] Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.  Figure 7.1  shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest because it addresses the directionality and third-variable problems through manipulation and the control of extraneous variables through random assignment. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Correlational research is lowest because it fails to address either problem. If the average score on the dependent variable differs across levels of the independent variable, it  could  be that the independent variable is responsible, but there are other interpretations. In some situations, the direction of causality could be reversed. In others, there could be a third variable that is causing differences in both the independent and dependent variables. Quasi-experimental research is in the middle because the manipulation of the independent variable addresses some problems, but the lack of random assignment and experimental control fails to address others. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an antibullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” There is no directionality problem because clearly the number of bullying incidents did not determine which school got the program. However, the lack of random assignment of children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying.

Notice also in  Figure 7.1  that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider, as noted in  Chapter 5.

Key Takeaways

• Nonexperimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, control of extraneous variables through random assignment, or both.
• There are three broad types of nonexperimental research. Single-variable research focuses on a single variable rather than a relationship between variables. Correlational and quasi-experimental research focus on a statistical relationship but lack manipulation or random assignment. Qualitative research focuses on broader research questions, typically involves collecting large amounts of data from a small number of participants, and analyses the data nonstatistically.
• In general, experimental research is high in internal validity, correlational research is low in internal validity, and quasi-experimental research is in between.

Discussion: For each of the following studies, decide which type of research design it is and explain why.

• A researcher conducts detailed interviews with unmarried teenage fathers to learn about how they feel and what they think about their role as fathers and summarizes their feelings in a written narrative.
• A researcher measures the impulsivity of a large sample of drivers and looks at the statistical relationship between this variable and the number of traffic tickets the drivers have received.
• A researcher randomly assigns patients with low back pain either to a treatment involving hypnosis or to a treatment involving exercise. She then measures their level of low back pain after 3 months.
• A college instructor gives weekly quizzes to students in one section of his course but no weekly quizzes to students in another section to see whether this has an effect on their test performance.
• Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ↵
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row. ↵
• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵

Research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both.

Research that focuses on a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables.

The researcher measures the two variables of interest with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them.

The researcher manipulates an independent variable but does not randomly assign participants to conditions or orders of conditions.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Experimental Vs Non-Experimental Research: 15 Key Differences

There is a general misconception around research that once the research is non-experimental, then it is non-scientific, making it more important to understand what experimental and experimental research entails. Experimental research is the most common type of research, which a lot of people refer to as scientific research. 

Non experimental research, on the other hand, is easily used to classify research that is not experimental. It clearly differs from experimental research, and as such has different use cases. 

In this article, we will be explaining these differences in detail so as to ensure proper identification during the research process.

What is Experimental Research?  

Experimental research is the type of research that uses a scientific approach towards manipulating one or more control variables of the research subject(s) and measuring the effect of this manipulation on the subject. It is known for the fact that it allows the manipulation of control variables. 

This research method is widely used in various physical and social science fields, even though it may be quite difficult to execute. Within the information field, they are much more common in information systems research than in library and information management research.

Experimental research is usually undertaken when the goal of the research is to trace cause-and-effect relationships between defined variables. However, the type of experimental research chosen has a significant influence on the results of the experiment.

Therefore bringing us to the different types of experimental research. There are 3 main types of experimental research, namely; pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, and true experimental research.

Pre-experimental Research

Pre-experimental research is the simplest form of research, and is carried out by observing a group or groups of dependent variables after the treatment of an independent variable which is presumed to cause change on the group(s). It is further divided into three types.

• One-shot case study research 
• One-group pretest-posttest research 
• Static-group comparison

Quasi-experimental Research

The Quasi type of experimental research is similar to true experimental research, but uses carefully selected rather than randomized subjects. The following are examples of quasi-experimental research:

• Time series 
• No equivalent control group design
• Counterbalanced design.

True Experimental Research

True experimental research is the most accurate type,  and may simply be called experimental research. It manipulates a control group towards a group of randomly selected subjects and records the effect of this manipulation.

True experimental research can be further classified into the following groups:

• The posttest-only control group 
• The pretest-posttest control group 
• Solomon four-group 

Pros of True Experimental Research

• Researchers can have control over variables.
• It can be combined with other research methods.
• The research process is usually well structured.
• It provides specific conclusions.
• The results of experimental research can be easily duplicated.

Cons of True Experimental Research

• It is highly prone to human error.
• Exerting control over extraneous variables may lead to the personal bias of the researcher.
• It is time-consuming.
• It is expensive. 
• Manipulating control variables may have ethical implications.
• It produces artificial results.

What is Non-Experimental Research?  

Non-experimental research is the type of research that does not involve the manipulation of control or independent variable. In non-experimental research, researchers measure variables as they naturally occur without any further manipulation.

This type of research is used when the researcher has no specific research question about a causal relationship between 2 different variables, and manipulation of the independent variable is impossible. They are also used when:

• subjects cannot be randomly assigned to conditions.
• the research subject is about a causal relationship but the independent variable cannot be manipulated.
• the research is broad and exploratory
• the research pertains to a non-causal relationship between variables.
• limited information can be accessed about the research subject.

There are 3 main types of non-experimental research , namely; cross-sectional research, correlation research, and observational research.

Cross-sectional Research

Cross-sectional research involves the comparison of two or more pre-existing groups of people under the same criteria. This approach is classified as non-experimental because the groups are not randomly selected and the independent variable is not manipulated.

For example, an academic institution may want to reward its first-class students with a scholarship for their academic excellence. Therefore, each faculty places students in the eligible and ineligible group according to their class of degree.

In this case, the student’s class of degree cannot be manipulated to qualify him or her for a scholarship because it is an unethical thing to do. Therefore, the placement is cross-sectional.

Correlational Research

Correlational type of research compares the statistical relationship between two variables .Correlational research is classified as non-experimental because it does not manipulate the independent variables.

For example, a researcher may wish to investigate the relationship between the class of family students come from and their grades in school. A questionnaire may be given to students to know the average income of their family, then compare it with CGPAs. 

The researcher will discover whether these two factors are positively correlated, negatively corrected, or have zero correlation at the end of the research.

Observational Research

Observational research focuses on observing the behavior of a research subject in a natural or laboratory setting. It is classified as non-experimental because it does not involve the manipulation of independent variables.

A good example of observational research is an investigation of the crowd effect or psychology in a particular group of people. Imagine a situation where there are 2 ATMs at a place, and only one of the ATMs is filled with a queue, while the other is abandoned.

The crowd effect infers that the majority of newcomers will also abandon the other ATM.

You will notice that each of these non-experimental research is descriptive in nature. It then suffices to say that descriptive research is an example of non-experimental research.

Pros of Observational Research

• The research process is very close to a real-life situation.
• It does not allow for the manipulation of variables due to ethical reasons.
• Human characteristics are not subject to experimental manipulation.

Cons of Observational Research

• The groups may be dissimilar and nonhomogeneous because they are not randomly selected, affecting the authenticity and generalizability of the study results.
• The results obtained cannot be absolutely clear and error-free.

What Are The Differences Between Experimental and Non-Experimental Research?    

• Definitions

Experimental research is the type of research that uses a scientific approach towards manipulating one or more control variables and measuring their defect on the dependent variables, while non-experimental research is the type of research that does not involve the manipulation of control variables.

The main distinction in these 2 types of research is their attitude towards the manipulation of control variables. Experimental allows for the manipulation of control variables while non-experimental research doesn’t.

 Examples of experimental research are laboratory experiments that involve mixing different chemical elements together to see the effect of one element on the other while non-experimental research examples are investigations into the characteristics of different chemical elements.

Consider a researcher carrying out a laboratory test to determine the effect of adding Nitrogen gas to Hydrogen gas. It may be discovered that using the Haber process, one can create Nitrogen gas.

Non-experimental research may further be carried out on Ammonia, to determine its characteristics, behaviour, and nature.

There are 3 types of experimental research, namely; experimental research, quasi-experimental research, and true experimental research. Although also 3 in number, non-experimental research can be classified into cross-sectional research, correlational research, and observational research.

The different types of experimental research are further divided into different parts, while non-experimental research types are not further divided. Clearly, these divisions are not the same in experimental and non-experimental research.

• Characteristics

Experimental research is usually quantitative, controlled, and multivariable. Non-experimental research can be both quantitative and qualitative , has an uncontrolled variable, and also a cross-sectional research problem.

The characteristics of experimental research are the direct opposite of that of non-experimental research. The most distinct characteristic element is the ability to control or manipulate independent variables in experimental research and not in non-experimental research. 

In experimental research, a level of control is usually exerted on extraneous variables, therefore tampering with the natural research setting. Experimental research settings are usually more natural with no tampering with the extraneous variables.

• Data Collection/Tools

  The data used during experimental research is collected through observational study, simulations, and surveys while non-experimental data is collected through observations, surveys, and case studies. The main distinction between these data collection tools is case studies and simulations.

Even at that, similar tools are used differently. For example, an observational study may be used during a laboratory experiment that tests how the effect of a control variable manifests over a period of time in experimental research. 

However, when used in non-experimental research, data is collected based on the researcher’s discretion and not through a clear scientific reaction. In this case, we see a difference in the level of objectivity. 

The goal of experimental research is to measure the causes and effects of variables present in research, while non-experimental research provides very little to no information about causal agents.

Experimental research answers the question of why something is happening. This is quite different in non-experimental research, as they are more descriptive in nature with the end goal being to describe what .

 Experimental research is mostly used to make scientific innovations and find major solutions to problems while non-experimental research is used to define subject characteristics, measure data trends, compare situations and validate existing conditions.

For example, if experimental research results in an innovative discovery or solution, non-experimental research will be conducted to validate this discovery. This research is done for a period of time in order to properly study the subject of research.

Experimental research process is usually well structured and as such produces results with very little to no errors, while non-experimental research helps to create real-life related experiments. There are a lot more advantages of experimental and non-experimental research , with the absence of each of these advantages in the other leaving it at a disadvantage.

For example, the lack of a random selection process in non-experimental research leads to the inability to arrive at a generalizable result. Similarly, the ability to manipulate control variables in experimental research may lead to the personal bias of the researcher.

• Disadvantage

 Experimental research is highly prone to human error while the major disadvantage of non-experimental research is that the results obtained cannot be absolutely clear and error-free. In the long run, the error obtained due to human error may affect the results of the experimental research.

Some other disadvantages of experimental research include the following; extraneous variables cannot always be controlled, human responses can be difficult to measure, and participants may also cause bias.

  In experimental research, researchers can control and manipulate control variables, while in non-experimental research, researchers cannot manipulate these variables. This cannot be done due to ethical reasons. 

For example, when promoting employees due to how well they did in their annual performance review, it will be unethical to manipulate the results of the performance review (independent variable). That way, we can get impartial results of those who deserve a promotion and those who don’t.

Experimental researchers may also decide to eliminate extraneous variables so as to have enough control over the research process. Once again, this is something that cannot be done in non-experimental research because it relates more to real-life situations.

Experimental research is carried out in an unnatural setting because most of the factors that influence the setting are controlled while the non-experimental research setting remains natural and uncontrolled. One of the things usually tampered with during research is extraneous variables.

In a bid to get a perfect and well-structured research process and results, researchers sometimes eliminate extraneous variables. Although sometimes seen as insignificant, the elimination of these variables may affect the research results.

Consider the optimization problem whose aim is to minimize the cost of production of a car, with the constraints being the number of workers and the number of hours they spend working per day. 

In this problem, extraneous variables like machine failure rates or accidents are eliminated. In the long run, these things may occur and may invalidate the result.

• Cause-Effect Relationship

The relationship between cause and effect is established in experimental research while it cannot be established in non-experimental research. Rather than establish a cause-effect relationship, non-experimental research focuses on providing descriptive results.

Although it acknowledges the causal variable and its effect on the dependent variables, it does not measure how or the extent to which these dependent variables change. It, however, observes these changes, compares the changes in 2 variables, and describes them.

Experimental research does not compare variables while non-experimental research does. It compares 2 variables and describes the relationship between them.

The relationship between these variables can be positively correlated, negatively correlated or not correlated at all. For example, consider a case whereby the subject of research is a drum, and the control or independent variable is the drumstick.

Experimental research will measure the effect of hitting the drumstick on the drum, where the result of this research will be sound. That is, when you hit a drumstick on a drum, it makes a sound.

Non-experimental research, on the other hand, will investigate the correlation between how hard the drum is hit and the loudness of the sound that comes out. That is, if the sound will be higher with a harder bang, lower with a harder bang, or will remain the same no matter how hard we hit the drum.

• Quantitativeness

Experimental research is a quantitative research method while non-experimental research can be both quantitative and qualitative depending on the time and the situation where it is been used. An example of a non-experimental quantitative research method is correlational research .

Researchers use it to correlate two or more variables using mathematical analysis methods. The original patterns, relationships, and trends between variables are observed, then the impact of one of these variables on the other is recorded along with how it changes the relationship between the two variables.

Observational research is an example of non-experimental research, which is classified as a qualitative research method.

• Cross-section

Experimental research is usually single-sectional while non-experimental research is cross-sectional. That is, when evaluating the research subjects in experimental research, each group is evaluated as an entity.

For example, let us consider a medical research process investigating the prevalence of breast cancer in a certain community. In this community, we will find people of different ages, ethnicities, and social backgrounds. 

If a significant amount of women from a particular age are found to be more prone to have the disease, the researcher can conduct further studies to understand the reason behind it. A further study into this will be experimental and the subject won’t be a cross-sectional group. 

A lot of researchers consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This is partly due to the fact that experimental research can accommodate the manipulation of independent variables, which is something non-experimental research can not.

Therefore, as a researcher who is interested in using any one of experimental and non-experimental research, it is important to understand the distinction between these two. This helps in deciding which method is better for carrying out particular research. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• examples of experimental research
• non experimental research
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

Response vs Explanatory Variables: Definition & Examples

In this article, we’ll be comparing the two types of variables, what they both mean and see some of their real-life applications in research

What is Experimenter Bias? Definition, Types & Mitigation

In this article, we will look into the concept of experimental bias and how it can be identified in your research

Simpson’s Paradox & How to Avoid it in Experimental Research

In this article, we are going to look at Simpson’s Paradox from its historical point and later, we’ll consider its effect in...

Experimental Research Designs: Types, Examples & Methods

Ultimate guide to experimental research. It’s definition, types, characteristics, uses, examples and methodolgy

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Investigación de mercado

Non-experimental research: What it is, overview & advantages

Non-experimental research is the type of research that lacks an independent variable. Instead, the researcher observes the context in which the phenomenon occurs and analyzes it to obtain information.

Unlike experimental research , where the variables are held constant, non-experimental research happens during the study when the researcher cannot control, manipulate or alter the subjects but relies on interpretation or observations to conclude.

This means that the method must not rely on correlations, surveys , or case studies and cannot demonstrate an actual cause and effect relationship.

Characteristics of non-experimental research

Some of the essential characteristics of non-experimental research are necessary for the final results. Let’s talk about them to identify the most critical parts of them.

• Most studies are based on events that occurred previously and are analyzed later.
• In this method, controlled experiments are not performed for reasons such as ethics or morality.
• No study samples are created; on the contrary, the samples or participants already exist and develop in their environment.
• The researcher does not intervene directly in the environment of the sample.
• This method studies the phenomena exactly as they occurred.

Types of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research can take the following forms:

Cross-sectional research : Cross-sectional research is used to observe and analyze the exact time of the research to cover various study groups or samples. This type of research is divided into:

• Descriptive: When values are observed where one or more variables are presented.
• Causal: It is responsible for explaining the reasons and relationship that exists between variables in a given time.

Longitudinal research: In a longitudinal study , researchers aim to analyze the changes and development of the relationships between variables over time. Longitudinal research can be divided into:

• Trend: When they study the changes faced by the study group in general.
• Group evolution: When the study group is a smaller sample.
• Panel: It is in charge of analyzing individual and group changes to discover the factor that produces them.

LEARN ABOUT: Quasi-experimental Research

When to use non-experimental research

Non-experimental research can be applied in the following ways:

• When the research question may be about one variable rather than a statistical relationship about two variables.
• There is a non-causal statistical relationship between variables in the research question.
• The research question has a causal research relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated.
• In exploratory or broad research where a particular experience is confronted.

Advantages and disadvantages

Some advantages of non-experimental research are:

• It is very flexible during the research process
• The cause of the phenomenon is known, and the effect it has is investigated.
• The researcher can define the characteristics of the study group.

Among the disadvantages of non-experimental research are:

• The groups are not representative of the entire population.
• Errors in the methodology may occur, leading to research biases .

Non-experimental research is based on the observation of phenomena in their natural environment. In this way, they can be studied later to reach a conclusion.

Difference between experimental and non-experimental research

Experimental research involves changing variables and randomly assigning conditions to participants. As it can determine the cause, experimental research designs are used for research in medicine, biology, and social science. 

Experimental research designs have strict standards for control and establishing validity. Although they may need many resources, they can lead to very interesting results.

Non-experimental research, on the other hand, is usually descriptive or correlational without any explicit changes done by the researcher. You simply describe the situation as it is, or describe a relationship between variables. Without any control, it is difficult to determine causal effects. The validity remains a concern in this type of research. However, it’s’ more regarding the measurements instead of the effects.

LEARN MORE: Descriptive Research vs Correlational Research

Whether you should choose experimental research or non-experimental research design depends on your goals and resources. If you need any help with how to conduct research and collect relevant data, or have queries regarding the best approach for your research goals, contact us today! You can create an account with our survey software and avail of 88+ features including dashboard and reporting for free.

Create a free account

MORE LIKE THIS

Jotform vs SurveyMonkey: Which Is Best in 2024

Aug 15, 2024

360 Degree Feedback Spider Chart is Back!

Aug 14, 2024

Jotform vs Wufoo: Comparison of Features and Prices

Aug 13, 2024

Product or Service: Which is More Important? — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Non-Experimental Research

28 Overview of Non-Experimental Research

Learning objectives.

• Define non-experimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct non-experimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Non-Experimental Research?

Non-experimental research  is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable. Rather than manipulating an independent variable, researchers conducting non-experimental research simply measure variables as they naturally occur (in the lab or real world).

Most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This is because although experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, non-experimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability to make causal conclusions does not mean that non-experimental research is less important than experimental research. It is simply used in cases where experimental research is not able to be carried out.

When to Use Non-Experimental Research

As we saw in the last chapter , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable. It stands to reason, therefore, that non-experimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many times in which non-experimental research is preferred, including when:

• the research question or hypothesis relates to a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., how accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• the research question pertains to a non-causal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• the research question is about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions for practical or ethical reasons (e.g., does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• the research question is broad and exploratory, or is about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., what is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and non-experimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. Recall the three goals of science are to describe, to predict, and to explain. If the goal is to explain and the research question pertains to causal relationships, then the experimental approach is typically preferred. If the goal is to describe or to predict, a non-experimental approach is appropriate. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, in Milgram’s original (non-experimental) obedience study, he was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. However,  Milgram subsequently conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974) [1] .

Types of Non-Experimental Research

Non-experimental research falls into two broad categories: correlational research and observational research. 

The most common type of non-experimental research conducted in psychology is correlational research. Correlational research is considered non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable. More specifically, in correlational research , the researcher measures two variables with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. As an example, a researcher interested in the relationship between self-esteem and school achievement could collect data on students’ self-esteem and their GPAs to see if the two variables are statistically related.

Observational research  is non-experimental because it focuses on making observations of behavior in a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything. Milgram’s original obedience study was non-experimental in this way. He was primarily interested in the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of observational research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the researchers asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories).

Cross-Sectional, Longitudinal, and Cross-Sequential Studies

When psychologists wish to study change over time (for example, when developmental psychologists wish to study aging) they usually take one of three non-experimental approaches: cross-sectional, longitudinal, or cross-sequential. Cross-sectional studies involve comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people (e.g., children at different stages of development). What makes this approach non-experimental is that there is no manipulation of an independent variable and no random assignment of participants to groups. Using this design, developmental psychologists compare groups of people of different ages (e.g., young adults spanning from 18-25 years of age versus older adults spanning 60-75 years of age) on various dependent variables (e.g., memory, depression, life satisfaction). Of course, the primary limitation of using this design to study the effects of aging is that differences between the groups other than age may account for differences in the dependent variable. For instance, differences between the groups may reflect the generation that people come from (a cohort effect ) rather than a direct effect of age. For this reason, longitudinal studies , in which one group of people is followed over time as they age, offer a superior means of studying the effects of aging. However, longitudinal studies are by definition more time consuming and so require a much greater investment on the part of the researcher and the participants. A third approach, known as cross-sequential studies , combines elements of both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Rather than measuring differences between people in different age groups or following the same people over a long period of time, researchers adopting this approach choose a smaller period of time during which they follow people in different age groups. For example, they might measure changes over a ten year period among participants who at the start of the study fall into the following age groups: 20 years old, 30 years old, 40 years old, 50 years old, and 60 years old. This design is advantageous because the researcher reaps the immediate benefits of being able to compare the age groups after the first assessment. Further, by following the different age groups over time they can subsequently determine whether the original differences they found across the age groups are due to true age effects or cohort effects.

The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. But as you will learn in this chapter, many observational research studies are more qualitative in nature. In  qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s observational study of the experience of people in psychiatric wards was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semi-public room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256) [2] . Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.  Figure 6.1 shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental (correlational) research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest in internal validity because the use of manipulation (of the independent variable) and control (of extraneous variables) help to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Non-experimental (correlational) research is lowest in internal validity because these designs fail to use manipulation or control. Quasi-experimental research (which will be described in more detail in a subsequent chapter) falls in the middle because it contains some, but not all, of the features of a true experiment. For instance, it may fail to use random assignment to assign participants to groups or fail to use counterbalancing to control for potential order effects. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an anti-bullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” While a comparison is being made with a control condition, the inability to randomly assign children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying (e.g., there may be a selection effect).

Notice also in  Figure 6.1 that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational (non-experimental) studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well-designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider, as noted in Chapter 5.

• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row. ↵
• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵

A research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable.

Research that is non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable.

Research that is non-experimental because it focuses on recording systemic observations of behavior in a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything.

Studies that involve comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people (e.g., children at different stages of development).

Differences between the groups may reflect the generation that people come from rather than a direct effect of age.

Studies in which one group of people are followed over time as they age.

Studies in which researchers follow people in different age groups in a smaller period of time.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, nonexperimental research: strengths, weaknesses and issues of precision.

European Journal of Training and Development

ISSN : 2046-9012

Article publication date: 6 September 2016

Nonexperimental research, defined as any kind of quantitative or qualitative research that is not an experiment, is the predominate kind of research design used in the social sciences. How to unambiguously and correctly present the results of nonexperimental research, however, remains decidedly unclear and possibly detrimental to applied disciplines such as human resource development. To clarify issues about the accurate reporting and generalization of nonexperimental research results, this paper aims to present information about the relative strength of research designs, followed by the strengths and weaknesses of nonexperimental research. Further, some possible ways to more precisely report nonexperimental findings without using causal language are explored. Next, the researcher takes the position that the results of nonexperimental research can be used cautiously, yet appropriately, for making practice recommendations. Finally, some closing thoughts about nonexperimental research and the appropriate use of causal language are presented.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of the extant social science literature was consulted to inform this paper.

Nonexperimental research, when reported accurately, makes a tremendous contribution because it can be used for conducting research when experimentation is not feasible or desired. It can be used also to make tentative recommendations for practice.

Originality/value

This article presents useful means to more accurately report nonexperimental findings through avoiding causal language. Ways to link nonexperimental results to making practice recommendations are explored.

• Research design
• Experimental design
• Causal inference
• Nonexperimental
• Social science research
• Triangulation

Reio, T.G. (2016), "Nonexperimental research: strengths, weaknesses and issues of precision", European Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 40 No. 8/9, pp. 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2015-0058

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Determining the level of evidence: Nonexperimental research designs

Affiliation.

• 1 Amy Glasofer is a nurse scientist at Virtua Center for Learning in Mt. Laurel, N.J., and Ann B. Townsend is an adult NP with The Nurse Practitioner Group, LLC.
• PMID: 33953103
• DOI: 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000731852.39123.e1

To support evidence-based nursing practice, the authors provide guidelines for appraising research based on quality, quantity, and consistency. This article, the second of a three-part series, focuses on nonexperimental research designs.

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Determining the level of evidence: Nonresearch evidence. Glasofer A, Townsend AB. Glasofer A, et al. Nursing. 2021 Mar 1;51(3):53-57. doi: 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000733964.06881.23. Nursing. 2021. PMID: 33674537
• Sequential multiple assignment randomization trial designs for nursing research. Doorenbos AZ, Haozous EA, Jang MK, Langford D. Doorenbos AZ, et al. Res Nurs Health. 2019 Dec;42(6):429-435. doi: 10.1002/nur.21988. Epub 2019 Oct 10. Res Nurs Health. 2019. PMID: 31599468 Clinical Trial.
• Implementing the standards of best practice for simulation. Rutherford-Hemming T, Lioce L, Durham CF. Rutherford-Hemming T, et al. Nurse Educ. 2015 Mar-Apr;40(2):96-100. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000115. Nurse Educ. 2015. PMID: 25402713
• An Overview of Research Designs Relevant to Nursing: part 2: qualitative research designs. Driessnack M, Sousa VD, Mendes IA. Driessnack M, et al. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2007 Jul-Aug;15(4):684-8. doi: 10.1590/s0104-11692007000400025. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2007. PMID: 17957836 Review.
• Claiming our core: appraising qualitative evidence for nursing questions about human response and meaning. Grace JT, Powers BA. Grace JT, et al. Nurs Outlook. 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.009. Nurs Outlook. 2009. PMID: 19150264 Review.
• Glasofer A, Townsend AB. Determining the level of evidence: experimental research appraisal. Nurs Crit Care . 2019;14(6):22–25.
• Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E. Evidence-based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice . 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2019.
• Dearholt SL, Dang D. Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice: Models and Guidelines . 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2012.
• Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice . 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
• Burns N, Grove SK. The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence . 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2009.
• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Wolters Kluwer

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Summer is here, and so is the sale. Get a yearly plan with up to 65% off today! 🌴🌞

• 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 non-experimental research: Definition, types & examples

Defne Çobanoğlu

The experimentation method is very useful for getting information on a specific subject. However, when experimenting is not possible or practical, there is another way of collecting data for those interested. It's a non-experimental way, to say the least.

In this article, we have gathered information on non-experimental research, clearly defined what it is and when one should use it, and listed the types of non-experimental research. We also gave some useful examples to paint a better picture. Let us get started. 

• What is non-experimental research?

Non-experimental research is a type of research design that is based on observation and measuring instead of experimentation with randomly assigned participants.

What characterizes this research design is the fact that it lacks the manipulation of independent variables . Because of this fact, the non-experimental research is based on naturally occurring conditions, and there is no involvement of external interventions. Therefore, the researchers doing this method must not rely heavily on interviews, surveys , or case studies.

• When to use non-experimental research?

An experiment is done when a researcher is investigating the relationship between one or two phenomena and has a theory or hypothesis on the relationship between two variables that are involved. The researcher can carry out an experiment when it is ethical, possible, and feasible to do one.

However, when an experiment can not be done because of a limitation, then they decide to opt for a non-experimental research design . Non-experimental research is considered preferable in some conditions, including:

• When the manipulation of the independent variable is not possible because of ethical or practical concerns
• When the subjects of an experimental design can not be randomly assigned to treatments.
• When the research question is too extensive or it relates to a general experience.
• When researchers want to do a starter research before investing in more extensive research.
• When the research question is about the statistical relationship between variables , but in a noncausal context.
• Characteristics of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research has some characteristics that clearly define the framework of this research method. They provide a clear distinction between experimental design and non-experimental design. Let us see some of them:

• Non-experimental research does not involve the manipulation of variables .
• The aim of this research type is to explore the factors as they naturally occur .
• This method is used when experimentation is not possible because of ethical or practical reasons .
• Instead of creating a sample or participant group, the existing groups or natural thresholds are used during the research.
• This research method is not about finding causality between two variables.
• Most studies are done on past events or historical occurrences to make sense of specific research questions.
• Types of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research types

What makes research non-experimental research is the fact that the researcher does not manipulate the factors, does not randomly assign the participants, and observes the existing groups. But this research method can also be divided into different types. These types are:

Correlational research:

In correlation studies, the researcher does not manipulate the variables and is not interested in controlling the extraneous variables. They only observe and assess the relationship between them. For example, a researcher examines students’ study hours every day and their overall academic performance. The positive correlation this between study hours and academic performance suggests a statistical association. 

Quasi-experimental research:

In quasi-experimental research, the researcher does not randomly assign the participants into two groups. Because you can not deliberately deprive someone of treatment, the researcher uses natural thresholds or dividing points . For example, examining students from two different high schools with different education methods.

Cross-sectional research:

In cross-sectional research, the researcher studies and compares a portion of a population at the same time . It does not involve random assignment or any outside manipulation. For example, a study on smokers and non-smokers in a specific area.

Observational research:

In observational research, the researcher once again does not manipulate any aspect of the study, and their main focus is observation of the participants . For example, a researcher examining a group of children playing in a playground would be a good example.

• Non-experimental research examples

Non-experimental research is a good way of collecting information and exploring relationships between variables. It can be used in numerous fields, from social sciences, economics, psychology, education, and market research. When gathering information using secondary research is not enough and an experiment can not be done, this method can bring out new information.

Non-experimental research example #1

Imagine a researcher who wants to see the connection between mobile phone usage before bedtime and the amount of sleep adults get in a night . They can gather a group of individuals to observe and present them with some questions asking about the details of their day, frequency and duration of phone usage, quality of sleep, etc . And observe them by analyzing the findings.

Non-experimental research example #2

Imagine a researcher who wants to explore the correlation between job satisfaction levels among employees and what are the factors that affect this . The researcher can gather all the information they get about the employees’ ages, sexes, positions in the company, working patterns, demographic information, etc . 

The research provides the researcher with all the information to make an analysis to identify correlations and patterns. Then, it is possible for researchers and administrators to make informed predictions.

• Frequently asked questions about non-experimental research

When not to use non-experimental research?

There are some situations where non-experimental research is not suitable or the best choice. For example, the aim of non-experimental research is not about finding causality therefore, if the researcher wants to explore the relationship between two variables, then this method is not for them. Also, if the control over the variables is extremely important to the test of a theory, then experimentation is a more appropriate option.

What is the difference between experimental and non-experimental research?

Experimental research is an example of primary research where the researcher takes control of all the variables, randomly assigns the participants into different groups, and studies them in a pre-determined environment to test a hypothesis. 

On the contrary, non-experimental research does not intervene in any way and only observes and studies the participants in their natural environments to make sense of a phenomenon

What makes a quasi-experiment a non-experiment?

The same as true experimentation, quasi-experiment research also aims to explore a cause-and-effect relationship between independent and dependent variables. However, in quasi-experimental research, the participants are not randomly selected. They are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria .

Is a survey a non-experimental study?

Yes, as the main purpose of a survey or questionnaire is to collect information from participants without outside interference, it makes the survey a non-experimental study. Surveys are used by researchers when experimentation is not possible because of ethical reasons, but first-hand data is needed

What is non-experimental data?

Non-experimental data is data collected by researchers via using non-experimental methods such as observations, interpretation, and interactions. Non-experimental data could both be qualitative or quantitative, depending on the situation.

Advantages of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research has its positive sides that a researcher should have in mind when going through a study. They can start their research by going through the advantages. These advantages are:

• It is used to observe and analyze past events .
• This method is more affordable than a true experiment .
• As the researcher can adapt the methods during the study, this research type is more flexible than an experimental study.
• This method allows the researchers to answer specific questions .

Disadvantages of non-experimental research

Even though non-experimental research has its advantages, it also has some disadvantages a researcher should be mindful of. Here are some of them:

• The findings of non-experimental research can not be generalized to the whole population. Therefore, it has low external validity .
• This research is used to explore only a single variable .
• Non-experimental research designs are prone to researcher bias and may not produce neutral results.
• Final words

A non-experimental study differs from an experimental study in that there is no intervention or change of internal or extraneous elements. It is a smart way to collect information without the limitations of experimentation. These limitations could be about ethical or practical problems. When you can not do proper experimentation, your other option is to study existing conditions and groups to draw conclusions. This is a non-experimental design .

In this article, we have gathered information on non-experimental research to shed light on the details of this research method. If you are thinking of doing a study, make sure to have this information in mind. And lastly, do not forget to visit our articles on other research methods and so much more!

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

Related posts.

60+ Great food survey questions to ask (+ free templates)

Şeyma Beyazçiçek

7 Best MightyForms alternatives to try in 2024

How to generate leads in sales - with lead generation forms

forms.app Team

Student Portal: UNE Online Research Toolkit -

Brightspace U-Online UNE Email

Research Toolkit

• Action Research
• Ethnography
• Narrative Study
• Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis
• Transcendental Phenomenology
• Experimental Design

Non-Experimental Design

• Quasi-Experimental Design
• Mixed Methods Design
• Citation Tools
• Presentation Tips
• Video Tutorials (MS Office Beginners Guides)
• Video Tutorials (MS Office Intermediate & Advanced)
• Visual Organizers
• Writing, Editing, and Transcription Tips
• UNE Approved: Descriptive and Survey Research Tools
• CITI Training
• UNE IRB Website

Studies using descriptive design do not include a control group for comparison.

Not all research is about measuring the effects of an intervention on one group compared to a group that did not receive the intervention. There is another class of quantitative research design called non-experimental research.  These research designs can be used to show relationships between variables (correlational design). Non-experimental research can also be used to study he existence or incidence of a phenomenon (descriptive design). Note that in a non-experimental design, the independent variable is not controlled.

Correlational retrospective design. Research studies in this category examine how an event in the past may have an effect in the present, for example, presence of cancer and pulmonary disease rates among residents of New York City after the 9/11 bombings.

Correlational prospective design. In a prospective design, researchers believe that a phenomenon may have a future effect on the population of interest. For example, is the existence of lead-based paint in the home correlated to lower education scores? Newborns living in homes with lead-based paint would be followed by the researches and tested on some regular basis to compare test scores.

Descriptive correlational studies demonstrate the relationship among variables without going as far as showing cause and effect. Prevalence and incidence studies are examples of this type of research.  In epidemiology, a prevalence study is used to study the saturation of a condition whereas an incidence study is used to study the rate of new cases in the population.

Statistical analysis

Statistical measures of correlation will depend on the data type.  Incidence and prevalence are measured by a defined formula for rate.

Strengths and limitations

Non-experimental research lacks the reliability and validity of quasi-experimental and experimental research designs. However, findings from non-experimental research is the first step in determining whether an experimental design is called for.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Athl Train
• v.45(1); Jan-Feb 2010

Study/Experimental/Research Design: Much More Than Statistics

Kenneth l. knight.

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT

The purpose of study, experimental, or research design in scientific manuscripts has changed significantly over the years. It has evolved from an explanation of the design of the experiment (ie, data gathering or acquisition) to an explanation of the statistical analysis. This practice makes “Methods” sections hard to read and understand.

To clarify the difference between study design and statistical analysis, to show the advantages of a properly written study design on article comprehension, and to encourage authors to correctly describe study designs.

Description:

The role of study design is explored from the introduction of the concept by Fisher through modern-day scientists and the AMA Manual of Style . At one time, when experiments were simpler, the study design and statistical design were identical or very similar. With the complex research that is common today, which often includes manipulating variables to create new variables and the multiple (and different) analyses of a single data set, data collection is very different than statistical design. Thus, both a study design and a statistical design are necessary.

Advantages:

Scientific manuscripts will be much easier to read and comprehend. A proper experimental design serves as a road map to the study methods, helping readers to understand more clearly how the data were obtained and, therefore, assisting them in properly analyzing the results.

Study, experimental, or research design is the backbone of good research. It directs the experiment by orchestrating data collection, defines the statistical analysis of the resultant data, and guides the interpretation of the results. When properly described in the written report of the experiment, it serves as a road map to readers, 1 helping them negotiate the “Methods” section, and, thus, it improves the clarity of communication between authors and readers.

A growing trend is to equate study design with only the statistical analysis of the data. The design statement typically is placed at the end of the “Methods” section as a subsection called “Experimental Design” or as part of a subsection called “Data Analysis.” This placement, however, equates experimental design and statistical analysis, minimizing the effect of experimental design on the planning and reporting of an experiment. This linkage is inappropriate, because some of the elements of the study design that should be described at the beginning of the “Methods” section are instead placed in the “Statistical Analysis” section or, worse, are absent from the manuscript entirely.

Have you ever interrupted your reading of the “Methods” to sketch out the variables in the margins of the paper as you attempt to understand how they all fit together? Or have you jumped back and forth from the early paragraphs of the “Methods” section to the “Statistics” section to try to understand which variables were collected and when? These efforts would be unnecessary if a road map at the beginning of the “Methods” section outlined how the independent variables were related, which dependent variables were measured, and when they were measured. When they were measured is especially important if the variables used in the statistical analysis were a subset of the measured variables or were computed from measured variables (such as change scores).

The purpose of this Communications article is to clarify the purpose and placement of study design elements in an experimental manuscript. Adopting these ideas may improve your science and surely will enhance the communication of that science. These ideas will make experimental manuscripts easier to read and understand and, therefore, will allow them to become part of readers' clinical decision making.

WHAT IS A STUDY (OR EXPERIMENTAL OR RESEARCH) DESIGN?

The terms study design, experimental design, and research design are often thought to be synonymous and are sometimes used interchangeably in a single paper. Avoid doing so. Use the term that is preferred by the style manual of the journal for which you are writing. Study design is the preferred term in the AMA Manual of Style , 2 so I will use it here.

A study design is the architecture of an experimental study 3 and a description of how the study was conducted, 4 including all elements of how the data were obtained. 5 The study design should be the first subsection of the “Methods” section in an experimental manuscript (see the Table ). “Statistical Design” or, preferably, “Statistical Analysis” or “Data Analysis” should be the last subsection of the “Methods” section.

Table. Elements of a “Methods” Section

The “Study Design” subsection describes how the variables and participants interacted. It begins with a general statement of how the study was conducted (eg, crossover trials, parallel, or observational study). 2 The second element, which usually begins with the second sentence, details the number of independent variables or factors, the levels of each variable, and their names. A shorthand way of doing so is with a statement such as “A 2 × 4 × 8 factorial guided data collection.” This tells us that there were 3 independent variables (factors), with 2 levels of the first factor, 4 levels of the second factor, and 8 levels of the third factor. Following is a sentence that names the levels of each factor: for example, “The independent variables were sex (male or female), training program (eg, walking, running, weight lifting, or plyometrics), and time (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20, or 30 weeks).” Such an approach clearly outlines for readers how the various procedures fit into the overall structure and, therefore, enhances their understanding of how the data were collected. Thus, the design statement is a road map of the methods.

The dependent (or measurement or outcome) variables are then named. Details of how they were measured are not given at this point in the manuscript but are explained later in the “Instruments” and “Procedures” subsections.

Next is a paragraph detailing who the participants were and how they were selected, placed into groups, and assigned to a particular treatment order, if the experiment was a repeated-measures design. And although not a part of the design per se, a statement about obtaining written informed consent from participants and institutional review board approval is usually included in this subsection.

The nuts and bolts of the “Methods” section follow, including such things as equipment, materials, protocols, etc. These are beyond the scope of this commentary, however, and so will not be discussed.

The last part of the “Methods” section and last part of the “Study Design” section is the “Data Analysis” subsection. It begins with an explanation of any data manipulation, such as how data were combined or how new variables (eg, ratios or differences between collected variables) were calculated. Next, readers are told of the statistical measures used to analyze the data, such as a mixed 2 × 4 × 8 analysis of variance (ANOVA) with 2 between-groups factors (sex and training program) and 1 within-groups factor (time of measurement). Researchers should state and reference the statistical package and procedure(s) within the package used to compute the statistics. (Various statistical packages perform analyses slightly differently, so it is important to know the package and specific procedure used.) This detail allows readers to judge the appropriateness of the statistical measures and the conclusions drawn from the data.

STATISTICAL DESIGN VERSUS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Avoid using the term statistical design . Statistical methods are only part of the overall design. The term gives too much emphasis to the statistics, which are important, but only one of many tools used in interpreting data and only part of the study design:

The most important issues in biostatistics are not expressed with statistical procedures. The issues are inherently scientific, rather than purely statistical, and relate to the architectural design of the research, not the numbers with which the data are cited and interpreted. 6

Stated another way, “The justification for the analysis lies not in the data collected but in the manner in which the data were collected.” 3 “Without the solid foundation of a good design, the edifice of statistical analysis is unsafe.” 7 (pp4–5)

The intertwining of study design and statistical analysis may have been caused (unintentionally) by R.A. Fisher, “… a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science.” 8 Most research did not involve statistics until Fisher invented the concepts and procedures of ANOVA (in 1921) 9 , 10 and experimental design (in 1935). 11 His books became standard references for scientists in many disciplines. As a result, many ANOVA books were titled Experimental Design (see, for example, Edwards 12 ), and ANOVA courses taught in psychology and education departments included the words experimental design in their course titles.

Before the widespread use of computers to analyze data, designs were much simpler, and often there was little difference between study design and statistical analysis. So combining the 2 elements did not cause serious problems. This is no longer true, however, for 3 reasons: (1) Research studies are becoming more complex, with multiple independent and dependent variables. The procedures sections of these complex studies can be difficult to understand if your only reference point is the statistical analysis and design. (2) Dependent variables are frequently measured at different times. (3) How the data were collected is often not directly correlated with the statistical design.

For example, assume the goal is to determine the strength gain in novice and experienced athletes as a result of 3 strength training programs. Rate of change in strength is not a measurable variable; rather, it is calculated from strength measurements taken at various time intervals during the training. So the study design would be a 2 × 2 × 3 factorial with independent variables of time (pretest or posttest), experience (novice or advanced), and training (isokinetic, isotonic, or isometric) and a dependent variable of strength. The statistical design , however, would be a 2 × 3 factorial with independent variables of experience (novice or advanced) and training (isokinetic, isotonic, or isometric) and a dependent variable of strength gain. Note that data were collected according to a 3-factor design but were analyzed according to a 2-factor design and that the dependent variables were different. So a single design statement, usually a statistical design statement, would not communicate which data were collected or how. Readers would be left to figure out on their own how the data were collected.

MULTIVARIATE RESEARCH AND THE NEED FOR STUDY DESIGNS

With the advent of electronic data gathering and computerized data handling and analysis, research projects have increased in complexity. Many projects involve multiple dependent variables measured at different times, and, therefore, multiple design statements may be needed for both data collection and statistical analysis. Consider, for example, a study of the effects of heat and cold on neural inhibition. The variables of H max and M max are measured 3 times each: before, immediately after, and 30 minutes after a 20-minute treatment with heat or cold. Muscle temperature might be measured each minute before, during, and after the treatment. Although the minute-by-minute data are important for graphing temperature fluctuations during the procedure, only 3 temperatures (time 0, time 20, and time 50) are used for statistical analysis. A single dependent variable H max :M max ratio is computed to illustrate neural inhibition. Again, a single statistical design statement would tell little about how the data were obtained. And in this example, separate design statements would be needed for temperature measurement and H max :M max measurements.

As stated earlier, drawing conclusions from the data depends more on how the data were measured than on how they were analyzed. 3 , 6 , 7 , 13 So a single study design statement (or multiple such statements) at the beginning of the “Methods” section acts as a road map to the study and, thus, increases scientists' and readers' comprehension of how the experiment was conducted (ie, how the data were collected). Appropriate study design statements also increase the accuracy of conclusions drawn from the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of scientific writing, or any writing, for that matter, is to communicate information. Including 2 design statements or subsections in scientific papers—one to explain how the data were collected and another to explain how they were statistically analyzed—will improve the clarity of communication and bring praise from readers. To summarize:

• Purge from your thoughts and vocabulary the idea that experimental design and statistical design are synonymous.
• Study or experimental design plays a much broader role than simply defining and directing the statistical analysis of an experiment.
• A properly written study design serves as a road map to the “Methods” section of an experiment and, therefore, improves communication with the reader.
• Study design should include a description of the type of design used, each factor (and each level) involved in the experiment, and the time at which each measurement was made.
• Clarify when the variables involved in data collection and data analysis are different, such as when data analysis involves only a subset of a collected variable or a resultant variable from the mathematical manipulation of 2 or more collected variables.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Thomas A. Cappaert, PhD, ATC, CSCS, CSE, for suggesting the link between R.A. Fisher and the melding of the concepts of research design and statistics.

Difference Between Experimental and Non-Experimental Research

When designing research , you must take into account the different methods and experimental research types that are available.

Experimental research is a type of quantitative research that controls the variables in order to test a hypothesis. Non-experimental research does not control the variables but instead looks at naturally occurring factors without manipulating them to test a hypothesis.

What is Experimental Research?

The goal of the experiment is to test a hypothesis . The data collected during the experiment will help you understand how accurate your hypothesis is.

What is Non-Experimental Research?

Non-experimental research does not experimentally manipulate the variables directly. Instead, it looks at naturally occurring factors without experimenting with them. Research that is non-experimental does not manipulate a control variable or an independent variable. In non-experimental research, variables are measured as they are without any additional manipulation.

Benefits of Experimental Research

Experimental research has several advantages.

Disadvantages of Experimental Research

Benefits of non-experimental research, disadvantages of non-experimental research.

The primary difference between these two forms of research is how they approach manipulating control variables. Non-experimental research does not allow for the manipulation of control variables.

Experimental Research:

Includes three main types:

Non-Experimental Research:

Example: experimental vs non-experimental research.

Laboratory experiments in which various chemical elements are mixed together to observe how one element affects another are instances of experimental research, whereas studies into the properties of various chemical elements are examples of non-experimental research.

Cause-Effect Relationship

Experimental research establishes a cause-effect relationship by manipulating variables and observing their impact.

Characteristics

Experimental research is typically quantitative, controlled, and multivariable, emphasizing manipulation and control of variables. Non-experimental research can be either quantitative or qualitative, involves uncontrolled variables, and often addresses cross-sectional research problems.

Quantitative or Qualitative

In contrast, non-experimental research can be both quantitative and qualitative, depending on the context and objectives. For example, correlational research is a quantitative non-experimental method that examines the statistical relationships between two or more variables, analyzing patterns, trends, and the impact of one variable on another.

Cross-Section

For example, in medical research investigating breast cancer prevalence, researchers might assess different demographic groups separately to identify patterns and correlations. If significant findings are observed, further experimental studies may be conducted to explore causative factors more deeply, beyond the initial cross-sectional analysis.

Data Collection

Similar tools may be used differently depending on the research type. For instance, an observational study in experimental research might track how the manipulation of a control variable affects outcomes over time. In non-experimental research, data collection is based on the researcher’s discretion and lacks the clear scientific reactions found in experimental settings, leading to differences in objectivity.

The primary aim of experimental research is to determine the causes and effects of variables by manipulating them and measuring their impact. In contrast, non-experimental research focuses more on describing phenomena and provides limited or no information about causal relationships.

Which Type of Research is Right for You?

When choosing between experimental and non-experimental research, you should remember that both methods have their benefits and drawbacks. No one research method is better than the other. Instead, different research types are better for different projects.

Other articles

Please read through some of our other articles with examples and explanations if you’d like to learn more about research methodology.

Comparision

Related Posts

Types of research questions, correlational research | example, types, inductive vs deductive approach: which is more effective, 8 types of validity in research | examples, nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales | measurement of scale, conclusive research | types, pros, operationalization of variables in research | examples | benefits, types of quasi experimental design, 10 types of variables in research: definitions and examples, types of descriptive research: methods and examples.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part 3: Using quantitative methods

13. Experimental design

Chapter outline.

• What is an experiment and when should you use one? (8 minute read)
• True experimental designs (7 minute read)
• Quasi-experimental designs (8 minute read)
• Non-experimental designs (5 minute read)
• Critical, ethical, and critical considerations  (5 minute read)

Content warning : examples in this chapter contain references to non-consensual research in Western history, including experiments conducted during the Holocaust and on African Americans (section 13.6).

13.1 What is an experiment and when should you use one?

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

• Identify the characteristics of a basic experiment
• Describe causality in experimental design
• Discuss the relationship between dependent and independent variables in experiments
• Explain the links between experiments and generalizability of results
• Describe advantages and disadvantages of experimental designs

The basics of experiments

The first experiment I can remember using was for my fourth grade science fair. I wondered if latex- or oil-based paint would hold up to sunlight better. So, I went to the hardware store and got a few small cans of paint and two sets of wooden paint sticks. I painted one with oil-based paint and the other with latex-based paint of different colors and put them in a sunny spot in the back yard. My hypothesis was that the oil-based paint would fade the most and that more fading would happen the longer I left the paint sticks out. (I know, it’s obvious, but I was only 10.)

I checked in on the paint sticks every few days for a month and wrote down my observations. The first part of my hypothesis ended up being wrong—it was actually the latex-based paint that faded the most. But the second part was right, and the paint faded more and more over time. This is a simple example, of course—experiments get a heck of a lot more complex than this when we’re talking about real research.

Merriam-Webster defines an experiment   as “an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.” Each of these three components of the definition will come in handy as we go through the different types of experimental design in this chapter. Most of us probably think of the physical sciences when we think of experiments, and for good reason—these experiments can be pretty flashy! But social science and psychological research follow the same scientific methods, as we’ve discussed in this book.

As the video discusses, experiments can be used in social sciences just like they can in physical sciences. It makes sense to use an experiment when you want to determine the cause of a phenomenon with as much accuracy as possible. Some types of experimental designs do this more precisely than others, as we’ll see throughout the chapter. If you’ll remember back to Chapter 11  and the discussion of validity, experiments are the best way to ensure internal validity, or the extent to which a change in your independent variable causes a change in your dependent variable.

Experimental designs for research projects are most appropriate when trying to uncover or test a hypothesis about the cause of a phenomenon, so they are best for explanatory research questions. As we’ll learn throughout this chapter, different circumstances are appropriate for different types of experimental designs. Each type of experimental design has advantages and disadvantages, and some are better at controlling the effect of extraneous variables —those variables and characteristics that have an effect on your dependent variable, but aren’t the primary variable whose influence you’re interested in testing. For example, in a study that tries to determine whether aspirin lowers a person’s risk of a fatal heart attack, a person’s race would likely be an extraneous variable because you primarily want to know the effect of aspirin.

In practice, many types of experimental designs can be logistically challenging and resource-intensive. As practitioners, the likelihood that we will be involved in some of the types of experimental designs discussed in this chapter is fairly low. However, it’s important to learn about these methods, even if we might not ever use them, so that we can be thoughtful consumers of research that uses experimental designs.

While we might not use all of these types of experimental designs, many of us will engage in evidence-based practice during our time as social workers. A lot of research developing evidence-based practice, which has a strong emphasis on generalizability, will use experimental designs. You’ve undoubtedly seen one or two in your literature search so far.

The logic of experimental design

How do we know that one phenomenon causes another? The complexity of the social world in which we practice and conduct research means that causes of social problems are rarely cut and dry. Uncovering explanations for social problems is key to helping clients address them, and experimental research designs are one road to finding answers.

As you read about in Chapter 8 (and as we’ll discuss again in Chapter 15 ), just because two phenomena are related in some way doesn’t mean that one causes the other. Ice cream sales increase in the summer, and so does the rate of violent crime; does that mean that eating ice cream is going to make me murder someone? Obviously not, because ice cream is great. The reality of that relationship is far more complex—it could be that hot weather makes people more irritable and, at times, violent, while also making people want ice cream. More likely, though, there are other social factors not accounted for in the way we just described this relationship.

Experimental designs can help clear up at least some of this fog by allowing researchers to isolate the effect of interventions on dependent variables by controlling extraneous variables . In true experimental design (discussed in the next section) and some quasi-experimental designs, researchers accomplish this w ith the control group and the experimental group . (The experimental group is sometimes called the “treatment group,” but we will call it the experimental group in this chapter.) The control group does not receive the intervention you are testing (they may receive no intervention or what is known as “treatment as usual”), while the experimental group does. (You will hopefully remember our earlier discussion of control variables in Chapter 8 —conceptually, the use of the word “control” here is the same.)

In a well-designed experiment, your control group should look almost identical to your experimental group in terms of demographics and other relevant factors. What if we want to know the effect of CBT on social anxiety, but we have learned in prior research that men tend to have a more difficult time overcoming social anxiety? We would want our control and experimental groups to have a similar gender mix because it would limit the effect of gender on our results, since ostensibly, both groups’ results would be affected by gender in the same way. If your control group has 5 women, 6 men, and 4 non-binary people, then your experimental group should be made up of roughly the same gender balance to help control for the influence of gender on the outcome of your intervention. (In reality, the groups should be similar along other dimensions, as well, and your group will likely be much larger.) The researcher will use the same outcome measures for both groups and compare them, and assuming the experiment was designed correctly, get a pretty good answer about whether the intervention had an effect on social anxiety.

You will also hear people talk about comparison groups , which are similar to control groups. The primary difference between the two is that a control group is populated using random assignment, but a comparison group is not. Random assignment entails using a random process to decide which participants are put into the control or experimental group (which participants receive an intervention and which do not). By randomly assigning participants to a group, you can reduce the effect of extraneous variables on your research because there won’t be a systematic difference between the groups.

Do not confuse random assignment with random sampling. Random sampling is a method for selecting a sample from a population, and is rarely used in psychological research. Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other related fields. Random sampling also helps a great deal with generalizability , whereas random assignment increases internal validity .

We have already learned about internal validity in Chapter 11 . The use of an experimental design will bolster internal validity since it works to isolate causal relationships. As we will see in the coming sections, some types of experimental design do this more effectively than others. It’s also worth considering that true experiments, which most effectively show causality , are often difficult and expensive to implement. Although other experimental designs aren’t perfect, they still produce useful, valid evidence and may be more feasible to carry out.

Key Takeaways

• Experimental designs are useful for establishing causality, but some types of experimental design do this better than others.
• Experiments help researchers isolate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable by controlling for the effect of extraneous variables .
• Experiments use a control/comparison group and an experimental group to test the effects of interventions. These groups should be as similar to each other as possible in terms of demographics and other relevant factors.
• True experiments have control groups with randomly assigned participants, while other types of experiments have comparison groups to which participants are not randomly assigned.
• Think about the research project you’ve been designing so far. How might you use a basic experiment to answer your question? If your question isn’t explanatory, try to formulate a new explanatory question and consider the usefulness of an experiment.
• Why is establishing a simple relationship between two variables not indicative of one causing the other?

13.2 True experimental design

• Describe a true experimental design in social work research
• Understand the different types of true experimental designs
• Determine what kinds of research questions true experimental designs are suited for
• Discuss advantages and disadvantages of true experimental designs

True experimental design , often considered to be the “gold standard” in research designs, is thought of as one of the most rigorous of all research designs. In this design, one or more independent variables are manipulated by the researcher (as treatments), subjects are randomly assigned to different treatment levels (random assignment), and the results of the treatments on outcomes (dependent variables) are observed. The unique strength of experimental research is its internal validity and its ability to establish ( causality ) through treatment manipulation, while controlling for the effects of extraneous variable. Sometimes the treatment level is no treatment, while other times it is simply a different treatment than that which we are trying to evaluate. For example, we might have a control group that is made up of people who will not receive any treatment for a particular condition. Or, a control group could consist of people who consent to treatment with DBT when we are testing the effectiveness of CBT.

As we discussed in the previous section, a true experiment has a control group with participants randomly assigned , and an experimental group . This is the most basic element of a true experiment. The next decision a researcher must make is when they need to gather data during their experiment. Do they take a baseline measurement and then a measurement after treatment, or just a measurement after treatment, or do they handle measurement another way? Below, we’ll discuss the three main types of true experimental designs. There are sub-types of each of these designs, but here, we just want to get you started with some of the basics.

Using a true experiment in social work research is often pretty difficult, since as I mentioned earlier, true experiments can be quite resource intensive. True experiments work best with relatively large sample sizes, and random assignment, a key criterion for a true experimental design, is hard (and unethical) to execute in practice when you have people in dire need of an intervention. Nonetheless, some of the strongest evidence bases are built on true experiments.

For the purposes of this section, let’s bring back the example of CBT for the treatment of social anxiety. We have a group of 500 individuals who have agreed to participate in our study, and we have randomly assigned them to the control and experimental groups. The folks in the experimental group will receive CBT, while the folks in the control group will receive more unstructured, basic talk therapy. These designs, as we talked about above, are best suited for explanatory research questions.

Before we get started, take a look at the table below. When explaining experimental research designs, we often use diagrams with abbreviations to visually represent the experiment. Table 13.1 starts us off by laying out what each of the abbreviations mean.

Pretest and post-test control group design

In pretest and post-test control group design , participants are given a pretest of some kind to measure their baseline state before their participation in an intervention. In our social anxiety experiment, we would have participants in both the experimental and control groups complete some measure of social anxiety—most likely an established scale and/or a structured interview—before they start their treatment. As part of the experiment, we would have a defined time period during which the treatment would take place (let’s say 12 weeks, just for illustration). At the end of 12 weeks, we would give both groups the same measure as a post-test .

In the diagram, RA (random assignment group A) is the experimental group and RB is the control group. O 1 denotes the pre-test, X e denotes the experimental intervention, and O 2 denotes the post-test. Let’s look at this diagram another way, using the example of CBT for social anxiety that we’ve been talking about.

In a situation where the control group received treatment as usual instead of no intervention, the diagram would look this way, with X i denoting treatment as usual (Figure 13.3).

Hopefully, these diagrams provide you a visualization of how this type of experiment establishes time order , a key component of a causal relationship. Did the change occur after the intervention? Assuming there is a change in the scores between the pretest and post-test, we would be able to say that yes, the change did occur after the intervention. Causality can’t exist if the change happened before the intervention—this would mean that something else led to the change, not our intervention.

Post-test only control group design

Post-test only control group design involves only giving participants a post-test, just like it sounds (Figure 13.4).

But why would you use this design instead of using a pretest/post-test design? One reason could be the testing effect that can happen when research participants take a pretest. In research, the testing effect refers to “measurement error related to how a test is given; the conditions of the testing, including environmental conditions; and acclimation to the test itself” (Engel & Schutt, 2017, p. 444) [1] (When we say “measurement error,” all we mean is the accuracy of the way we measure the dependent variable.) Figure 13.4 is a visualization of this type of experiment. The testing effect isn’t always bad in practice—our initial assessments might help clients identify or put into words feelings or experiences they are having when they haven’t been able to do that before. In research, however, we might want to control its effects to isolate a cleaner causal relationship between intervention and outcome.

Going back to our CBT for social anxiety example, we might be concerned that participants would learn about social anxiety symptoms by virtue of taking a pretest. They might then identify that they have those symptoms on the post-test, even though they are not new symptoms for them. That could make our intervention look less effective than it actually is.

However, without a baseline measurement establishing causality can be more difficult. If we don’t know someone’s state of mind before our intervention, how do we know our intervention did anything at all? Establishing time order is thus a little more difficult. You must balance this consideration with the benefits of this type of design.

Solomon four group design

One way we can possibly measure how much the testing effect might change the results of the experiment is with the Solomon four group design. Basically, as part of this experiment, you have two control groups and two experimental groups. The first pair of groups receives both a pretest and a post-test. The other pair of groups receives only a post-test (Figure 13.5). This design helps address the problem of establishing time order in post-test only control group designs.

For our CBT project, we would randomly assign people to four different groups instead of just two. Groups A and B would take our pretest measures and our post-test measures, and groups C and D would take only our post-test measures. We could then compare the results among these groups and see if they’re significantly different between the folks in A and B, and C and D. If they are, we may have identified some kind of testing effect, which enables us to put our results into full context. We don’t want to draw a strong causal conclusion about our intervention when we have major concerns about testing effects without trying to determine the extent of those effects.

Solomon four group designs are less common in social work research, primarily because of the logistics and resource needs involved. Nonetheless, this is an important experimental design to consider when we want to address major concerns about testing effects.

• True experimental design is best suited for explanatory research questions.
• True experiments require random assignment of participants to control and experimental groups.
• Pretest/post-test research design involves two points of measurement—one pre-intervention and one post-intervention.
• Post-test only research design involves only one point of measurement—post-intervention. It is a useful design to minimize the effect of testing effects on our results.
• Solomon four group research design involves both of the above types of designs, using 2 pairs of control and experimental groups. One group receives both a pretest and a post-test, while the other receives only a post-test. This can help uncover the influence of testing effects.
• Think about a true experiment you might conduct for your research project. Which design would be best for your research, and why?
• What challenges or limitations might make it unrealistic (or at least very complicated!) for you to carry your true experimental design in the real-world as a student researcher?
• What hypothesis(es) would you test using this true experiment?

13.4 Quasi-experimental designs

• Describe a quasi-experimental design in social work research
• Understand the different types of quasi-experimental designs
• Determine what kinds of research questions quasi-experimental designs are suited for
• Discuss advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experimental designs

Quasi-experimental designs are a lot more common in social work research than true experimental designs. Although quasi-experiments don’t do as good a job of giving us robust proof of causality , they still allow us to establish time order , which is a key element of causality. The prefix quasi means “resembling,” so quasi-experimental research is research that resembles experimental research, but is not true experimental research. Nonetheless, given proper research design, quasi-experiments can still provide extremely rigorous and useful results.

There are a few key differences between true experimental and quasi-experimental research. The primary difference between quasi-experimental research and true experimental research is that quasi-experimental research does not involve random assignment to control and experimental groups. Instead, we talk about comparison groups in quasi-experimental research instead. As a result, these types of experiments don’t control the effect of extraneous variables as well as a true experiment.

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—perhaps a type of psychotherapy or an educational intervention.  We’re able to eliminate some threats to internal validity, but we can’t do this as effectively as we can with a true experiment.  Realistically, our CBT-social anxiety project is likely to be a quasi experiment, based on the resources and participant pool we’re likely to have available. 

It’s important to note that not all quasi-experimental designs have a comparison group.  There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss the three main types below: nonequivalent comparison group designs, time series designs, and ex post facto comparison group designs.

Nonequivalent comparison group design

You will notice that this type of design looks extremely similar to the pretest/post-test design that we discussed in section 13.3. But instead of random assignment to control and experimental groups, researchers use other methods to construct their comparison and experimental groups. A diagram of this design will also look very similar to pretest/post-test design, but you’ll notice we’ve removed the “R” from our groups, since they are not randomly assigned (Figure 13.6).

Researchers using this design select a comparison group that’s as close as possible based on relevant factors to their experimental group. Engel and Schutt (2017) [2] identify two different selection methods:

• Individual matching : Researchers take the time to match individual cases in the experimental group to similar cases in the comparison group. It can be difficult, however, to match participants on all the variables you want to control for.
• Aggregate matching : Instead of trying to match individual participants to each other, researchers try to match the population profile of the comparison and experimental groups. For example, researchers would try to match the groups on average age, gender balance, or median income. This is a less resource-intensive matching method, but researchers have to ensure that participants aren’t choosing which group (comparison or experimental) they are a part of.

As we’ve already talked about, this kind of design provides weaker evidence that the intervention itself leads to a change in outcome. Nonetheless, we are still able to establish time order using this method, and can thereby show an association between the intervention and the outcome. Like true experimental designs, this type of quasi-experimental design is useful for explanatory research questions.

What might this look like in a practice setting? Let’s say you’re working at an agency that provides CBT and other types of interventions, and you have identified a group of clients who are seeking help for social anxiety, as in our earlier example. Once you’ve obtained consent from your clients, you can create a comparison group using one of the matching methods we just discussed. If the group is small, you might match using individual matching, but if it’s larger, you’ll probably sort people by demographics to try to get similar population profiles. (You can do aggregate matching more easily when your agency has some kind of electronic records or database, but it’s still possible to do manually.)

Time series design

Another type of quasi-experimental design is a time series design. Unlike other types of experimental design, time series designs do not have a comparison group. A time series is a set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time (Figure 13.7). Proper time series design should include at least three pre- and post-intervention measurement points. While there are a few types of time series designs, we’re going to focus on the most common: interrupted time series design.

But why use this method? Here’s an example. Let’s think about elementary student behavior throughout the school year. As anyone with children or who is a teacher knows, kids get very excited and animated around holidays, days off, or even just on a Friday afternoon. This fact might mean that around those times of year, there are more reports of disruptive behavior in classrooms. What if we took our one and only measurement in mid-December? It’s possible we’d see a higher-than-average rate of disruptive behavior reports, which could bias our results if our next measurement is around a time of year students are in a different, less excitable frame of mind. When we take multiple measurements throughout the first half of the school year, we can establish a more accurate baseline for the rate of these reports by looking at the trend over time.

We may want to test the effect of extended recess times in elementary school on reports of disruptive behavior in classrooms. When students come back after the winter break, the school extends recess by 10 minutes each day (the intervention), and the researchers start tracking the monthly reports of disruptive behavior again. These reports could be subject to the same fluctuations as the pre-intervention reports, and so we once again take multiple measurements over time to try to control for those fluctuations.

This method improves the extent to which we can establish causality because we are accounting for a major extraneous variable in the equation—the passage of time. On its own, it does not allow us to account for other extraneous variables, but it does establish time order and association between the intervention and the trend in reports of disruptive behavior. Finding a stable condition before the treatment that changes after the treatment is evidence for causality between treatment and outcome.

Ex post facto comparison group design

Ex post facto (Latin for “after the fact”) designs are extremely similar to nonequivalent comparison group designs. There are still comparison and experimental groups, pretest and post-test measurements, and an intervention. But in ex post facto designs, participants are assigned to the comparison and experimental groups once the intervention has already happened. This type of design often occurs when interventions are already up and running at an agency and the agency wants to assess effectiveness based on people who have already completed treatment.

In most clinical agency environments, social workers conduct both initial and exit assessments, so there are usually some kind of pretest and post-test measures available. We also typically collect demographic information about our clients, which could allow us to try to use some kind of matching to construct comparison and experimental groups.

In terms of internal validity and establishing causality, ex post facto designs are a bit of a mixed bag. The ability to establish causality depends partially on the ability to construct comparison and experimental groups that are demographically similar so we can control for these extraneous variables .

Quasi-experimental designs are common in social work intervention research because, when designed correctly, they balance the intense resource needs of true experiments with the realities of research in practice. They still offer researchers tools to gather robust evidence about whether interventions are having positive effects for clients.

• Quasi-experimental designs are similar to true experiments, but do not require random assignment to experimental and control groups.
• In quasi-experimental projects, the group not receiving the treatment is called the comparison group, not the control group.
• Nonequivalent comparison group design is nearly identical to pretest/post-test experimental design, but participants are not randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. As a result, this design provides slightly less robust evidence for causality.
• Nonequivalent groups can be constructed by individual matching or aggregate matching .
• Time series design does not have a control or experimental group, and instead compares the condition of participants before and after the intervention by measuring relevant factors at multiple points in time. This allows researchers to mitigate the error introduced by the passage of time.
• Ex post facto comparison group designs are also similar to true experiments, but experimental and comparison groups are constructed after the intervention is over. This makes it more difficult to control for the effect of extraneous variables, but still provides useful evidence for causality because it maintains the time order of the experiment.
• Think back to the experiment you considered for your research project in Section 13.3. Now that you know more about quasi-experimental designs, do you still think it’s a true experiment? Why or why not?
• What should you consider when deciding whether an experimental or quasi-experimental design would be more feasible or fit your research question better?

13.5 Non-experimental designs

• Describe non-experimental designs in social work research
• Discuss how non-experimental research differs from true and quasi-experimental research
• Demonstrate an understanding the different types of non-experimental designs
• Determine what kinds of research questions non-experimental designs are suited for
• Discuss advantages and disadvantages of non-experimental designs

The previous sections have laid out the basics of some rigorous approaches to establish that an intervention is responsible for changes we observe in research participants. This type of evidence is extremely important to build an evidence base for social work interventions, but it’s not the only type of evidence to consider. We will discuss qualitative methods, which provide us with rich, contextual information, in Part 4 of this text. The designs we’ll talk about in this section are sometimes used in qualitative research  but in keeping with our discussion of experimental design so far, we’re going to stay in the quantitative research realm for now. Non-experimental is also often a stepping stone for more rigorous experimental design in the future, as it can help test the feasibility of your research.

In general, non-experimental designs do not strongly support causality and don’t address threats to internal validity. However, that’s not really what they’re intended for. Non-experimental designs are useful for a few different types of research, including explanatory questions in program evaluation. Certain types of non-experimental design are also helpful for researchers when they are trying to develop a new assessment or scale. Other times, researchers or agency staff did not get a chance to gather any assessment information before an intervention began, so a pretest/post-test design is not possible.

A significant benefit of these types of designs is that they’re pretty easy to execute in a practice or agency setting. They don’t require a comparison or control group, and as Engel and Schutt (2017) [3] point out, they “flow from a typical practice model of assessment, intervention, and evaluating the impact of the intervention” (p. 177). Thus, these designs are fairly intuitive for social workers, even when they aren’t expert researchers. Below, we will go into some detail about the different types of non-experimental design.

One group pretest/post-test design

Also known as a before-after one-group design, this type of research design does not have a comparison group and everyone who participates in the research receives the intervention (Figure 13.8). This is a common type of design in program evaluation in the practice world. Controlling for extraneous variables is difficult or impossible in this design, but given that it is still possible to establish some measure of time order, it does provide weak support for causality.

Imagine, for example, a researcher who is interested in the effectiveness of an anti-drug education program on elementary school students’ attitudes toward illegal drugs. The researcher could assess students’ attitudes about illegal drugs (O 1 ), implement the anti-drug program (X), and then immediately after the program ends, the researcher could once again measure students’ attitudes toward illegal drugs (O 2 ). You can see how this would be relatively simple to do in practice, and have probably been involved in this type of research design yourself, even if informally. But hopefully, you can also see that this design would not provide us with much evidence for causality because we have no way of controlling for the effect of extraneous variables. A lot of things could have affected any change in students’ attitudes—maybe girls already had different attitudes about illegal drugs than children of other genders, and when we look at the class’s results as a whole, we couldn’t account for that influence using this design.

All of that doesn’t mean these results aren’t useful, however. If we find that children’s attitudes didn’t change at all after the drug education program, then we need to think seriously about how to make it more effective or whether we should be using it at all. (This immediate, practical application of our results highlights a key difference between program evaluation and research, which we will discuss in Chapter 23 .)

After-only design

As the name suggests, this type of non-experimental design involves measurement only after an intervention. There is no comparison or control group, and everyone receives the intervention. I have seen this design repeatedly in my time as a program evaluation consultant for nonprofit organizations, because often these organizations realize too late that they would like to or need to have some sort of measure of what effect their programs are having.

Because there is no pretest and no comparison group, this design is not useful for supporting causality since we can’t establish the time order and we can’t control for extraneous variables. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not useful at all! Sometimes, agencies need to gather information about how their programs are functioning. A classic example of this design is satisfaction surveys—realistically, these can only be administered after a program or intervention. Questions regarding satisfaction, ease of use or engagement, or other questions that don’t involve comparisons are best suited for this type of design.

Static-group design

A final type of non-experimental research is the static-group design. In this type of research, there are both comparison and experimental groups, which are not randomly assigned. There is no pretest, only a post-test, and the comparison group has to be constructed by the researcher. Sometimes, researchers will use matching techniques to construct the groups, but often, the groups are constructed by convenience of who is being served at the agency.

Non-experimental research designs are easy to execute in practice, but we must be cautious about drawing causal conclusions from the results. A positive result may still suggest that we should continue using a particular intervention (and no result or a negative result should make us reconsider whether we should use that intervention at all). You have likely seen non-experimental research in your daily life or at your agency, and knowing the basics of how to structure such a project will help you ensure you are providing clients with the best care possible.

• Non-experimental designs are useful for describing phenomena, but cannot demonstrate causality.
• After-only designs are often used in agency and practice settings because practitioners are often not able to set up pre-test/post-test designs.
• Non-experimental designs are useful for explanatory questions in program evaluation and are helpful for researchers when they are trying to develop a new assessment or scale.
• Non-experimental designs are well-suited to qualitative methods.
• If you were to use a non-experimental design for your research project, which would you choose? Why?
• Have you conducted non-experimental research in your practice or professional life? Which type of non-experimental design was it?

13.6 Critical, ethical, and cultural considerations

• Describe critiques of experimental design
• Identify ethical issues in the design and execution of experiments
• Identify cultural considerations in experimental design

As I said at the outset, experiments, and especially true experiments, have long been seen as the gold standard to gather scientific evidence. When it comes to research in the biomedical field and other physical sciences, true experiments are subject to far less nuance than experiments in the social world. This doesn’t mean they are easier—just subject to different forces. However, as a society, we have placed the most value on quantitative evidence obtained through empirical observation and especially experimentation.

Major critiques of experimental designs tend to focus on true experiments, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but many of these critiques can be applied to quasi-experimental designs, too. Some researchers, even in the biomedical sciences, question the view that RCTs are inherently superior to other types of quantitative research designs. RCTs are far less flexible and have much more stringent requirements than other types of research. One seemingly small issue, like incorrect information about a research participant, can derail an entire RCT. RCTs also cost a great deal of money to implement and don’t reflect “real world” conditions. The cost of true experimental research or RCTs also means that some communities are unlikely to ever have access to these research methods. It is then easy for people to dismiss their research findings because their methods are seen as “not rigorous.”

Obviously, controlling outside influences is important for researchers to draw strong conclusions, but what if those outside influences are actually important for how an intervention works? Are we missing really important information by focusing solely on control in our research? Is a treatment going to work the same for white women as it does for indigenous women? With the myriad effects of our societal structures, you should be very careful ever assuming this will be the case. This doesn’t mean that cultural differences will negate the effect of an intervention; instead, it means that you should remember to practice cultural humility implementing all interventions, even when we “know” they work.

How we build evidence through experimental research reveals a lot about our values and biases, and historically, much experimental research has been conducted on white people, and especially white men. [4] This makes sense when we consider the extent to which the sciences and academia have historically been dominated by white patriarchy. This is especially important for marginalized groups that have long been ignored in research literature, meaning they have also been ignored in the development of interventions and treatments that are accepted as “effective.” There are examples of marginalized groups being experimented on without their consent, like the Tuskegee Experiment or Nazi experiments on Jewish people during World War II. We cannot ignore the collective consciousness situations like this can create about experimental research for marginalized groups.

None of this is to say that experimental research is inherently bad or that you shouldn’t use it. Quite the opposite—use it when you can, because there are a lot of benefits, as we learned throughout this chapter. As a social work researcher, you are uniquely positioned to conduct experimental research while applying social work values and ethics to the process and be a leader for others to conduct research in the same framework. It can conflict with our professional ethics, especially respect for persons and beneficence, if we do not engage in experimental research with our eyes wide open. We also have the benefit of a great deal of practice knowledge that researchers in other fields have not had the opportunity to get. As with all your research, always be sure you are fully exploring the limitations of the research.

• While true experimental research gathers strong evidence, it can also be inflexible, expensive, and overly simplistic in terms of important social forces that affect the resources.
• Marginalized communities’ past experiences with experimental research can affect how they respond to research participation.
• Social work researchers should use both their values and ethics, and their practice experiences, to inform research and push other researchers to do the same.
• Think back to the true experiment you sketched out in the exercises for Section 13.3. Are there cultural or historical considerations you hadn’t thought of with your participant group? What are they? Does this change the type of experiment you would want to do?
• How can you as a social work researcher encourage researchers in other fields to consider social work ethics and values in their experimental research?

Media Attributions

• Being kinder to yourself © Evgenia Makarova is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives) license
• Original by author is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• Original by author. is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• Orginal by author. is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• therapist © Zackary Drucker is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives) license
• nonexper-pretest-posttest is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• Engel, R. & Schutt, R. (2016). The practice of research in social work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. ↵
• Sullivan, G. M. (2011). Getting off the “gold standard”: Randomized controlled trials and education research. Journal of Graduate Medical Education ,  3 (3), 285-289. ↵

an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.

explains why particular phenomena work in the way that they do; answers “why” questions

variables and characteristics that have an effect on your outcome, but aren't the primary variable whose influence you're interested in testing.

the group of participants in our study who do not receive the intervention we are researching in experiments with random assignment

in experimental design, the group of participants in our study who do receive the intervention we are researching

the group of participants in our study who do not receive the intervention we are researching in experiments without random assignment

using a random process to decide which participants are tested in which conditions

The ability to apply research findings beyond the study sample to some broader population,

Ability to say that one variable "causes" something to happen to another variable. Very important to assess when thinking about studies that examine causation such as experimental or quasi-experimental designs.

the idea that one event, behavior, or belief will result in the occurrence of another, subsequent event, behavior, or belief

An experimental design in which one or more independent variables are manipulated by the researcher (as treatments), subjects are randomly assigned to different treatment levels (random assignment), and the results of the treatments on outcomes (dependent variables) are observed

a type of experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to control and experimental groups, one group receives an intervention, and both groups receive pre- and post-test assessments

A measure of a participant's condition before they receive an intervention or treatment.

A measure of a participant's condition after an intervention or, if they are part of the control/comparison group, at the end of an experiment.

A demonstration that a change occurred after an intervention. An important criterion for establishing causality.

an experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to control and treatment groups, one group receives an intervention, and both groups receive only a post-test assessment

The measurement error related to how a test is given; the conditions of the testing, including environmental conditions; and acclimation to the test itself

a subtype of experimental design that is similar to a true experiment, but does not have randomly assigned control and treatment groups

In nonequivalent comparison group designs, the process by which researchers match individual cases in the experimental group to similar cases in the comparison group.

In nonequivalent comparison group designs, the process in which researchers match the population profile of the comparison and experimental groups.

a set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time

Research that involves the use of data that represents human expression through words, pictures, movies, performance and other artifacts.

Graduate research methods in social work Copyright © 2021 by Matthew DeCarlo, Cory Cummings, Kate Agnelli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Non-Experimental Research Methods in Quantitative Research Report (Assessment)

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

In contrast to experimental research, non-experimental research allows the investigation or examination of variables or phenomena that cannot be manipulated by the researcher, implying that these variables must be studied as they exist since it is often difficult to alter or control them.

Non-experimental research also encompasses studies that do not employ random assignment of respondents to a specified treatment condition (Belli, n.d.). It is the purpose of this paper to identify and discuss some of existing non-experimental research methods and the type of data that could be used in each of the discussed methods.

One of the main rationales for using non-experimental research, according to Belli (n.d.), is that many variables of interest in the field of social science cannot be controlled or manipulated by virtue of the fact that they are attribute variables. For instance, it is difficult for a researcher to manipulate the social economic status, gender, learning style, thinking pattern, or any other personal characteristic of a respondent because these attributes exist naturally.

Another major reason for using non-experimental research comes from the fact that, in some instances, it would be unethical for the researcher to randomly assign respondents to diverse treatment conditions (Punch & Punch, 2005). For instance, it would by unethical for the researcher to study the effects of drug abuse by randomly assigning respondents to either a drug abusing or a non drug abusing group for a specified time-frame.

It is imperative to note that “…in non-experimental research, groups based on different traits or on self-selection, such as being or not being a smoker, may differ for any other reasons other than the variable under investigation” (Belli, n.d., p. 60).

This is not the case in experimental research, which makes use of the process of random assignment to ensure that individuals included in a sample bears similar characteristics except for the treatment condition in which they are placed.

Consensus about the existing typologies of non-experimental research methods has not been forthcoming, and researchers have resulted in categorizing non-experimental research either based on the purpose of the study or the time-frame delegated for data collection (Belli, n.d.). This paper discusses three different typologies of non-experimental research methods based on the purpose of the study.

The first type is known as descriptive non-experimental research method, in which the fundamental concern for the researcher lies in describing some phenomena of interest or documenting its characteristics (Belli, n.d.). This typology is mainly used to document the status quo of a phenomenon under investigation or to perform a needs assessment in an area that interests the researcher.

According to Punch &Punch (2005), descriptive research designs can utilize nominal data (numbers represent categories), ordinal data (numbers indicate rank order of observation), interval data (numbers represent equal units and intervals between observations can be compared), and ratio data (numbers represent equal intervals or units between absolute zero).

These data can be harnessed into frequency distributions, percentages, averages, central tendencies or observed variability to describe the phenomena of interest (What is Statistics, n.d.).

The second typology of non-experimental research methods is known as correlational research design, in which the fundamental concern of the researcher is to describe the statistical relationship between two or more variables obtained from each subject or phenomena of interest (Punch & Punch, 2005).

Most attitudinal and motivation research heavily relies on correlational research designs to describe and compare the variables of interest. It is imperative to note that in correlational research, data on at least two variables must be obtained from each respondent or phenomena of interest.

According to Punch & Punch (2005), correlational non-experimental research designs are mostly used in “…situations where variation occurs in the independent variables of interest, but where it is not possible to manipulate or control that variation for research purposes” (p. 75).

These authors further posit that correlational non-experimental research designs mostly utilize continuous data, artificially or truly dichotomous data, ordinal data (rank-ordered), and nominal data.

The final typology that will be discussed in this paper is known as explanatory non-experimental research. As acknowledged by Punch & Punch (2005), the primary focus of explanatory research designs lies in attempting to explain how some variables of interest works or why it operates.

The underlying objective of the researcher is often to examine or test a theory about a variable or phenomenon of interest. In most occasions, researchers engaging this method formulate a set of hypothesis from the used theoretical or conceptual framework, which are then tested in an attempt to validate the theory.

According to Johnson & Christensen (2011), the explanatory non-experimental research design mostly utilizes ordinal (rank-ordered) and interval data to explain how a particular variable operates the way it does.

Reference List

Belli, G. Non experimental quantitative research . Web.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2011). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches , 4 th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Punch, K.F., & Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research: Qualitative & quantitative approaches, 2 nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

What is statistics ? Web.

• The Search for Knowledge
• What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?
• Xiaomi Firm in Porter's and Mile and Show's Strategy Typologies
• Quasi-, Non-, and Experimental Research Types
• Non- and Experimental and Research Designs
• Scientific and Pseudoscientific Claims
• Living Environments and Its Correlation With Human Diseases
• Citrus Greening Disease in The United States
• Importance of the Cultural Competence in Nursing
• Multicultural Influences on Australian Cuisine
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 5). Non-Experimental Research Methods in Quantitative Research. https://ivypanda.com/essays/non-experimental-research-methods-in-quantitative-research/

"Non-Experimental Research Methods in Quantitative Research." IvyPanda , 5 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/non-experimental-research-methods-in-quantitative-research/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Non-Experimental Research Methods in Quantitative Research'. 5 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Non-Experimental Research Methods in Quantitative Research." June 5, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/non-experimental-research-methods-in-quantitative-research/.

1. IvyPanda . "Non-Experimental Research Methods in Quantitative Research." June 5, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/non-experimental-research-methods-in-quantitative-research/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Non-Experimental Research Methods in Quantitative Research." June 5, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/non-experimental-research-methods-in-quantitative-research/.