Example: Factorial design applied in optimisation technique.
To meet the ethical considerations, you need to ensure that.
Collect the data by using suitable data collection according to your experiment’s requirement, such as observations, case studies , surveys , interviews , questionnaires, etc. Analyse the obtained information.
Write the report of your research. Present, conclude, and explain the outcomes of your study .
What is the first step in conducting an experimental research.
The first step in conducting experimental research is to define your research question or hypothesis. Clearly outline the purpose and expectations of your experiment to guide the entire research process.
A normal distribution is a probability distribution that is symmetric about its mean, with all data points near the mean.
Inductive and deductive reasoning takes into account assumptions and incidents. Here is all you need to know about inductive vs deductive reasoning.
A two-way ANOVA test examines the impact of independent variables on the expected outcome as well as their relationship to the outcome.
USEFUL LINKS
LEARNING RESOURCES
COMPANY DETAILS
Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.
Conducting your first psychology experiment can be a long, complicated, and sometimes intimidating process. It can be especially confusing if you are not quite sure where to begin or which steps to take.
Like other sciences, psychology utilizes the scientific method and bases conclusions upon empirical evidence. When conducting an experiment, it is important to follow the seven basic steps of the scientific method:
It's important to know the steps of the scientific method if you are conducting an experiment in psychology or other fields. The processes encompasses finding a problem you want to explore, learning what has already been discovered about the topic, determining your variables, and finally designing and performing your experiment. But the process doesn't end there! Once you've collected your data, it's time to analyze the numbers, determine what they mean, and share what you've found.
Picking a research problem can be one of the most challenging steps when you are conducting an experiment. After all, there are so many different topics you might choose to investigate.
Are you stuck for an idea? Consider some of the following:
Folk knowledge is a good source of questions that can serve as the basis for psychological research. For example, many people believe that staying up all night to cram for a big exam can actually hurt test performance.
You could conduct a study to compare the test scores of students who stayed up all night with the scores of students who got a full night's sleep before the exam.
Published studies are a great source of unanswered research questions. In many cases, the authors will even note the need for further research. Find a published study that you find intriguing, and then come up with some questions that require further exploration.
There are many practical applications for psychology research. Explore various problems that you or others face each day, and then consider how you could research potential solutions. For example, you might investigate different memorization strategies to determine which methods are most effective.
Variables are anything that might impact the outcome of your study. An operational definition describes exactly what the variables are and how they are measured within the context of your study.
For example, if you were doing a study on the impact of sleep deprivation on driving performance, you would need to operationally define sleep deprivation and driving performance .
An operational definition refers to a precise way that an abstract concept will be measured. For example, you cannot directly observe and measure something like test anxiety . You can, however, use an anxiety scale and assign values based on how many anxiety symptoms a person is experiencing.
In this example, you might define sleep deprivation as getting less than seven hours of sleep at night. You might define driving performance as how well a participant does on a driving test.
What is the purpose of operationally defining variables? The main purpose is control. By understanding what you are measuring, you can control for it by holding the variable constant between all groups or manipulating it as an independent variable .
The next step is to develop a testable hypothesis that predicts how the operationally defined variables are related. In the recent example, the hypothesis might be: "Students who are sleep-deprived will perform worse than students who are not sleep-deprived on a test of driving performance."
In order to determine if the results of the study are significant, it is essential to also have a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the prediction that one variable will have no association to the other variable.
In other words, the null hypothesis assumes that there will be no difference in the effects of the two treatments in our experimental and control groups .
The null hypothesis is assumed to be valid unless contradicted by the results. The experimenters can either reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis or not reject the null hypothesis.
It is important to remember that not rejecting the null hypothesis does not mean that you are accepting the null hypothesis. To say that you are accepting the null hypothesis is to suggest that something is true simply because you did not find any evidence against it. This represents a logical fallacy that should be avoided in scientific research.
Once you have developed a testable hypothesis, it is important to spend some time doing some background research. What do researchers already know about your topic? What questions remain unanswered?
You can learn about previous research on your topic by exploring books, journal articles, online databases, newspapers, and websites devoted to your subject.
Reading previous research helps you gain a better understanding of what you will encounter when conducting an experiment. Understanding the background of your topic provides a better basis for your own hypothesis.
After conducting a thorough review of the literature, you might choose to alter your own hypothesis. Background research also allows you to explain why you chose to investigate your particular hypothesis and articulate why the topic merits further exploration.
As you research the history of your topic, take careful notes and create a working bibliography of your sources. This information will be valuable when you begin to write up your experiment results.
After conducting background research and finalizing your hypothesis, your next step is to develop an experimental design. There are three basic types of designs that you might utilize. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses:
A single group of participants is studied, and there is no comparison between a treatment group and a control group. Examples of pre-experimental designs include case studies (one group is given a treatment and the results are measured) and pre-test/post-test studies (one group is tested, given a treatment, and then retested).
This type of experimental design does include a control group but does not include randomization. This type of design is often used if it is not feasible or ethical to perform a randomized controlled trial.
A true experimental design, also known as a randomized controlled trial, includes both of the elements that pre-experimental designs and quasi-experimental designs lack—control groups and random assignment to groups.
In order to arrive at legitimate conclusions, it is essential to compare apples to apples.
Each participant in each group must receive the same treatment under the same conditions.
For example, in our hypothetical study on the effects of sleep deprivation on driving performance, the driving test must be administered to each participant in the same way. The driving course must be the same, the obstacles faced must be the same, and the time given must be the same.
In addition to making sure that the testing conditions are standardized, it is also essential to ensure that your pool of participants is the same.
If the individuals in your control group (those who are not sleep deprived) all happen to be amateur race car drivers while your experimental group (those that are sleep deprived) are all people who just recently earned their driver's licenses, your experiment will lack standardization.
When choosing subjects, there are some different techniques you can use.
In a simple random sample, the participants are randomly selected from a group. A simple random sample can be used to represent the entire population from which the representative sample is drawn.
Drawing a simple random sample can be helpful when you don't know a lot about the characteristics of the population.
Participants must be randomly selected from different subsets of the population. These subsets might include characteristics such as geographic location, age, sex, race, or socioeconomic status.
Stratified random samples are more complex to carry out. However, you might opt for this method if there are key characteristics about the population that you want to explore in your research.
After you have selected participants, the next steps are to conduct your tests and collect the data. Before doing any testing, however, there are a few important concerns that need to be addressed.
First, you need to be sure that your testing procedures are ethical . Generally, you will need to gain permission to conduct any type of testing with human participants by submitting the details of your experiment to your school's Institutional Review Board (IRB), sometimes referred to as the Human Subjects Committee.
After you have gained approval from your institution's IRB, you will need to present informed consent forms to each participant. This form offers information on the study, the data that will be gathered, and how the results will be used. The form also gives participants the option to withdraw from the study at any point in time.
Once this step has been completed, you can begin administering your testing procedures and collecting the data.
After collecting your data, it is time to analyze the results of your experiment. Researchers use statistics to determine if the results of the study support the original hypothesis and if the results are statistically significant.
Statistical significance means that the study's results are unlikely to have occurred simply by chance.
The types of statistical methods you use to analyze your data depend largely on the type of data that you collected. If you are using a random sample of a larger population, you will need to utilize inferential statistics.
These statistical methods make inferences about how the results relate to the population at large.
Because you are making inferences based on a sample, it has to be assumed that there will be a certain margin of error. This refers to the amount of error in your results. A large margin of error means that there will be less confidence in your results, while a small margin of error means that you are more confident that your results are an accurate reflection of what exists in that population.
Your final task in conducting an experiment is to communicate your results. By sharing your experiment with the scientific community, you are contributing to the knowledge base on that particular topic.
One of the most common ways to share research results is to publish the study in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Other methods include sharing results at conferences, in book chapters, or academic presentations.
In your case, it is likely that your class instructor will expect a formal write-up of your experiment in the same format required in a professional journal article or lab report :
Designing and conducting a psychology experiment can be quite intimidating, but breaking the process down step-by-step can help. No matter what type of experiment you decide to perform, always check with your instructor and your school's institutional review board for permission before you begin.
NOAA SciJinks. What is the scientific method? .
Nestor, PG, Schutt, RK. Research Methods in Psychology . SAGE; 2015.
Andrade C. A student's guide to the classification and operationalization of variables in the conceptualization and eesign of a clinical study: Part 2 . Indian J Psychol Med . 2021;43(3):265-268. doi:10.1177/0253717621996151
Purna Singh A, Vadakedath S, Kandi V. Clinical research: A review of study designs, hypotheses, errors, sampling types, ethics, and informed consent . Cureus . 2023;15(1):e33374. doi:10.7759/cureus.33374
Colby College. The Experimental Method .
Leite DFB, Padilha MAS, Cecatti JG. Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist . Clinics (Sao Paulo) . 2019;74:e1403. doi:10.6061/clinics/2019/e1403
Salkind NJ. Encyclopedia of Research Design . SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2010. doi:10.4135/9781412961288
Miller CJ, Smith SN, Pugatch M. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs in implementation research . Psychiatry Res . 2020;283:112452. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.027
Nijhawan LP, Manthan D, Muddukrishna BS, et. al. Informed consent: Issues and challenges . J Adv Pharm Technol Rese . 2013;4(3):134-140. doi:10.4103/2231-4040.116779
Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies . Biochem Med (Zagreb) . 2021;31(1):010502. doi:10.11613/BM.2021.010502
American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
Experimental research is commonly used in sciences such as sociology and psychology, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine etc.
It is a collection of research designs which use manipulation and controlled testing to understand causal processes. Generally, one or more variables are manipulated to determine their effect on a dependent variable.
The experimental method is a systematic and scientific approach to research in which the researcher manipulates one or more variables, and controls and measures any change in other variables.
Experimental Research is often used where:
(Reference: en.wikipedia.org)
The word experimental research has a range of definitions. In the strict sense, experimental research is what we call a true experiment .
This is an experiment where the researcher manipulates one variable, and control/randomizes the rest of the variables. It has a control group , the subjects have been randomly assigned between the groups, and the researcher only tests one effect at a time. It is also important to know what variable(s) you want to test and measure.
A very wide definition of experimental research, or a quasi experiment , is research where the scientist actively influences something to observe the consequences. Most experiments tend to fall in between the strict and the wide definition.
A rule of thumb is that physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry and geology tend to define experiments more narrowly than social sciences, such as sociology and psychology, which conduct experiments closer to the wider definition.
Experiments are conducted to be able to predict phenomenons. Typically, an experiment is constructed to be able to explain some kind of causation . Experimental research is important to society - it helps us to improve our everyday lives.
After deciding the topic of interest, the researcher tries to define the research problem . This helps the researcher to focus on a more narrow research area to be able to study it appropriately. Defining the research problem helps you to formulate a research hypothesis , which is tested against the null hypothesis .
The research problem is often operationalizationed , to define how to measure the research problem. The results will depend on the exact measurements that the researcher chooses and may be operationalized differently in another study to test the main conclusions of the study.
An ad hoc analysis is a hypothesis invented after testing is done, to try to explain why the contrary evidence. A poor ad hoc analysis may be seen as the researcher's inability to accept that his/her hypothesis is wrong, while a great ad hoc analysis may lead to more testing and possibly a significant discovery.
There are various aspects to remember when constructing an experiment. Planning ahead ensures that the experiment is carried out properly and that the results reflect the real world, in the best possible way.
Sampling groups correctly is especially important when we have more than one condition in the experiment. One sample group often serves as a control group , whilst others are tested under the experimental conditions.
Deciding the sample groups can be done in using many different sampling techniques. Population sampling may chosen by a number of methods, such as randomization , "quasi-randomization" and pairing.
Reducing sampling errors is vital for getting valid results from experiments. Researchers often adjust the sample size to minimize chances of random errors .
Here are some common sampling techniques :
The research design is chosen based on a range of factors. Important factors when choosing the design are feasibility, time, cost, ethics, measurement problems and what you would like to test. The design of the experiment is critical for the validity of the results.
It may be wise to first conduct a pilot-study or two before you do the real experiment. This ensures that the experiment measures what it should, and that everything is set up right.
Minor errors, which could potentially destroy the experiment, are often found during this process. With a pilot study, you can get information about errors and problems, and improve the design, before putting a lot of effort into the real experiment.
If the experiments involve humans, a common strategy is to first have a pilot study with someone involved in the research, but not too closely, and then arrange a pilot with a person who resembles the subject(s) . Those two different pilots are likely to give the researcher good information about any problems in the experiment.
An experiment is typically carried out by manipulating a variable, called the independent variable , affecting the experimental group. The effect that the researcher is interested in, the dependent variable(s) , is measured.
Identifying and controlling non-experimental factors which the researcher does not want to influence the effects, is crucial to drawing a valid conclusion. This is often done by controlling variables , if possible, or randomizing variables to minimize effects that can be traced back to third variables . Researchers only want to measure the effect of the independent variable(s) when conducting an experiment , allowing them to conclude that this was the reason for the effect.
In quantitative research , the amount of data measured can be enormous. Data not prepared to be analyzed is called "raw data". The raw data is often summarized as something called "output data", which typically consists of one line per subject (or item). A cell of the output data is, for example, an average of an effect in many trials for a subject. The output data is used for statistical analysis, e.g. significance tests, to see if there really is an effect.
The aim of an analysis is to draw a conclusion , together with other observations. The researcher might generalize the results to a wider phenomenon, if there is no indication of confounding variables "polluting" the results.
If the researcher suspects that the effect stems from a different variable than the independent variable, further investigation is needed to gauge the validity of the results. An experiment is often conducted because the scientist wants to know if the independent variable is having any effect upon the dependent variable. Variables correlating are not proof that there is causation .
Experiments are more often of quantitative nature than qualitative nature, although it happens.
This website contains many examples of experiments. Some are not true experiments , but involve some kind of manipulation to investigate a phenomenon. Others fulfill most or all criteria of true experiments.
Here are some examples of scientific experiments:
Oskar Blakstad (Jul 10, 2008). Experimental Research. Retrieved Jun 10, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/experimental-research
The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .
This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.
That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).
Get all these articles in 1 guide.
Want the full version to study at home, take to school or just scribble on?
Whether you are an academic novice, or you simply want to brush up your skills, this book will take your academic writing skills to the next level.
Download electronic versions: - Epub for mobiles and tablets - For Kindle here - For iBooks here - PDF version here
Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.
Charlotte Nickerson
Research Assistant at Harvard University
Undergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Saul Mcleod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
On This Page:
Internal validity refers to whether the design and conduct of a study are able to support that a causal relationship exists between the independent and dependent variables .
It ensures that no other variables except the independent variable caused the observed effect on the dependent variable.
Conducting research that has strong internal and external validity requires thoughtful planning and design from the outset.
Rather than hastening through the design process, it’s wise to invest sufficient time in structuring a study that is methodologically robust and widely applicable.
By carefully considering factors that can compromise internal and external validity during the design phase, one can avoid having to remedy issues later.
Research that exhibits both high internal and external validity permits drawing forceful conclusions about the findings. Though it may require more initial effort, ensuring studies have sound internal and external validity is necessary for producing meaningful and influential research.
For example, if you implement a smoking cessation program and see improvement among participants, high internal validity means you can be confident this is due to the program itself rather than other influences.
Internal validity is not black-and-white – it’s about the level of confidence we can have in results based on how well the study controls for variables that could undermine the findings.
The more a study avoids potential “confounding factors,” the higher its internal validity and the more faith we can place in the cause-effect relationship it uncovers.
For the general public, internal validity is important because it means a given study’s results and takeaways can be trusted and applied.
Confounding variables.
Confounding variables are extraneous factors that influence the dependent variables in an experiment, causing a misleading association and making it difficult to isolate the true effect of the independent variable.
They threaten internal validity because they provide alternative explanations for study results, making it unclear if changes in the dependent variable are really due to manipulation of the independent variable or due to the confounding variable.
A failure to control extraneous variables undermines the ability of researchers to create causal inferences logically. Unfortunately, however, confounding variables are difficult to control outside of laboratory settings.
Nonetheless, Campbell (1957) identified several confounding variables that can threaten internal validity.
Participant reaction biases threaten internal validity because participants may act differently when they know they are being observed. These biases include participant expectancies, participant reactance, and evaluation apprehension.
Participant expectancies occur when a participant, consciously or unconsciously, attempts to behave in a way that the experimenter expects them to. The overly cooperative participant may often base their behavior on factors such as study setting and directions.
Participant expectancies may also occur during a participant screening process. For example, a participant hoping to participate in a study about depression may exaggerate their symptoms on a screening questionnaire to appear more eligible for the study.
Participant reactance occurs when participants intentionally try to act in a way counter to the experimenter’s hypothesis.
For example, if studying the effects of daylight exposure on sleep habits, a participant may intentionally sleep at exactly the same time, regardless of whether or not they are exposed to daylight. Intentional uncooperativeness could result from a desire for autonomy or independence (Brehm, 1966).
Evaluation apprehension happens when a desire to appear consistent with social or group beliefs affects participant responses.
This response style can polarize responses and lead to inappropriate conclusions. For instance, participants asked about their opinions on a political issue in a group may feel pressure to conform to the responses of other group members.
Broadly, researchers can reduce these biases by guaranteeing participant anonymity, using cover stories, unobtrusive observations, and indirect measures.
Sampling bias occurs when the process of selecting participants for a research study results in key differences between groups that could skew the results. This threatens internal validity because it introduces systematic error in the comparisons between an experimental group and a control group.
For example, let’s say a study is testing a new math tutoring program and students are randomly assigned to either participate in the program (experiment group) or continue with normal instruction (control group).
However, the researcher unknowingly samples students for the experiment group from advanced math classes, while the control group is sampled from regular math classes.
In this case, a sampling bias is introduced because the students in the experiment group may have higher math abilities or motivation levels to begin with compared to the control group.
Any positive effects observed from the tutoring program could simply be due to these pre-existing differences rather than being an actual result of the program itself.
According to Campbell (1957), attrition, otherwise known as experimental mortality, refers to a differential loss of study participants in experimental and control groups.
This can threaten internal validity if the rate of attrition differs significantly between the experimental and control groups.
For example, imagine a clinical trial testing the effectiveness of a new therapy for depression. Participants are randomly assigned to either receive the therapy (experimental group) or no therapy (control group) for 8 weeks.
Over the course of the study, a number of participants from both groups drop out and are lost to follow-up. However, twice as many participants dropped out from the control group compared to the experimental group.
This differential attrition introduces bias because the participants remaining in each condition are no longer equivalent – the experimental group now contains more of its original participants compared to the smaller subset remaining in the control group.
Any observed differences in depression levels by the end of the study could be due to this systematic imbalance rather than being an actual effect of the therapy.
Experimenter bias refers to when a researcher’s expectations, perceptions, or motivations influence the outcome of an experiment in unconscious ways. This threatens internal validity because it provides an alternative explanation for results besides the independent variable being tested.
For example, a psychologist is conducting an experiment on the effects of praise on child task performance. The psychologist hypothesizes that praising children will improve their task performance.
During the experiment, she unconsciously provided more encouragement and positive body language when interacting with the praise group versus the neutral group.
Consequently, the praise group shows better task performance. However, it is unclear whether this is truly due to the predictive praise or inadvertent experimenter bias, where children picked up on the researcher’s subtle supportive cues.
This demonstrates how a researcher’s cognitive bias can unknowingly impact participant responses and behavior in a way that distorts the causal relationship between variables.
History encompasses specific events that a study participant experiences during the course of an experiment that is not part of the experiment itself.
Specifically, it threatens the internal validity of experiments that take place over longer periods of time. For example, imagine a 12-month clinical trial testing a new psychotherapy for reducing anxiety. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either the new therapy or an existing therapy.
However, 8 months into the trial, the COVID-19 pandemic begins. This external event increases anxiety levels for people everywhere.
By the end of the trial, anxiety levels are reassessed. The new therapy group shows greater reductions in anxiety compared to the existing therapy group.
However, it is unclear whether this difference is truly due to the new therapy’s effectiveness or the confounding variable of COVID-19 raising anxiety in the control group.
Perhaps anxiety would have decreased similarly in both groups if not for the pandemic. This demonstrates how history can introduce confounds and alternative explanations that undermine internal validity.
Instrumentation refers to the ability of experimental instruments to provide consistent results throughout the course of a study.
Instrumentation threats occur when there are changes in the calibration or administration of the tools, surveys, or measures used to collect data over the course of a study.
This can introduce systematic measurement error and provide an alternative explanation for any observed differences aside from the independent variable.
For example, a researcher using a battery-powered device to measure blood pressure in an experiment intended to investigate the effectiveness of a drug in reducing hypertension may find that the battery’s progressive decay may result in these readings appearing lower on a post-test than on the pre-tests.
Instrumentation is not limited to electronic or mechanical instruments. For example, a newly-hired researcher asked to rate the mental health status of participants over the course of a month may, with experience, be able to rate participants more accurately in the post-test than during the pre-test (Flannelly et al., 2018).
The diffusion of information and treatments between patients can call internal validity into question. The latter case describes a situation in which research participants adopt a different intervention than the one they were assigned because they believe the different interventions to be more effective.
For example, a control participant in a weight-loss study who learns that those in the treatment group are losing more weight than them may adopt the treatment group’s intervention.
Differential diffusion of information can also occur when participants are given different instructions or instructions that can be misinterpreted by those conducting the study.
For instance, participants asked to take a medication biweekly may take it twice a week or once every two weeks (Flannelly et al., 2018; Campbell, 1957).
Maturation encompasses any biological changes related to age, or otherwise that occur with the passage of time. This can include becoming hungry, tired, or fatigued, wound healing, recovering from surgery, and disease progression.
Maturation threatens internal validity because natural changes over time can provide an alternative explanation for study results rather than the independent variable itself.
For example, in a year-long study of a new reading program for children, students may show reading gains over the course of the year. However, some of that improvement could simply be due to neural development and growing reading skills expected with age.
The effects of maturation can also take effect over studies that have a short duration — for example, children given a repetitive computer task may lose focus within an hour, resulting in worsened performance (Flannelly et al., 2018).
Testing refers to when participants taking a test or assessment can perform better simply from having experienced it before. Familiarity with the test can influence results rather than any intervention or independent variable being studied.
For example, let’s say a researcher is testing a new method for improving memory in older adults. Participants take a memory assessment before and after completing the new memory training program.
However, participants may show memory improvements in the post-test partly just because it was their second time taking the exact same test. Their prior experience with the questions and format benefits their scores.
This demonstrates how repeated testing on the same measures can threaten internal validity. It provides an alternative explanation that improvements were due to practice effects rather than being an actual result of the intervention.
Some methods for increasing the internal validity of an experiment include:
Random allocation is a technique that chooses individuals for treatment groups without regard to researchers’ will or patient condition and preference. This increases internal validity by reducing experimenter and selection bias (Kim & Shin, 2014).
Randomly selecting participants helps prevent systematic differences between groups that could provide alternative explanations.
It ensures any pre-existing factors are evenly distributed by chance, strengthening the ability to attribute results to the independent variable rather than confounds.
Blinding (also called masking) refers to keeping trial participants, healthcare providers, and data collectors unaware of the assigned intervention so as not to be influenced by knowledge.
This minimizes bias in instrumentation, drop-out rates (attrition), and participant bias.
Control groups are groups for whom an experimental condition is not applied. These show whether or not there is a clear difference in outcome related to the application of the independent variable.
The use of a control group in combination with randomized allocation constitutes a randomized control trial, which scholars consider to be a “gold standard” for psychological research (Kim & Shin, 2014).
Study protocols are pre-defined plans that detail all aspects of a study: experimental design, methodology, data collection and analysis procedures, and so on.
This helps to ensure consistency throughout the study, reducing the effects of instrumentation and differential diffusion of information on internal validity (Kim & Shin, 2014).
In a research study comparing two treatments, participants must be randomly assigned so that neither the researchers nor participants know which treatment they will get ahead of time.
This process of hiding the upcoming assignment is called allocation concealment. It’s crucial because if researchers or participants know or influence which treatment someone will receive, it ruins the randomness.
For example, if a researcher believes one treatment is better, they may steer sicker participants toward it rather than assigning them fairly by chance.
Proper allocation concealment prevents this by keeping upcoming assignments hidden, ensuring unbiased random group assignments.
What is the difference between internal and external validity.
Validity refers to how accurately a test measures what it claims to. Internal validity is a statement of causality and non-interference by extraneous factors, while external validity is a statement of an experiment’s generalizability to different situations or groups.
Internal validity concerns the robustness of an experiment in itself. An experiment with external but not internal validity cannot be used to conclude causality. Thus, it is generally unreliable for making any scientific inferences. On the contrary, an experiment that has only internal validity can be used, at least, to draw causal relationships in a narrow context.
American Psychological Association. Internal Validity. American Psychological Association Dictionary.
Blasco-Fontecilla, H., Delgado-Gomez, D., Legido-Gil, T., De Leon, J., Perez-Rodriguez, M. M., & Baca-Garcia, E. (2012). Can the Holmes-Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) be used as a suicide risk scale? An exploratory study. Archives of Suicide Research , 16 (1), 13-28.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance.
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological bulletin , 54 (4), 297.
Gerst, M. S., Grant, I., Yager, J., & Sweetwood, H. (1978). The reliability of the Social Readjustment Rating Scale: Moderate and long-term stability. Journal of psychosomatic research , 22 (6), 519-523.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of psychosomatic research , 11 (2), 213-218.
Kevin J. Flannelly, Laura T. Flannelly & Katherine R. B. Jankowski (2018): Threats to the Internal Validity of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research in Healthcare, Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, DOI: 10.1080/08854726.2017.1421019
Kim, J., & Shin, W. (2014). How to do random allocation (randomization). Clinics in orthopedic surgery , 6 (1), 103-109.
Morse, G., & Graves, D. F. (2009). Internal Validity. The American Counseling Association Encyclopedia , 292-294.
Related Articles
Research Methodology
Qualitative Data Coding
What Is a Focus Group?
Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology
Research Methodology , Statistics
What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure
Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples
Convergent Validity: Definition and Examples
Experimental research, often considered to be the “gold standard” in research designs, is 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 (causality) due to its ability to link cause and effect through treatment manipulation, while controlling for the spurious effect of extraneous variable.
Experimental research is best suited for explanatory research (rather than for descriptive or exploratory research), where the goal of the study is to examine cause-effect relationships. It also works well for research that involves a relatively limited and well-defined set of independent variables that can either be manipulated or controlled. Experimental research can be conducted in laboratory or field settings. Laboratory experiments , conducted in laboratory (artificial) settings, tend to be high in internal validity, but this comes at the cost of low external validity (generalizability), because the artificial (laboratory) setting in which the study is conducted may not reflect the real world. Field experiments , conducted in field settings such as in a real organization, and high in both internal and external validity. But such experiments are relatively rare, because of the difficulties associated with manipulating treatments and controlling for extraneous effects in a field setting.
Experimental research can be grouped into two broad categories: true experimental designs and quasi-experimental designs. Both designs require treatment manipulation, but while true experiments also require random assignment, quasi-experiments do not. Sometimes, we also refer to non-experimental research, which is not really a research design, but an all-inclusive term that includes all types of research that do not employ treatment manipulation or random assignment, such as survey research, observational research, and correlational studies.
Treatment and control groups. In experimental research, some subjects are administered one or more experimental stimulus called a treatment (the treatment group ) while other subjects are not given such a stimulus (the control group ). The treatment may be considered successful if subjects in the treatment group rate more favorably on outcome variables than control group subjects. Multiple levels of experimental stimulus may be administered, in which case, there may be more than one treatment group. For example, in order to test the effects of a new drug intended to treat a certain medical condition like dementia, if a sample of dementia patients is randomly divided into three groups, with the first group receiving a high dosage of the drug, the second group receiving a low dosage, and the third group receives a placebo such as a sugar pill (control group), then the first two groups are experimental groups and the third group is a control group. After administering the drug for a period of time, if the condition of the experimental group subjects improved significantly more than the control group subjects, we can say that the drug is effective. We can also compare the conditions of the high and low dosage experimental groups to determine if the high dose is more effective than the low dose.
Treatment manipulation. Treatments are the unique feature of experimental research that sets this design apart from all other research methods. Treatment manipulation helps control for the “cause” in cause-effect relationships. Naturally, the validity of experimental research depends on how well the treatment was manipulated. Treatment manipulation must be checked using pretests and pilot tests prior to the experimental study. Any measurements conducted before the treatment is administered are called pretest measures , while those conducted after the treatment are posttest measures .
Random selection and assignment. Random selection is the process of randomly drawing a sample from a population or a sampling frame. This approach is typically employed in survey research, and assures that each unit in the population has a positive chance of being selected into the sample. Random assignment is however a process of randomly assigning subjects to experimental or control groups. This is a standard practice in true experimental research to ensure that treatment groups are similar (equivalent) to each other and to the control group, prior to treatment administration. Random selection is related to sampling, and is therefore, more closely related to the external validity (generalizability) of findings. However, random assignment is related to design, and is therefore most related to internal validity. It is possible to have both random selection and random assignment in well-designed experimental research, but quasi-experimental research involves neither random selection nor random assignment.
Threats to internal validity. Although experimental designs are considered more rigorous than other research methods in terms of the internal validity of their inferences (by virtue of their ability to control causes through treatment manipulation), they are not immune to internal validity threats. Some of these threats to internal validity are described below, within the context of a study of the impact of a special remedial math tutoring program for improving the math abilities of high school students.
The simplest true experimental designs are two group designs involving one treatment group and one control group, and are ideally suited for testing the effects of a single independent variable that can be manipulated as a treatment. The two basic two-group designs are the pretest-posttest control group design and the posttest-only control group design, while variations may include covariance designs. These designs are often depicted using a standardized design notation, where R represents random assignment of subjects to groups, X represents the treatment administered to the treatment group, and O represents pretest or posttest observations of the dependent variable (with different subscripts to distinguish between pretest and posttest observations of treatment and control groups).
Pretest-posttest control group design . In this design, subjects are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, subjected to an initial (pretest) measurement of the dependent variables of interest, the treatment group is administered a treatment (representing the independent variable of interest), and the dependent variables measured again (posttest). The notation of this design is shown in Figure 10.1.
Figure 10.1. Pretest-posttest control group design
The effect E of the experimental treatment in the pretest posttest design is measured as the difference in the posttest and pretest scores between the treatment and control groups:
E = (O 2 – O 1 ) – (O 4 – O 3 )
Statistical analysis of this design involves a simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the treatment and control groups. The pretest posttest design handles several threats to internal validity, such as maturation, testing, and regression, since these threats can be expected to influence both treatment and control groups in a similar (random) manner. The selection threat is controlled via random assignment. However, additional threats to internal validity may exist. For instance, mortality can be a problem if there are differential dropout rates between the two groups, and the pretest measurement may bias the posttest measurement (especially if the pretest introduces unusual topics or content).
Posttest-only control group design . This design is a simpler version of the pretest-posttest design where pretest measurements are omitted. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.2.
Figure 10.2. Posttest only control group design.
The treatment effect is measured simply as the difference in the posttest scores between the two groups:
E = (O 1 – O 2 )
The appropriate statistical analysis of this design is also a two- group analysis of variance (ANOVA). The simplicity of this design makes it more attractive than the pretest-posttest design in terms of internal validity. This design controls for maturation, testing, regression, selection, and pretest-posttest interaction, though the mortality threat may continue to exist.
Covariance designs . Sometimes, measures of dependent variables may be influenced by extraneous variables called covariates . Covariates are those variables that are not of central interest to an experimental study, but should nevertheless be controlled in an experimental design in order to eliminate their potential effect on the dependent variable and therefore allow for a more accurate detection of the effects of the independent variables of interest. The experimental designs discussed earlier did not control for such covariates. A covariance design (also called a concomitant variable design) is a special type of pretest posttest control group design where the pretest measure is essentially a measurement of the covariates of interest rather than that of the dependent variables. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.3, where C represents the covariates:
Figure 10.3. Covariance design
Because the pretest measure is not a measurement of the dependent variable, but rather a covariate, the treatment effect is measured as the difference in the posttest scores between the treatment and control groups as:
Figure 10.4. 2 x 2 factorial design
Factorial designs can also be depicted using a design notation, such as that shown on the right panel of Figure 10.4. R represents random assignment of subjects to treatment groups, X represents the treatment groups themselves (the subscripts of X represents the level of each factor), and O represent observations of the dependent variable. Notice that the 2 x 2 factorial design will have four treatment groups, corresponding to the four combinations of the two levels of each factor. Correspondingly, the 2 x 3 design will have six treatment groups, and the 2 x 2 x 2 design will have eight treatment groups. As a rule of thumb, each cell in a factorial design should have a minimum sample size of 20 (this estimate is derived from Cohen’s power calculations based on medium effect sizes). So a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design requires a minimum total sample size of 160 subjects, with at least 20 subjects in each cell. As you can see, the cost of data collection can increase substantially with more levels or factors in your factorial design. Sometimes, due to resource constraints, some cells in such factorial designs may not receive any treatment at all, which are called incomplete factorial designs . Such incomplete designs hurt our ability to draw inferences about the incomplete factors.
In a factorial design, a main effect is said to exist if the dependent variable shows a significant difference between multiple levels of one factor, at all levels of other factors. No change in the dependent variable across factor levels is the null case (baseline), from which main effects are evaluated. In the above example, you may see a main effect of instructional type, instructional time, or both on learning outcomes. An interaction effect exists when the effect of differences in one factor depends upon the level of a second factor. In our example, if the effect of instructional type on learning outcomes is greater for 3 hours/week of instructional time than for 1.5 hours/week, then we can say that there is an interaction effect between instructional type and instructional time on learning outcomes. Note that the presence of interaction effects dominate and make main effects irrelevant, and it is not meaningful to interpret main effects if interaction effects are significant.
Hybrid designs are those that are formed by combining features of more established designs. Three such hybrid designs are randomized bocks design, Solomon four-group design, and switched replications design.
Randomized block design. This is a variation of the posttest-only or pretest-posttest control group design where the subject population can be grouped into relatively homogeneous subgroups (called blocks ) within which the experiment is replicated. For instance, if you want to replicate the same posttest-only design among university students and full -time working professionals (two homogeneous blocks), subjects in both blocks are randomly split between treatment group (receiving the same treatment) or control group (see Figure 10.5). The purpose of this design is to reduce the “noise” or variance in data that may be attributable to differences between the blocks so that the actual effect of interest can be detected more accurately.
Figure 10.5. Randomized blocks design.
Solomon four-group design . In this design, the sample is divided into two treatment groups and two control groups. One treatment group and one control group receive the pretest, and the other two groups do not. This design represents a combination of posttest-only and pretest-posttest control group design, and is intended to test for the potential biasing effect of pretest measurement on posttest measures that tends to occur in pretest-posttest designs but not in posttest only designs. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.6.
Figure 10.6. Solomon four-group design
Switched replication design . This is a two-group design implemented in two phases with three waves of measurement. The treatment group in the first phase serves as the control group in the second phase, and the control group in the first phase becomes the treatment group in the second phase, as illustrated in Figure 10.7. In other words, the original design is repeated or replicated temporally with treatment/control roles switched between the two groups. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the treatment either during the first or the second phase. This design is most feasible in organizational contexts where organizational programs (e.g., employee training) are implemented in a phased manner or are repeated at regular intervals.
Figure 10.7. Switched replication design.
Quasi-experimental designs are almost identical to true experimental designs, but lacking one key ingredient: random assignment. For instance, one entire class section or one organization is used as the treatment group, while another section of the same class or a different organization in the same industry is used as the control group. This lack of random assignment potentially results in groups that are non-equivalent, such as one group possessing greater mastery of a certain content than the other group, say by virtue of having a better teacher in a previous semester, which introduces the possibility of selection bias . Quasi-experimental designs are therefore inferior to true experimental designs in interval validity due to the presence of a variety of selection related threats such as selection-maturation threat (the treatment and control groups maturing at different rates), selection-history threat (the treatment and control groups being differentially impact by extraneous or historical events), selection-regression threat (the treatment and control groups regressing toward the mean between pretest and posttest at different rates), selection-instrumentation threat (the treatment and control groups responding differently to the measurement), selection-testing (the treatment and control groups responding differently to the pretest), and selection-mortality (the treatment and control groups demonstrating differential dropout rates). Given these selection threats, it is generally preferable to avoid quasi-experimental designs to the greatest extent possible.
Many true experimental designs can be converted to quasi-experimental designs by omitting random assignment. For instance, the quasi-equivalent version of pretest-posttest control group design is called nonequivalent groups design (NEGD), as shown in Figure 10.8, with random assignment R replaced by non-equivalent (non-random) assignment N . Likewise, the quasi -experimental version of switched replication design is called non-equivalent switched replication design (see Figure 10.9).
Figure 10.8. NEGD design.
Figure 10.9. Non-equivalent switched replication design.
In addition, there are quite a few unique non -equivalent designs without corresponding true experimental design cousins. Some of the more useful of these designs are discussed next.
Regression-discontinuity (RD) design . This is a non-equivalent pretest-posttest design where subjects are assigned to treatment or control group based on a cutoff score on a preprogram measure. For instance, patients who are severely ill may be assigned to a treatment group to test the efficacy of a new drug or treatment protocol and those who are mildly ill are assigned to the control group. In another example, students who are lagging behind on standardized test scores may be selected for a remedial curriculum program intended to improve their performance, while those who score high on such tests are not selected from the remedial program. The design notation can be represented as follows, where C represents the cutoff score:
Figure 10.10. RD design.
Because of the use of a cutoff score, it is possible that the observed results may be a function of the cutoff score rather than the treatment, which introduces a new threat to internal validity. However, using the cutoff score also ensures that limited or costly resources are distributed to people who need them the most rather than randomly across a population, while simultaneously allowing a quasi-experimental treatment. The control group scores in the RD design does not serve as a benchmark for comparing treatment group scores, given the systematic non-equivalence between the two groups. Rather, if there is no discontinuity between pretest and posttest scores in the control group, but such a discontinuity persists in the treatment group, then this discontinuity is viewed as evidence of the treatment effect.
Proxy pretest design . This design, shown in Figure 10.11, looks very similar to the standard NEGD (pretest-posttest) design, with one critical difference: the pretest score is collected after the treatment is administered. A typical application of this design is when a researcher is brought in to test the efficacy of a program (e.g., an educational program) after the program has already started and pretest data is not available. Under such circumstances, the best option for the researcher is often to use a different prerecorded measure, such as students’ grade point average before the start of the program, as a proxy for pretest data. A variation of the proxy pretest design is to use subjects’ posttest recollection of pretest data, which may be subject to recall bias, but nevertheless may provide a measure of perceived gain or change in the dependent variable.
Figure 10.11. Proxy pretest design.
Separate pretest-posttest samples design . This design is useful if it is not possible to collect pretest and posttest data from the same subjects for some reason. As shown in Figure 10.12, there are four groups in this design, but two groups come from a single non-equivalent group, while the other two groups come from a different non-equivalent group. For instance, you want to test customer satisfaction with a new online service that is implemented in one city but not in another. In this case, customers in the first city serve as the treatment group and those in the second city constitute the control group. If it is not possible to obtain pretest and posttest measures from the same customers, you can measure customer satisfaction at one point in time, implement the new service program, and measure customer satisfaction (with a different set of customers) after the program is implemented. Customer satisfaction is also measured in the control group at the same times as in the treatment group, but without the new program implementation. The design is not particularly strong, because you cannot examine the changes in any specific customer’s satisfaction score before and after the implementation, but you can only examine average customer satisfaction scores. Despite the lower internal validity, this design may still be a useful way of collecting quasi-experimental data when pretest and posttest data are not available from the same subjects.
Figure 10.12. Separate pretest-posttest samples design.
Nonequivalent dependent variable (NEDV) design . This is a single-group pre-post quasi-experimental design with two outcome measures, where one measure is theoretically expected to be influenced by the treatment and the other measure is not. For instance, if you are designing a new calculus curriculum for high school students, this curriculum is likely to influence students’ posttest calculus scores but not algebra scores. However, the posttest algebra scores may still vary due to extraneous factors such as history or maturation. Hence, the pre-post algebra scores can be used as a control measure, while that of pre-post calculus can be treated as the treatment measure. The design notation, shown in Figure 10.13, indicates the single group by a single N , followed by pretest O 1 and posttest O 2 for calculus and algebra for the same group of students. This design is weak in internal validity, but its advantage lies in not having to use a separate control group.
An interesting variation of the NEDV design is a pattern matching NEDV design , which employs multiple outcome variables and a theory that explains how much each variable will be affected by the treatment. The researcher can then examine if the theoretical prediction is matched in actual observations. This pattern-matching technique, based on the degree of correspondence between theoretical and observed patterns is a powerful way of alleviating internal validity concerns in the original NEDV design.
Figure 10.13. NEDV design.
Experimental research is one of the most difficult of research designs, and should not be taken lightly. This type of research is often best with a multitude of methodological problems. First, though experimental research requires theories for framing hypotheses for testing, much of current experimental research is atheoretical. Without theories, the hypotheses being tested tend to be ad hoc, possibly illogical, and meaningless. Second, many of the measurement instruments used in experimental research are not tested for reliability and validity, and are incomparable across studies. Consequently, results generated using such instruments are also incomparable. Third, many experimental research use inappropriate research designs, such as irrelevant dependent variables, no interaction effects, no experimental controls, and non-equivalent stimulus across treatment groups. Findings from such studies tend to lack internal validity and are highly suspect. Fourth, the treatments (tasks) used in experimental research may be diverse, incomparable, and inconsistent across studies and sometimes inappropriate for the subject population. For instance, undergraduate student subjects are often asked to pretend that they are marketing managers and asked to perform a complex budget allocation task in which they have no experience or expertise. The use of such inappropriate tasks, introduces new threats to internal validity (i.e., subject’s performance may be an artifact of the content or difficulty of the task setting), generates findings that are non-interpretable and meaningless, and makes integration of findings across studies impossible.
The design of proper experimental treatments is a very important task in experimental design, because the treatment is the raison d’etre of the experimental method, and must never be rushed or neglected. To design an adequate and appropriate task, researchers should use prevalidated tasks if available, conduct treatment manipulation checks to check for the adequacy of such tasks (by debriefing subjects after performing the assigned task), conduct pilot tests (repeatedly, if necessary), and if doubt, using tasks that are simpler and familiar for the respondent sample than tasks that are complex or unfamiliar.
In summary, this chapter introduced key concepts in the experimental design research method and introduced a variety of true experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Although these designs vary widely in internal validity, designs with less internal validity should not be overlooked and may sometimes be useful under specific circumstances and empirical contingencies.
Binding energies of ethanol and ethylamine on interstellar water ices: synergy between theory and experiments.
Experimental and computational chemistry are two disciplines to conduct research in Astrochemistry, providing essential reference data for both astronomical observations and modeling. These approaches not only mutually support each other, but also serve as complementary tools to overcome their respective limitations. Leveraging on such synergy, we characterized the binding energies (BEs) of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) and ethylamine (CH3CH2NH2), two interstellar complex organic molecules (iCOMs), onto crystalline and amorphous water ices through density functional theory (DFT) calculations and temperature programmed desorption (TPD) experiments. Experimentally, CH3CH2OH and CH3CH2NH2 behave similarly, in which desorption temperatures are higher on the water ices than on a bare gold surface. Computed cohesive energies of pure ethanol and ethylamine bulk structures allow describing the BEs of the pure species deposited on the gold surface, as extracted from the TPD curve analyses. The BEs of submonolayer coverages of CH3CH2OH and CH3CH2NH2 on the water ices cannot be directly extracted from TPD due to their co-desorption with water, but they are computed through DFT calculations, and found to be greater than the cohesive energy of water. The behaviour of CH3CH2OH and CH3CH2NH2 is different when depositing adsorbate multilayers on the amorphous ice, in that, according to their computed cohesive energies, ethylamine layers present weaker interactions compared to ethanol and water. Finally, from the computed BEs of ethanol, ethylamine and water, we can infer that the snow-lines of these three species in protoplanetary disks will be situated at different distances from the central star. It appears that a fraction of ethanol and ethylamine is already frozen on the grains in the water snow-lines, causing their incorporation in water-rich planetesimals.
Permissions.
A. Rimola, J. Perrero, J. Vitorino, E. Congiu, P. Ugliengo and F. Dulieu, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4CP01934B
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.
To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.
If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .
Search articles by author.
This article has not yet been cited.
Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .
We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window
CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) was introduced with the intention of recognizing individual author contributions, reducing authorship disputes and facilitating collaboration. The idea came about following a 2012 collaborative workshop led by Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust, with input from researchers, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and publishers, including Elsevier, represented by Cell Press.
CRediT offers authors the opportunity to share an accurate and detailed description of their diverse contributions to the published work.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the descriptions are accurate and agreed by all authors
The role(s) of all authors should be listed, using the relevant above categories
Authors may have contributed in multiple roles
CRediT in no way changes the journal’s criteria to qualify for authorship
CRediT statements should be provided during the submission process and will appear above the acknowledgment section of the published paper as shown further below.
Term | Definition |
---|---|
Conceptualization | Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims |
Methodology | Development or design of methodology; creation of models |
Software | Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components |
Validation | Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/ reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs |
Formal analysis | Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data |
Investigation | Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection |
Resources | Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools |
Data Curation | Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse |
Writing - Original Draft | Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation) |
Writing - Review & Editing | Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre-or postpublication stages |
Visualization | Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/ data presentation |
Supervision | Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team |
Project administration | Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution |
Funding acquisition | Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication |
*Reproduced from Brand et al. (2015), Learned Publishing 28(2), with permission of the authors.
Zhang San: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software Priya Singh. : Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. Wang Wu : Visualization, Investigation. Jan Jansen : Supervision. : Ajay Kumar : Software, Validation.: Sun Qi: Writing- Reviewing and Editing,
Read more about CRediT here opens in new tab/window or check out this article from Authors' Updat e: CRediT where credit's due .
Why bigger discounts don’t necessarily attract more customers.
Retailers might think that bigger discounts attract more customers. But new research suggests that’s not always true. Sometimes, a smaller discount that looks more precise — say 6.8% as compared to 7% — can make people think the deal won’t last long, and they’ll buy more. In a series of nine experimental studies involving around 2,000 individuals considering online or retail purchases of a variety of products, the authors found precise discount depths — the difference between the original and sale price — can increase purchase intentions by up to 21%.
Discounts are an important promotional tactic retailers use to drive sales. So much so that discounts were a major factor for three out of four U.S. online shoppers in 2023 , luring consumers away from shopping at other retailers, getting them to increase their basket size, and convincing them to make purchases they otherwise wouldn’t. Discounts have a particularly strong impact on food purchases, where 90% of consumers reported stocking up on groceries when they were on sale .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Step 1: Define your variables. You should begin with a specific research question. We will work with two research question examples, one from health sciences and one from ecology: Example question 1: Phone use and sleep. You want to know how phone use before bedtime affects sleep patterns.
The true experimental design offers an accurate analysis of the data collected using statistical data analysis tools. Absence vs Presence of control groups: Pre-experimental research designs do not usually employ a control group which makes it difficult to establish contrast. While all three types of true experiments employ control groups.
One method would be to conduct a true experiment. A true experiment is a type of experimental design and is thought to be the most accurate type of experimental research. This is because a true ...
True experimental design is regarded as the most accurate form of experimental research, in that it tries to prove or disprove a hypothesis mathematically, with statistical analysis. For some of the physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry and geology, they are standard and commonly used. For social sciences, psychology and biology, they ...
Experimental Design. Experimental design is a process of planning and conducting scientific experiments to investigate a hypothesis or research question. It involves carefully designing an experiment that can test the hypothesis, and controlling for other variables that may influence the results. Experimental design typically includes ...
1. Randomly assign subjects into two groups. One group is the experimental group, while the other is the control group. You must guarantee that any given subject has an equal chance of being in either group. Use a random number generator to assign a number to each subject. Then place them in the two groups by number.
Steps to conduct a true experimental study. Step 1: Identify the research objective and state the hypothesis. Step 2: Determine the dependent and independent variables. Step 3: Define and randomly assign participants to the control and experimental groups. Step 4: Conduct pre-tests before beginning the experiment. Step 5: Conduct the experiment.
Step 1: Define your variables. You should begin with a specific research question. We will work with two research question examples, one from health sciences and one from ecology: Example question 1: Phone use and sleep. You want to know how phone use before bedtime affects sleep patterns.
10 Experimental research. 10. Experimental research. Experimental research—often considered to be the 'gold standard' in research designs—is 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 ...
A true experiment, 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 (as treatments) are manipulated by the researcher, subjects are randomly assigned (i.e., random assignment) to different treatment levels, and ...
A researcher can conduct experimental research in the following situations — ... A true experimental research design relies on statistical analysis to prove or disprove a researcher's hypothesis. It is one of the most accurate forms of research because it provides specific scientific evidence. Furthermore, out of all the types of ...
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines an experiment as "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried." True experiments have four elements: manipulation, control , random assignment ...
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 ...
In true experimental research, ... (i.e., control and treatment). In quasi experimental research, the researcher does not randomly assign subjects to treatment and control groups. In other words, the treatment is not distributed among participants randomly. ... Suppose we were conducting a unit to increase student sensitivity to prejudice.
True experimental research is the most robust type of experimental study due to its careful control and manipulation of variables, random sampling, and random assignment. ... They may then conduct ...
For establishing true cause and effect relationships, conducting experiments is the easiest and definite method. There are two major variables of interest in an experiment—the 'cause' and the 'effect', and you directly manipulate causal variables, keeping other variables constant as far as possible.For establishing cause and effect relationships, you have to isolate and eliminate all ...
Before conducting experimental research, you need to have a clear understanding of the experimental design. A true experimental design includes identifying a problem, formulating a hypothesis, determining the number of variables, selecting and assigning the participants, types of research designs, meeting ethical values, etc.
Experimental research serves as a fundamental scientific method aimed at unraveling. cause-and-effect relationships between variables across various disciplines. This. paper delineates the key ...
True experimental research design. A true experimental research design involves testing a hypothesis in order to determine whether there is a cause-effect relationship between two or more sets of variables. Although there are a few established ways to conduct experimental research designs, all share four characteristics: ...
When conducting an experiment, it is important to follow the seven basic steps of the scientific method: Ask a testable question. Define your variables. Conduct background research. Design your experiment. Perform the experiment. Collect and analyze the data. Draw conclusions.
In the strict sense, experimental research is what we call a true experiment. This is an experiment where the researcher manipulates one variable, and control/randomizes the rest of the variables. ... It may be wise to first conduct a pilot-study or two before you do the real experiment. This ensures that the experiment measures what it should ...
Hypotheses are crucial to controlled experiments because they provide a clear focus and direction for the research. A hypothesis is a testable prediction about the relationship between variables. It guides the design of the experiment, including what variables to manipulate (independent variables) and what outcomes to measure (dependent variables).
A pre-experimental design is a simple research process that happens before the actual experimental design takes place. The goal is to obtain preliminary results to gauge whether the financial and time investment of a true experiment will be worth it. Pre-experimental design example A researcher wants to investigate the effect of a new type of meditation on stress levels in college students.
Conducting research that has strong internal and external validity ... causing a misleading association and making it difficult to isolate the true effect of the ... Laura T. Flannelly & Katherine R. B. Jankowski (2018): Threats to the Internal Validity of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research in Healthcare, Journal of Health Care ...
This is a standard practice in true experimental research to ensure that treatment groups are similar (equivalent) to each other and to the control group, prior to treatment administration. Random selection is related to sampling, and is therefore, more closely related to the external validity (generalizability) of findings. ... Not conducting ...
Experimental and computational chemistry are two disciplines to conduct research in Astrochemistry, providing essential reference data for both astronomical observations and modeling. These approaches not only mutually support each other, but also serve as complementary tools to overcome their respective limitations.
Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection. Resources. Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.
Retailers might think that bigger discounts attract more customers. But new research suggests that's not always true. Sometimes, a smaller discount that looks more precise — say 6.8% as ...