quasi experimental nonequivalent pretest posttest design

8.2 Non-Equivalent Groups Designs

Learning objectives.

• Describe the different types of nonequivalent groups quasi-experimental designs.
• Identify some of the threats to internal validity associated with each of these designs. 

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A  nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions. There are several types of nonequivalent groups designs we will consider.

Posttest Only Nonequivalent Groups Design

The first nonequivalent groups design we will consider is the posttest only nonequivalent groups design.  In this design, participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, a nonequivalent group is not exposed to the treatment, and then the two groups are compared. Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This design would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a posttest only nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Groups Design

Another way to improve upon the posttest only nonequivalent groups design is to add a pretest. In the  pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups design t here is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a nonequivalent control group that is given a pretest, does  not  receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve, but whether they improve  more  than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then are exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this change in attitude could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Returning to the example of evaluating a new measure of teaching third graders, this study could be improved by adding a pretest of students’ knowledge of fractions. The changes in scores from pretest to posttest would then be evaluated and compared across conditions to determine whether one group demonstrated a bigger improvement in knowledge of fractions than another. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might still be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students that are independent of the teaching intervention. Once again, differential history also represents a potential threat to internal validity.  If asbestos is found in one of the schools causing it to be shut down for a month then this interruption in teaching could produce a difference across groups on posttest scores.

If participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true between-groups experiment rather than a quasi-experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Interrupted Time-Series Design with Nonequivalent Groups

One way to improve upon the interrupted time-series design is to add a control group. The interrupted time-series design with nonequivalent groups involves taking  a set of measurements at intervals over a period of time both before and after an intervention of interest in two or more nonequivalent groups. Once again consider the manufacturing company that measures its workers’ productivity each week for a year before and after reducing work shifts from 10 hours to 8 hours. This design could be improved by locating another manufacturing company who does not plan to change their shift length and using them as a nonequivalent control group. If productivity  increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts in the treatment group but productivity remained consistent in the control group, then this provides better evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment. 

Similarly, in the example of examining the effects of taking attendance on student absences in a research methods course, the design could be improved by using students in another section of the research methods course as a control group. If a consistently higher number of absences was found in the treatment group before the intervention, followed by a sustained drop in absences after the treatment, while the nonequivalent control group showed consistently high absences across the semester then this would provide superior evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment in reducing absences.

Pretest-Posttest Design With Switching Replication

Some of these nonequivalent control group designs can be further improved by adding a switching replication. Using a pretest-posttest design with switching replication design, nonequivalent groups are administered a pretest of the dependent variable, then one group receives a treatment while a nonequivalent control group does not receive a treatment, the dependent variable is assessed again, and then the treatment is added to the control group, and finally the dependent variable is assessed one last time.

As a concrete example, let’s say we wanted to introduce an exercise intervention for the treatment of depression. We recruit one group of patients experiencing depression and a nonequivalent control group of students experiencing depression. We first measure depression levels in both groups, and then we introduce the exercise intervention to the patients experiencing depression, but we hold off on introducing the treatment to the students. We then measure depression levels in both groups. If the treatment is effective we should see a reduction in the depression levels of the patients (who received the treatment) but not in the students (who have not yet received the treatment). Finally, while the group of patients continues to engage in the treatment, we would introduce the treatment to the students with depression. Now and only now should we see the students’ levels of depression decrease.

One of the strengths of this design is that it includes a built in replication. In the example given, we would get evidence for the efficacy of the treatment in two different samples (patients and students). Another strength of this design is that it provides more control over history effects. It becomes rather unlikely that some outside event would perfectly coincide with the introduction of the treatment in the first group and with the delayed introduction of the treatment in the second group. For instance, if a change in the weather occurred when we first introduced the treatment to the patients, and this explained their reductions in depression the second time that depression was measured, then we would see depression levels decrease in both the groups. Similarly, the switching replication helps to control for maturation and instrumentation. Both groups would be expected to show the same rates of spontaneous remission of depression and if the instrument for assessing depression happened to change at some point in the study the change would be consistent across both of the groups. Of course, demand characteristics, placebo effects, and experimenter expectancy effects can still be problems. But they can be controlled for using some of the methods described in Chapter 5.

Switching Replication with Treatment Removal Design

In a basic pretest-posttest design with switching replication, the first group receives a treatment and the second group receives the same treatment a little bit later on (while the initial group continues to receive the treatment). In contrast, in a switching replication with treatment removal design , the treatment is removed from the first group when it is added to the second group. Once again, let’s assume we first measure the depression levels of patients with depression and students with depression. Then we introduce the exercise intervention to only the patients. After they have been exposed to the exercise intervention for a week we assess depression levels again in both groups. If the intervention is effective then we should see depression levels decrease in the patient group but not the student group (because the students haven’t received the treatment yet). Next, we would remove the treatment from the group of patients with depression. So we would tell them to stop exercising. At the same time, we would tell the student group to start exercising. After a week of the students exercising and the patients not exercising, we would reassess depression levels. Now if the intervention is effective we should see that the depression levels have decreased in the student group but that they have increased in the patient group (because they are no longer exercising).

Demonstrating a treatment effect in two groups staggered over time and demonstrating the reversal of the treatment effect after the treatment has been removed can provide strong evidence for the efficacy of the treatment. In addition to providing evidence for the replicability of the findings, this design can also provide evidence for whether the treatment continues to show effects after it has been withdrawn.

Key Takeaways

• Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignment of participants to conditions or counterbalancing of orders of conditions.
• There are three types of quasi-experimental designs that are within-subjects in nature. These are the one-group posttest only design, the one-group pretest-posttest design, and the interrupted time-series design.
• There are five types of quasi-experimental designs that are between-subjects in nature. These are the posttest only design with nonequivalent groups, the pretest-posttest design with nonequivalent groups, the interrupted time-series design with nonequivalent groups, the pretest-posttest design with switching replication, and the switching replication with treatment removal design.
• Quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem because it involves the manipulation of the independent variable. However, it does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables, because it does not involve random assignment to conditions or counterbalancing. For these reasons, quasi-experimental research is generally higher in internal validity than non-experimental studies but lower than true experiments.
• Of all of the quasi-experimental designs, those that include a switching replication are highest in internal validity.
• Practice: Imagine that two professors decide to test the effect of giving daily quizzes on student performance in a statistics course. They decide that Professor A will give quizzes but Professor B will not. They will then compare the performance of students in their two sections on a common final exam. List five other variables that might differ between the two sections that could affect the results.
• regression to the mean
• spontaneous remission

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

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

7.3 Quasi-Experimental Research

Learning objectives.

• Explain what quasi-experimental research is and distinguish it clearly from both experimental and correlational research.
• Describe three different types of quasi-experimental research designs (nonequivalent groups, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time series) and identify examples of each one.

The prefix quasi means “resembling.” Thus quasi-experimental research is research that resembles experimental research but is not true experimental research. Although the independent variable is manipulated, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Because the independent variable is manipulated before the dependent variable is measured, quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem. But because participants are not randomly assigned—making it likely that there are other differences between conditions—quasi-experimental research does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables. In terms of internal validity, therefore, quasi-experiments are generally somewhere between correlational studies and true experiments.

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. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here.

Nonequivalent Groups Design

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.

Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments, might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Design

In a pretest-posttest design , the dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is implemented and once after it is implemented. Imagine, for example, a researcher who is interested in the effectiveness of an antidrug education program on elementary school students’ attitudes toward illegal drugs. The researcher could measure the attitudes of students at a particular elementary school during one week, implement the antidrug program during the next week, and finally, measure their attitudes again the following week. The pretest-posttest design is much like a within-subjects experiment in which each participant is tested first under the control condition and then under the treatment condition. It is unlike a within-subjects experiment, however, in that the order of conditions is not counterbalanced because it typically is not possible for a participant to be tested in the treatment condition first and then in an “untreated” control condition.

If the average posttest score is better than the average pretest score, then it makes sense to conclude that the treatment might be responsible for the improvement. Unfortunately, one often cannot conclude this with a high degree of certainty because there may be other explanations for why the posttest scores are better. One category of alternative explanations goes under the name of history . Other things might have happened between the pretest and the posttest. Perhaps an antidrug program aired on television and many of the students watched it, or perhaps a celebrity died of a drug overdose and many of the students heard about it. Another category of alternative explanations goes under the name of maturation . Participants might have changed between the pretest and the posttest in ways that they were going to anyway because they are growing and learning. If it were a yearlong program, participants might become less impulsive or better reasoners and this might be responsible for the change.

Another alternative explanation for a change in the dependent variable in a pretest-posttest design is regression to the mean . This refers to the statistical fact that an individual who scores extremely on a variable on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion. For example, a bowler with a long-term average of 150 who suddenly bowls a 220 will almost certainly score lower in the next game. Her score will “regress” toward her mean score of 150. Regression to the mean can be a problem when participants are selected for further study because of their extreme scores. Imagine, for example, that only students who scored especially low on a test of fractions are given a special training program and then retested. Regression to the mean all but guarantees that their scores will be higher even if the training program has no effect. A closely related concept—and an extremely important one in psychological research—is spontaneous remission . This is the tendency for many medical and psychological problems to improve over time without any form of treatment. The common cold is a good example. If one were to measure symptom severity in 100 common cold sufferers today, give them a bowl of chicken soup every day, and then measure their symptom severity again in a week, they would probably be much improved. This does not mean that the chicken soup was responsible for the improvement, however, because they would have been much improved without any treatment at all. The same is true of many psychological problems. A group of severely depressed people today is likely to be less depressed on average in 6 months. In reviewing the results of several studies of treatments for depression, researchers Michael Posternak and Ivan Miller found that participants in waitlist control conditions improved an average of 10 to 15% before they received any treatment at all (Posternak & Miller, 2001). Thus one must generally be very cautious about inferring causality from pretest-posttest designs.

Does Psychotherapy Work?

Early studies on the effectiveness of psychotherapy tended to use pretest-posttest designs. In a classic 1952 article, researcher Hans Eysenck summarized the results of 24 such studies showing that about two thirds of patients improved between the pretest and the posttest (Eysenck, 1952). But Eysenck also compared these results with archival data from state hospital and insurance company records showing that similar patients recovered at about the same rate without receiving psychotherapy. This suggested to Eysenck that the improvement that patients showed in the pretest-posttest studies might be no more than spontaneous remission. Note that Eysenck did not conclude that psychotherapy was ineffective. He merely concluded that there was no evidence that it was, and he wrote of “the necessity of properly planned and executed experimental studies into this important field” (p. 323). You can read the entire article here:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Eysenck/psychotherapy.htm

Fortunately, many other researchers took up Eysenck’s challenge, and by 1980 hundreds of experiments had been conducted in which participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions, and the results were summarized in a classic book by Mary Lee Smith, Gene Glass, and Thomas Miller (Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980). They found that overall psychotherapy was quite effective, with about 80% of treatment participants improving more than the average control participant. Subsequent research has focused more on the conditions under which different types of psychotherapy are more or less effective.

In a classic 1952 article, researcher Hans Eysenck pointed out the shortcomings of the simple pretest-posttest design for evaluating the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 3.0.

Interrupted Time Series Design

A variant of the pretest-posttest design is the interrupted time-series design . A time series is a set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time. For example, a manufacturing company might measure its workers’ productivity each week for a year. In an interrupted time series-design, a time series like this is “interrupted” by a treatment. In one classic example, the treatment was the reduction of the work shifts in a factory from 10 hours to 8 hours (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Because productivity increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts, and because it remained elevated for many months afterward, the researcher concluded that the shortening of the shifts caused the increase in productivity. Notice that the interrupted time-series design is like a pretest-posttest design in that it includes measurements of the dependent variable both before and after the treatment. It is unlike the pretest-posttest design, however, in that it includes multiple pretest and posttest measurements.

Figure 7.5 “A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design” shows data from a hypothetical interrupted time-series study. The dependent variable is the number of student absences per week in a research methods course. The treatment is that the instructor begins publicly taking attendance each day so that students know that the instructor is aware of who is present and who is absent. The top panel of Figure 7.5 “A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design” shows how the data might look if this treatment worked. There is a consistently high number of absences before the treatment, and there is an immediate and sustained drop in absences after the treatment. The bottom panel of Figure 7.5 “A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design” shows how the data might look if this treatment did not work. On average, the number of absences after the treatment is about the same as the number before. This figure also illustrates an advantage of the interrupted time-series design over a simpler pretest-posttest design. If there had been only one measurement of absences before the treatment at Week 7 and one afterward at Week 8, then it would have looked as though the treatment were responsible for the reduction. The multiple measurements both before and after the treatment suggest that the reduction between Weeks 7 and 8 is nothing more than normal week-to-week variation.

Figure 7.5 A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design

The top panel shows data that suggest that the treatment caused a reduction in absences. The bottom panel shows data that suggest that it did not.

Combination Designs

A type of quasi-experimental design that is generally better than either the nonequivalent groups design or the pretest-posttest design is one that combines elements of both. There is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a control group that is given a pretest, does not receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve but whether they improve more than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then are exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Finally, if participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true experiment rather than a quasi experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Key Takeaways

• Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions. Among the important types are nonequivalent groups designs, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time-series designs.
• Quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem because it involves the manipulation of the independent variable. It does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables, however, because it does not involve random assignment to conditions. For these reasons, quasi-experimental research is generally higher in internal validity than correlational studies but lower than true experiments.
• Practice: Imagine that two college professors decide to test the effect of giving daily quizzes on student performance in a statistics course. They decide that Professor A will give quizzes but Professor B will not. They will then compare the performance of students in their two sections on a common final exam. List five other variables that might differ between the two sections that could affect the results.

Discussion: Imagine that a group of obese children is recruited for a study in which their weight is measured, then they participate for 3 months in a program that encourages them to be more active, and finally their weight is measured again. Explain how each of the following might affect the results:

• regression to the mean
• spontaneous remission

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 , 319–324.

Posternak, M. A., & Miller, I. (2001). Untreated short-term course of major depression: A meta-analysis of studies using outcomes from studies using wait-list control groups. Journal of Affective Disorders, 66 , 139–146.

Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

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.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Selecting and Improving Quasi-Experimental Designs in Effectiveness and Implementation Research

Margaret a. handley.

1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Division of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA

2 General Internal Medicine and UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco Zuckerberg General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Box 1364, San Francisco, CA 94110

Courtney Lyles

Charles mcculloch, adithya cattamanchi.

3 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco Zuckerberg General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110

Interventional researchers face many design challenges when assessing intervention implementation in real-world settings. Intervention implementation requires ‘holding fast’ on internal validity needs while incorporating external validity considerations (such as uptake by diverse sub-populations, acceptability, cost, sustainability). Quasi-experimental designs (QEDs) are increasingly employed to achieve a better balance between internal and external validity. Although these designs are often referred to and summarized in terms of logistical benefits versus threats to internal validity, there is still uncertainty about: (1) how to select from among various QEDs, and (2) strategies to strengthen their internal and external validity. We focus on commonly used QEDs (pre-post designs with non-equivalent control groups, interrupted time series, and stepped wedge designs) and discuss several variants that maximize internal and external validity at the design, execution, and analysis stages.

INTRODUCTION

Public health practice involves implementation or adaptation of evidence-based interventions into new settings in order to improve health for individuals and populations. Such interventions typically include on one or more of the “7 Ps” (programs, practices, principles, procedures, products, pills, and policies) ( 9 ). Increasingly, both public health and clinical research have sought to generate practice-based evidence on a wide range of interventions, which in turn has led to a greater focus on intervention research designs that can be applied in real-world settings ( 2 , 8 , 9 , 20 , 25 , 26 , 10 , 2 ).

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which individuals are assigned to intervention or control (standard-of-care or placebo) arms are considered the gold standard for assessing causality and as such are a first choice for most intervention research. Random allocation minimizes selection bias and maximizes the likelihood that measured and unmeasured confounding variables are distributed equally, enabling any difference in outcomes between intervention and control arms to be attributed to the intervention under study. RCTs can also involve random assignment of groups (e.g., clinics, worksites or communities) to intervention and control arms, but a large number of groups are required in order to realize the full benefits of randomization. Traditional RCTs strongly prioritize internal validity over external validity by employing strict eligibility criteria and rigorous data collection methods.

Alternative research methods are needed to test interventions for their effectiveness in many real-world settings—and later when evidence-based interventions are known, for spreading or scaling up these interventions to new settings and populations ( 23 , 40 ). In real-world settings, random allocation of the intervention may not be possible or fully under the control of investigators because of practical, ethical, social, or logistical constraints. For example, when partnering with communities or organizations to deliver a public health intervention, it might not be acceptable that only half of individuals or sites receive an intervention. As well, the timing of intervention roll-out might be determined by an external process outside the control of the investigator, such as a mandated policy. Also, when self-selected groups are expected to participate in a program as part of routine care, there would arise ethical concerns associated with random assignment – for example, the withholding or delaying of a potentially effective treatment or the provision of a less effective treatment for one group of participants ( 49 ). As described by Peters et al “implementation research seeks to understand and work within real world conditions, rather than trying to control for these conditions or to remove their influence as causal effects. “ ( 40 ). For all of these reasons, a blending of the design components of clinical effectiveness trials and implementation research is feasible and desirable, and this review covers both. Such blending of effectiveness and implementation components within a study can provide benefits beyond either research approach alone ( 14 ), for example by leading to faster uptake of interventions by simultaneously testing implementation strategies.

Since assessment of intervention effectiveness and implementation in real-world settings requires increased focus on external validity (including consideration of factors enhancing intervention uptake by diverse sub-populations, acceptability to a wide range of stakeholders, cost, and sustainability) ( 34 ), interventional research designs are needed that are more relevant to the potential, ‘hoped for’ treatment population than a RCT, and that achieve a better balance between internal and external validity. Quasi-experimental designs (QEDs), which first gained prominence in social science research ( 11 ), are increasingly being employed to fill this need. [ BOX 1 HERE: Definitions used in this review].

DEFINITIONS AND TERMS USED IN PAPER

QEDs test causal hypotheses but, in lieu of fully randomized assignment of the intervention, seek to define a comparison group or time period that reflects the counter-factual ( i.e., outcomes if the intervention had not been implemented) ( 43 ). QEDs seek to identify a comparison group or time period that is as similar as possible to the treatment group or time period in terms of baseline (pre-intervention) characteristics. QEDs can include partial randomization such as in stepped wedge designs (SWD) when there is pre-determined (and non-random) stratification of sites, but the order in which sites within each strata receive the intervention is assigned randomly. For example, strata that are determined by size or perceived ease of implementation may be assigned to receive the intervention first. However, within those strata the specific sites themselves are randomly selected to receive the intervention across the time intervals included in the study). In all cases, the key threat to internal validity of QEDs is a lack of similarity between the comparison and intervention groups or time periods due to differences in characteristics of the people, sites, or time periods involved.

Previous reviews in this journal have focused on the importance and use of QEDs and other methods to enhance causal inference when evaluating the impact of an intervention that has already been implemented ( 4 , 8 , 9 , 18 ). Design approaches in this case often include creating a post-hoc comparison group for a natural experiment or identifying pre and post-intervention data to then conduct an interrupted time series study. Analysis phase approaches often utilize techniques such as pre-post, regression adjustment, scores, difference-in-differences, synthetic controls, interrupted time series, regression discontinuity, and instrumental variables ( 4 , 9 , 18 ). Although these articles summarize key components of QEDs (e.g. interrupted time series), as well as analysis-focused strategies (regression adjustment, propensity scores, difference-in-differences, synthetic controls, and instrumental variables) there is still uncertainty about: (1) how to select from among various QEDs in the pre-implementation design phase, and (2) strategies to strengthen internal and external validity before and during the implementation phase.

In this paper we discuss the a priori choice of a QED when evaluating the impact of an intervention or policy for which the investigator has some element of design control related to 1) order of intervention allocation (including random and non-random approaches); 2) selecting sites or individuals; and/or 3) timing and frequency of data collection. In the next section, we discuss the main QEDs used for prospective evaluations of interventions in real-world settings and their advantages and disadvantages with respect to addressing threats to internal validity [ BOX 2 HERE Common Threats to Internal Validty of Quasi-Experimental Designs Evaluating Interventions in ‘Real World’ Settings]. Following this summary, we discuss opportunities to strengthen their internal validity, illustrated with examples from the literature. Then we propose a decision framework for key decision points that lead to different QED options. We conclude with a brief discussion of incorporating additional design elements to capture the full range of relevant implementation outcomes in order to maximize external validity.

Common Threats to Internal Validty of Quasi-Experimental Designs Evaluating Interventions in ‘Real World’ Settings

QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS FOR PROSPECTIVE EVALUTION OF INTERVENTIONS

Table 1 summarizes the main QEDs that have been used for prospective evaluation of health intervention in real-world settings; pre-post designs with a non-equivalent control group, interrupted time series and stepped wedge designs. We do not include pre-post designs without a control group in this review, as in general, QEDs are primarily those designs that identify a comparison group or time period that is as similar as possible to the treatment group or time period in terms of baseline (pre-intervention) characteristics ( 50 ). Below, we describe features of each QED, considering strengths and limitations and providing examples of their use.

Overview of Commonly Used QED in Intervention Research*

1. Pre-Post With Non-Equivalent Control Group

The first type of QED highlighted in this review is perhaps the most straightforward type of intervention design: the pre-post comparison study with a non-equivalent control group. In this design, the intervention is introduced at a single point in time to one or more sites, for which there is also a pre-test and post-test evaluation period, The pre-post differences between these two sites is then compared. In practice, interventions using this design are often delivered at a higher level, such as to entire communities or organizations 1 [ Figure 1 here]. In this design the investigators identify additional site(s) that are similar to the intervention site to serve as a comparison/control group. However, these control sites are different in some way than the intervention site(s) and thus the term “non-equivalent” is important, and clarifies that there are inherent differences in the treatment and control groups ( 15 ).

Illustration of the Pre-Post Non-Equivalent Control Group Design

The strengths of pre-post designs are mainly based in their simplicity, such as data collection is usually only at a few points (although sometimes more). However, pre-post designs can be affected by several of the threats to internal validity of QEDs presented here. The largest challenges are related to 1) ‘history bias’ in which events unrelated to the intervention occur (also referred to as secular trends) before or during the intervention period and have an effect on the outcome (either positive or negative) that are not related to the intervention ( 39 ); and 2) differences between the intervention and control sites because the non-equivalent control groups are likely to differ from the intervention sites in a number of meaningful ways that impact the outcome of interest and can bias results (selection bias).

At this design stage, the first step at improving internal validity would be focused on selection of a non-equivalent control group(s) for which some balance in the distribution of known risk factors is established. This can be challenging as there may not be adequate information available to determine how ‘equivalent’ the comparison group is regarding relevant covariates.

It can be useful to obtain pre-test data or baseline characteristics to improve the comparability of the two groups. In the most controlled situations within this design, the investigators might include elements of randomization or matching for individuals in the intervention or comparison site, to attempt to balance the covariate distribution. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that the greater the similarity between groups, the smaller the likelihood that confounding will threaten inferences of causality of effect for the intervention ( 33 , 47 ). Thus, it is important to select this group or multiple groups with as much specificity as possible.

In order to enhance the causal inference for pre-post designs with non-equivalent control groups, the best strategies improve the comparability of the control group with regards to potential covariates related to the outcome of interest but are not under investigation. One strategy involves creating a cohort, and then using targeted sampling to inform matching of individuals within the cohort. Matching can be based on demographic and other important factors (e.g. measures of health care access or time-period). This design in essence creates a matched, nested case-control design.

Collection of additional data once sites are selected cannot in itself reduce bias, but can inform the examination of the association of interest, and provide data supporting interpretation consistent with the reduced likelihood of bias. These data collection strategies include: 1) extra data collection points at additional pre- or post- time points (to get closer to an interrupted time series design in effect and examine potential threats of maturation and history bias), and 2) collection of data on other dependent variables with a priori assessment of how they will ‘react’ with time dependent variables. A detailed analysis can then provide information on the potential affects on the outcome of interest (to understand potential underlying threats due to history bias).

Additionally, there are analytic strategies that can improve the interpretation of this design, such as: 1) analysis for multiple non-equivalent control groups, to determine if the intervention effects are robust across different conditions or settings (.e.g. using sensitivity analysis), 2) examination within a smaller critical window of the study in which the intervention would be plausibly expected to make the most impact, and 3) identification of subgroups of individuals within the intervention community who are known to have received high vs. low exposure to the intervention, to be able to investigate a potential “dose-response” effect. Table 2 provides examples of studies using the pre-post non-equivalent control group designs that have employed one or more of these improvement approaches to improve the internal study’s validity.

Improving Quasi-Experimental Designs-Internal and External Validity Considerations

Cousins et al utilized a non-equivalent control selection strategy to leverage a recent cross-sectional survey among six universities in New Zealand regarding drinking among college-age students ( 16 ). In the original survey, there were six sites, and for the control group, five were selected to provide non-equivalent control group data for the one intervention campus. The campus intervention targeted young adult drinking-related problems and other outcomes, such as aggressive behavior, using an environmental intervention with a community liaison and a campus security program (also know as a Campus Watch program). The original cross-sectional survey was administered nationally to students using a web-based format, and was repeated in the years soon after the Campus Watch intervention was implemented in one site. Benefits of the design include: a consistent sampling frame at each control sites, such that sites could be combined as well as evaluated separately and collection of additional data on alcohol sales and consumption over the study period, to support inference. In a study by Wertz et al ( 48 ), a non-equivalent control group was created using matching for those who were eligible for a health coaching program and opted out of the program (to be compared with those who opted in) among insured patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. Matching was based on propensity scores among those patients using demographic and socioeconomic factors and medical center location and a longitudinal cohort was created prior to the intervention (see Basu et al 2017 for more on this approach).

In the pre-post malaria-prevention intervention example from Gambia, the investigators were studying the introduction of bed nets treated with insecticide on malaria rates in Gambia, and collected additional data to evaluate the internal validity assumptions within their design ( 1 ). In this study, the investigators introduced bed nets at the village level, using communities not receiving the bed nets as control sites. To strengthen the internal validity they collected additional data that enabled them to: 1) determine whether the reduction in malaria rates were most pronounced during the rainy season within the intervention communities, as this was a biologically plausible exposure period in which they could expect the largest effect size difference between intervention and control sites, and 2) examine use patterns for the bed nets, based on how much insecticide was present in the bed nets over time (after regular washing occurred), which aided in calculating a “dose-response” effect of exposure to the bed net among a subsample of individuals in the intervention community.

2. Interrupted Time Series

An interrupted time series (ITS) design involves collection of outcome data at multiple time points before and after an intervention is introduced at a given point in time at one or more sites ( 6 , 13 ). The pre-intervention outcome data is used to establish an underlying trend that is assumed to continue unchanged in the absence of the intervention under study ( i.e., the counterfactual scenario). Any change in outcome level or trend from the counter-factual scenario in the post-intervention period is then attributed to the impact of the intervention. The most basic ITS design utilizes a regression model that includes only three time-based covariates to estimate the pre-intervention slope (outcome trend before the intervention), a “step” or change in level (difference between observed and predicted outcome level at the first post-intervention time point), and a change in slope (difference between post- and pre-intervention outcome trend) ( 13 , 32 ) [ Figure 2 here].

Interrupted Time Series Design

Whether used for evaluating a natural experiment or, as is the focus here, for prospective evaluation of an intervention, the appropriateness of an ITS design depends on the nature of the intervention and outcome, and the type of data available. An ITS design requires the pre- and post-intervention periods to be clearly differentiated. When used prospectively, the investigator therefore needs to have control over the timing of the intervention. ITS analyses typically involve outcomes that are expected to change soon after an intervention is introduced or after a well-defined lag period. For example, for outcomes such as cancer or incident tuberculosis that develop long after an intervention is introduced and at a variable rate, it is difficult to clearly separate the pre- and post-intervention periods. Last, an ITS analysis requires at least three time points in the pre- and post-intervention periods to assess trends. In general, a larger number of time points is recommended, particularly when the expected effect size is smaller, data are more similar at closer together time points ( i.e., auto-correlation), or confounding effects ( e.g., seasonality) are present. It is also important for investigators to consider any changes to data collection or recording over time, particularly if such changes are associated with introduction of the intervention.

In comparison to simple pre-post designs in which the average outcome level is compared between the pre- and post-intervention periods, the key advantage of ITS designs is that they evaluate for intervention effect while accounting for pre-intervention trends. Such trends are common due to factors such as changes in the quality of care, data collection and recording, and population characteristics over time. In addition, ITS designs can increase power by making full use of longitudinal data instead of collapsing all data to single pre- and post-intervention time points. The use of longitudinal data can also be helpful for assessing whether intervention effects are short-lived or sustained over time.

While the basic ITS design has important strengths, the key threat to internal validity is the possibility that factors other than the intervention are affecting the observed changes in outcome level or trend. Changes over time in factors such as the quality of care, data collection and recording, and population characteristics may not be fully accounted for by the pre-intervention trend. Similarly, the pre-intervention time period, particularly when short, may not capture seasonal changes in an outcome.

Detailed reviews have been published of variations on the basic ITS design that can be used to enhance causal inference. In particular, the addition of a control group can be particularly useful for assessing for the presence of seasonal trends and other potential time-varying confounders ( 52 ). Zombre et al ( 52 ) maintained a large number of control number of sites during the extended study period and were able to look at variations in seasonal trends as well as clinic-level characteristics, such as workforce density and sustainability. In addition to including a control group, several analysis phase strategies can be employed to strengthen causal inference including adjustment for time varying confounders and accounting for auto correlation.

3. Stepped Wedge Designs

Stepped wedge designs (SWDs) involve a sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over several distinct time periods ( 5 , 7 , 22 , 24 , 29 , 30 , 38 ). SWDs can include cohort designs (with the same individuals in each cluster in the pre and post intervention steps), and repeated cross-sectional designs (with different individuals in each cluster in the pre and post intervention steps) ( 7 ). In the SWD, there is a unidirectional, sequential roll- out of an intervention to clusters (or individuals) that occurs over different time periods. Initially all clusters (or individuals) are unexposed to the intervention, and then at regular intervals, selected clusters cross over (or ‘step’) into a time period where they receive the intervention [ Figure 3 here]. All clusters receive the intervention by the last time interval (although not all individuals within clusters necessarily receive the intervention). Data is collected on all clusters such that they each contribute data during both control and intervention time periods. The order in which clusters receive the intervention can be assigned randomly or using some other approach when randomization is not possible. For example, in settings with geographically remote or difficult-to-access populations, a non-random order can maximize efficiency with respect to logistical considerations.

Illustration of the stepped wedge study design-Intervention Roll-Out Over Time*

* Adapted from Turner et al 2017

The practical and social benefits of the stepped wedge design have been summarized in recent reviews ( 5 , 22 , 24 , 27 , 29 , 36 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 51 ). In addition to addressing general concerns with RCTs discussed earlier, advantages of SWDs include the logistical convenience of staggered roll-out of the intervention, which enables a.smaller staff to be distributed across different implementation start times and allows for multi-level interventions to be integrated into practice or ‘real world’ settings (referred to as the feasibility benefit). This benefit also applies to studies of de-implementation, prior to a new approach being introduced. For example, with a staggered roll-out it is possible to build in a transition cohort, such that sites can adjust to the integration of the new intervention, and also allow for a switching over in sites to de-implementing a prior practice. For a specified time period there may be ‘mixed’ or incomplete data, which can be excluded from the data analysis. However, associated with a longer duration of roll-out for practical reasons such as this switching, are associated costs in threats to internal validity, discussed below.

There are several limitations to the SWD. These generally involve consequences of the trade-offs related to having design control for the intervention roll-out, often due to logistical reasons on the one hand, but then having ‘down the road’ threats to internal validity. These roll-out related threats include potential lagged intervention effects for non-acute outcomes; possible fatigue and associated higher drop-out rates of waiting for the cross-over among clusters assigned to receive the intervention later; fidelity losses for key intervention components over time; and potential contamination of later clusters ( 22 ). Another drawback of the SWD is that it involves data assessment at each point when a new cluster receives the intervention, substantially increasing the burden of data collection and costs unless data collection can be automated or uses existing data sources. Because the SWD often has more clusters receiving the intervention towards the end of the intervention period than in previous time periods, there is a potential concern that there can be temporal confounding at this stage. The SWD is also not as suited for evaluating intervention effects on delayed health outcomes (such as chronic disease incidence), and is most appropriate when outcomes that occur relatively soon after each cluster starts receiving the intervention. Finally, as logistical necessity often dictates selecting a design with smaller numbers of clusters, there are relatedly challenges in the statistical analysis. To use standard software, the common recommendation is to have at least 20 to 30 clusters ( 35 ).

Stepped wedge designs can embed improvements that can enhance internal validity, mimicking the strength of RCTs. These generally focus on efforts to either reduce bias or achieve balance in covariates across sites and over time; and/or compensate as much as possible for practical decisions made at the implementation stage, which affect the distribution of the intervention over time and by sites. The most widely used approaches are discussed in order of benefit to internal validity: 1) partial randomization; 2) stratification and matching; 3) embedding data collection at critical points in time, such as with a phasing-in of intervention components, and 4) creating a transition cohort or wash-out period. The most important of these SWD elements is random assignment of clusters as to when they will cross over into the intervention period. As well, utilizing data regarding time-varying covariates/confounders, either to stratify clusters and then randomize within strata (partial randomization) or to match clusters on known covariates in the absence of randomization, are techniques often employed to minimize bias and reduce confounding. Finally, maintaining control over the number and timing of data collection points over the study period can be beneficial in several ways. First, it can allow for data analysis strategies that can incorporate cyclical temporal trends (such as seasonality-mediated risk for the outcome, such as with flu or malaria) or other underlying temporal trends. Second, it can enable phased interventions to be studied for the contribution of different components included in the phases (e.g. passive then active intervention components), or can enable ‘pausing’ time, as when there is a structured wash out or transition cohort created for practical reasons (e.g. one intervention or practice is stopped/de-implemented, and a new one is introduced) (see Figure 4 ).

Illustration of the stepped wedge study design- Summary of Exposed and Unexposed Cluster Time*

Adapted from Hemming 2015

Table 2 provides examples of studies using SWD that have used one or more of the design approaches described above to improve the internal validity of the study. In the study by Killam et al 2010 ( 31 ), a non-randomized SWD was used to evaluate a complex clinic-based intervention for integrating anti-retro viral (ART) treatment into routine antenatal care in Zambia for post-partum women. The design involved matching clinics by size and an inverse roll-out, to balance out the sizes across the four groups. The inverse roll-out involved four strata of clinics, grouped by size with two clinics in each strata. The roll-out was sequenced across these eight clinics, such that one smaller clinics began earlier, with three clinics of increasing size getting the intervention afterwards. This was then followed by a descending order of clinics by size for the remaining roll-out, ending with the smallest clinic. This inverse roll-out enabled the investigators to start with a smaller clinic, to work out the logistical considerations, but then influence the roll-out such as to avoid clustering of smaller or larger clinics in any one step of the intervention.

A second design feature of this study involved the use of a transition cohort or wash-out period (see Figure 4 ) (also used in the Morrison et al 2015 study)( 19 , 37 ). This approach can be used when an existing practice is being replaced with the new intervention, but there is ambiguity as to which group an individual would be assigned to while integration efforts were underway. In the Killam study, the concern was regarding women who might be identified as ART-eligible in the control period but actually enroll into and initiate ART at an antenatal clinic during the intervention period. To account for the ambiguity of this transition period, patients with an initial antenatal visit more than 60 days prior to the date of implementing the ART in the intervention sites were excluded. For analysis of the primary outcome, patients were categorized into three mutually exclusive categories: a referral to ART cohort, an integrated ART in the antenatal clinics cohort, and a transition cohort. It is important to note that the time period for a transition cohort can add considerable time to an intervention roll-out, especially when there is to be a de-implementation of an existing practice that involves a wide range or staff or activities. As well, the exclusion of the data during this phase can reduce the study’s power if not built into the sample size considerations at the design phase.

Morrison et al 2015 ( 37 ) used a randomized cluster design, with additional stratification and randomization within relevant sub-groups to examine a two-part quality improvement intervention focusing on clinician uptake of patient cooling procedures for post-cardiac care in hospital settings (referred to as Targeted Temperature Management). In this study, 32 hospitals were stratified into two groups based on intensive care unit size (< 10 beds vs ≥ 10 beds), and then randomly assigned into four different time periods to receive the intervention. The phased intervention implementation included both passive (generic didactic training components regarding the intervention) and an active (tailored support to site-specific barriers identified in passive phase) components. This study exemplifies some of the best uses of SWD in the context of QI interventions that have either multiple components of for which there may be a passive and active phase, as is often the case with interventions that are layered onto systems change requirements (e.g. electronic records improvements/customization) or relate to sequenced guidelines implementation (as in this example).

Studies using a wait-list partial randomization design are also included in Table 2 ( 24 , 27 , 42 ). These types of studies are well-suited to settings where there is routine enumeration of a cohort based on a specific eligibility criteria, such as enrolment in a health plan or employment group, or from a disease-based registry, such as for diabetes ( 27 , 42 ). It has also been reported that this design can increase efficiency and statistical power in contrast to cluster-based trials, a crucial consideration when the number of participating individuals or groups is small ( 22 ).

The study by Grant et al et al uses a variant of the SWD for which individuals within a setting are enumerated and then randomized to get the intervention. In this example, employees who had previously screened positive for HIV at the company clinic as part of mandatory testing, were invited in random sequence to attend a workplace HIV clinic at a large mining facility in South Africa to initiate a preventive treatment for TB during the years prior to the time when ARTs were more widely available. Individuals contributed follow-up time to the “pre-clinic” phase from the baseline date established for the cohort until the actual date of their first clinic visit, and also to the “post- clinic” phase thereafter. Clinic visits every 6 months were used to identify incident TB events. Because they were looking at reduction in TB incidence among the workers at the mine and not just those in the study, the effect of the intervention (the provision of clinic services) was estimated for the entire study population (incidence rate ratio), irrespective of whether they actually received isoniazid.

CONSIDERATIONS IN CHOOSING BETWEEN QED

We present a decision ‘map’ approach based on a Figure 5 to assist in considering decisions in selecting among QEDs and for which features you can pay particular attention to in the design [ Figure 5 here].

Quasi-Experimental Design Decision-Making Map

First, at the top of the flow diagram ( 1 ), consider if you can have multiple time points you can collect data for in the pre and post intervention periods. Ideally, you will be able to select more than two time points. If you cannot, then multiple sites would allow for a non-equivalent pre-post design. If you can have more than the two time points for the study assessments, you next need to determine if you can include multiple sites ( 2 ). If not, then you can consider a single site point ITS. If you can have multiple sites, you can choose between a SWD and a multiple site ITS based on whether or not you observe the roll-out over multiple time points, (SWD) or if you have only one intervention time point (controlled multiple site ITS)

STRATEGIES TO STRENGTHEN EXTERNAL VALIDITY

In a recent article in this journal ( 26 ), the following observation was made that there is an unavoidable trade-off between these two forms of validity such that with a higher control of a study, there is stronger evidence for internal validity but that control may jeopardize some of the external validity of that stronger evidence. Nonetheless, there are design strategies for non-experimental studies that can be undertaken to improve the internal validity while not eliminating considerations of external validity. These are described below across all three study designs.

1. Examine variation of acceptability and reach among diverse sub-populations

One of the strengths of QEDs is that they are often employed to examine intervention effects in real world settings and often, for more diverse populations and settings. Consequently, if there is adequate examination of characteristics of participants and setting-related factors it can be possible to interpret findings among critical groups for which there may be no existing evidence of an intervention effect for. For example in the Campus Watch intervention ( 16 ), the investigator over-sampled the Maori indigenous population in order to be able to stratify the results and investigate whether the program was effective for this under-studied group. In the study by Zombré et al ( 52 ) on health care access in Burkina Faso, the authors examined clinic density characteristics to determine its impact on sustainability.

2. Characterize fidelity and measures of implementation processes

Some of the most important outcomes for examination in these QED studies include whether the intervention was delivered as intended (i.e., fidelity), maintained over the entire study period (i.e., sustainability), and if the outcomes could be specifically examined by this level of fidelity within or across sites. As well, when a complex intervention is related to a policy or guideline shift and implementation requires logistical adjustments (such as phased roll-outs to embed the intervention or to train staff), QEDs more truly mimic real world constraints. As a result, capturing processes of implementation are critical as they can describe important variation in uptake, informing interpretation of the findings for external validity. As described by Prost et al ( 41 ), for example, it is essential to capture what occurs during such phased intervention roll-outs, as with following established guidelines for the development of complex interventions including efforts to define and protocolize activities before their implementation ( 17 , 18 , 28 ). However, QEDs are often conducted by teams with strong interests in adapting the intervention or ‘learning by doing’, which can limit interpretation of findings if not planned into the design. As done in the study by Bailet et al ( 3 ), the investigators refined intervention, based on year 1 data, and then applied in years 2–3, at this later time collecting additional data on training and measurement fidelity. This phasing aspect of implementation generates a tension between protocolizing interventions and adapting them as they go along. When this is the case, additional designs for the intervention roll-out, such as adaptive or hybrid designs can also be considered.

3. Conduct community or cohort-based sampling to improve inference

External validity can be improved when the intervention is applied to entire communities, as with some of the community-randomized studies described in Table 2 ( 12 , 21 ). In these cases, the results are closer to the conditions that would apply if the interventions were conducted ‘at scale’, with a large proportion of a population receiving the intervention. In some cases QEDs also afford greater access for some intervention research to be conducted in remote or difficult to reach communities, where the cost and logistical requirements of an RCT may become prohibitive or may require alteration of the intervention or staffing support to levels that would never be feasible in real world application.

4. Employ a model or framework that covers both internal and external validity

Frameworks can be helpful to enhances interpretability of many kinds of studies, including QEDs and can help ensure that information on essential implementation strategies are included in the results ( 44 ). Although several of the case studies summarized in this article included measures that can improve external validity (such as sub-group analysis of which participants were most impacted, process and contextual measures that can affect variation in uptake), none formally employ an implementation framework. Green and Glasgow (2006) ( 25 ) have outlined several useful criteria for gaging the extent to which an evaluation study also provides measures that enhance interpretation of external validity, for which those employing QEDs could identify relevant components and frameworks to include in reported findings.

It has been observed that it is more difficult to conduct a good quasi-experiment than to conduct a good randomized trial ( 43 ). Although QEDs are increasingly used, it is important to note that randomized designs are still preferred over quasi-experiments except where randomization is not possible. In this paper we present three important QEDs and variants nested within them that can increase internal validity while also improving external validity considerations, and present case studies employing these techniques.

1 It is important to note that if such randomization would be possible at the site level based on similar sites, a cluster randomized control trial would be an option.

LITERATURE CITED

A Modern Guide to Understanding and Conducting Research in Psychology

Chapter 7 quasi-experimental research, learning objectives.

• Explain what quasi-experimental research is and distinguish it clearly from both experimental and correlational research.
• Describe three different types of quasi-experimental research designs (nonequivalent groups, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time series) and identify examples of each one.

The prefix quasi means “resembling.” Thus quasi-experimental research is research that resembles experimental research but is not true experimental research. Although the independent variable is manipulated, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions ( Cook et al., 1979 ) . Because the independent variable is manipulated before the dependent variable is measured, quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem. But because participants are not randomly assigned—making it likely that there are other differences between conditions—quasi-experimental research does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables. In terms of internal validity, therefore, quasi-experiments are generally somewhere between correlational studies and true experiments.

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. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here, focusing first on nonequivalent groups, pretest-posttest, interrupted time series, and combination designs before turning to single subject designs (including reversal and multiple-baseline designs).

7.1 Nonequivalent Groups Design

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.

Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments, might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

7.2 Pretest-Posttest Design

In a pretest-posttest design , the dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is implemented and once after it is implemented. Imagine, for example, a researcher who is interested in the effectiveness of an STEM education program on elementary school students’ attitudes toward science, technology, engineering and math. The researcher could measure the attitudes of students at a particular elementary school during one week, implement the STEM program during the next week, and finally, measure their attitudes again the following week. The pretest-posttest design is much like a within-subjects experiment in which each participant is tested first under the control condition and then under the treatment condition. It is unlike a within-subjects experiment, however, in that the order of conditions is not counterbalanced because it typically is not possible for a participant to be tested in the treatment condition first and then in an “untreated” control condition.

If the average posttest score is better than the average pretest score, then it makes sense to conclude that the treatment might be responsible for the improvement. Unfortunately, one often cannot conclude this with a high degree of certainty because there may be other explanations for why the posttest scores are better. One category of alternative explanations goes under the name of history . Other things might have happened between the pretest and the posttest. Perhaps an science program aired on television and many of the students watched it, or perhaps a major scientific discover occured and many of the students heard about it. Another category of alternative explanations goes under the name of maturation . Participants might have changed between the pretest and the posttest in ways that they were going to anyway because they are growing and learning. If it were a yearlong program, participants might become more exposed to STEM subjects in class or better reasoners and this might be responsible for the change.

Another alternative explanation for a change in the dependent variable in a pretest-posttest design is regression to the mean . This refers to the statistical fact that an individual who scores extremely on a variable on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion. For example, a bowler with a long-term average of 150 who suddenly bowls a 220 will almost certainly score lower in the next game. Her score will “regress” toward her mean score of 150. Regression to the mean can be a problem when participants are selected for further study because of their extreme scores. Imagine, for example, that only students who scored especially low on a test of fractions are given a special training program and then retested. Regression to the mean all but guarantees that their scores will be higher even if the training program has no effect. A closely related concept—and an extremely important one in psychological research—is spontaneous remission . This is the tendency for many medical and psychological problems to improve over time without any form of treatment. The common cold is a good example. If one were to measure symptom severity in 100 common cold sufferers today, give them a bowl of chicken soup every day, and then measure their symptom severity again in a week, they would probably be much improved. This does not mean that the chicken soup was responsible for the improvement, however, because they would have been much improved without any treatment at all. The same is true of many psychological problems. A group of severely depressed people today is likely to be less depressed on average in 6 months. In reviewing the results of several studies of treatments for depression, researchers Michael Posternak and Ivan Miller found that participants in waitlist control conditions improved an average of 10 to 15% before they received any treatment at all ( Posternak & Miller, 2001 ) . Thus one must generally be very cautious about inferring causality from pretest-posttest designs.

Finally, it is possible that the act of taking a pretest can sensitize participants to the measurement process or heighten their awareness of the variable under investigation. This heightened sensitivity, called a testing effect , can subsequently lead to changes in their posttest responses, even in the absence of any external intervention effect.

7.3 Interrupted Time Series Design

A variant of the pretest-posttest design is the interrupted time-series design . A time series is a set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time. For example, a manufacturing company might measure its workers’ productivity each week for a year. In an interrupted time series-design, a time series like this is “interrupted” by a treatment. In a recent COVID-19 study, the intervention involved the implementation of state-issued mask mandates and restrictions on on-premises restaurant dining. The researchers examined the impact of these measures on COVID-19 cases and deaths ( Guy Jr et al., 2021 ) . Since there was a rapid reduction in daily case and death growth rates following the implementation of mask mandates, and this effect persisted for an extended period, the researchers concluded that the implementation of mask mandates was the cause of the decrease in COVID-19 transmission. This study employed an interrupted time series design, similar to a pretest-posttest design, as it involved measuring the outcomes before and after the intervention. However, unlike the pretest-posttest design, it incorporated multiple measurements before and after the intervention, providing a more comprehensive analysis of the policy impacts.

Figure 7.1 shows data from a hypothetical interrupted time-series study. The dependent variable is the number of student absences per week in a research methods course. The treatment is that the instructor begins publicly taking attendance each day so that students know that the instructor is aware of who is present and who is absent. The top panel of Figure 7.1 shows how the data might look if this treatment worked. There is a consistently high number of absences before the treatment, and there is an immediate and sustained drop in absences after the treatment. The bottom panel of Figure 7.1 shows how the data might look if this treatment did not work. On average, the number of absences after the treatment is about the same as the number before. This figure also illustrates an advantage of the interrupted time-series design over a simpler pretest-posttest design. If there had been only one measurement of absences before the treatment at Week 7 and one afterward at Week 8, then it would have looked as though the treatment were responsible for the reduction. The multiple measurements both before and after the treatment suggest that the reduction between Weeks 7 and 8 is nothing more than normal week-to-week variation.

Figure 7.1: Hypothetical interrupted time-series design. The top panel shows data that suggest that the treatment caused a reduction in absences. The bottom panel shows data that suggest that it did not.

7.4 Combination Designs

A type of quasi-experimental design that is generally better than either the nonequivalent groups design or the pretest-posttest design is one that combines elements of both. There is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a control group that is given a pretest, does not receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve but whether they improve more than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their current level of engagement in pro-environmental behaviors (i.e., recycling, eating less red meat, abstaining for single-use plastics, etc.), then are exposed to an pro-environmental program in which they learn about the effects of human caused climate change on the planet, and finally are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an pro-environmental program, and finally are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more involved in pro-environmental behaviors, this could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become engage in more pro-environmental behaviors than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a forest fire or drought) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning or sense of responsibility), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a local heat wave with record high temperatures), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Finally, if participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true experiment rather than a quasi experiment. In fact, this kind of design has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions. Among the important types are nonequivalent groups designs, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time-series designs.
• Quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem because it involves the manipulation of the independent variable. It does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables, however, because it does not involve random assignment to conditions. For these reasons, quasi-experimental research is generally higher in internal validity than correlational studies but lower than true experiments.
• Practice: Imagine that two college professors decide to test the effect of giving daily quizzes on student performance in a statistics course. They decide that Professor A will give quizzes but Professor B will not. They will then compare the performance of students in their two sections on a common final exam. List five other variables that might differ between the two sections that could affect the results.

regression to the mean

Spontaneous remission, 7.5 single-subject research.

• Explain what single-subject research is, including how it differs from other types of psychological research and who uses single-subject research and why.
• Design simple single-subject studies using reversal and multiple-baseline designs.
• Explain how single-subject research designs address the issue of internal validity.
• Interpret the results of simple single-subject studies based on the visual inspection of graphed data.
• Explain some of the points of disagreement between advocates of single-subject research and advocates of group research.

Researcher Vance Hall and his colleagues were faced with the challenge of increasing the extent to which six disruptive elementary school students stayed focused on their schoolwork ( Hall et al., 1968 ) . For each of several days, the researchers carefully recorded whether or not each student was doing schoolwork every 10 seconds during a 30-minute period. Once they had established this baseline, they introduced a treatment. The treatment was that when the student was doing schoolwork, the teacher gave him or her positive attention in the form of a comment like “good work” or a pat on the shoulder. The result was that all of the students dramatically increased their time spent on schoolwork and decreased their disruptive behavior during this treatment phase. For example, a student named Robbie originally spent 25% of his time on schoolwork and the other 75% “snapping rubber bands, playing with toys from his pocket, and talking and laughing with peers” (p. 3). During the treatment phase, however, he spent 71% of his time on schoolwork and only 29% on other activities. Finally, when the researchers had the teacher stop giving positive attention, the students all decreased their studying and increased their disruptive behavior. This was consistent with the claim that it was, in fact, the positive attention that was responsible for the increase in studying. This was one of the first studies to show that attending to positive behavior—and ignoring negative behavior—could be a quick and effective way to deal with problem behavior in an applied setting.

Figure 7.2: Single-subject research has shown that positive attention from a teacher for studying can increase studying and decrease disruptive behavior. Photo by Jerry Wang on Unsplash.

Most of this book is about what can be called group research, which typically involves studying a large number of participants and combining their data to draw general conclusions about human behavior. The study by Hall and his colleagues, in contrast, is an example of single-subject research, which typically involves studying a small number of participants and focusing closely on each individual. In this section, we consider this alternative approach. We begin with an overview of single-subject research, including some assumptions on which it is based, who conducts it, and why they do. We then look at some basic single-subject research designs and how the data from those designs are analyzed. Finally, we consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of single-subject research as compared with group research and see how these two approaches can complement each other.

Overview of Single-Subject Research

What is single-subject research.

Single-subject research is a type of quantitative, quasi-experimental research that involves studying in detail the behavior of each of a small number of participants. Note that the term single-subject does not mean that only one participant is studied; it is more typical for there to be somewhere between two and 10 participants. (This is why single-subject research designs are sometimes called small-n designs, where n is the statistical symbol for the sample size.) Single-subject research can be contrasted with group research , which typically involves studying large numbers of participants and examining their behavior primarily in terms of group means, standard deviations, and so on. The majority of this book is devoted to understanding group research, which is the most common approach in psychology. But single-subject research is an important alternative, and it is the primary approach in some areas of psychology.

Before continuing, it is important to distinguish single-subject research from two other approaches, both of which involve studying in detail a small number of participants. One is qualitative research, which focuses on understanding people’s subjective experience by collecting relatively unstructured data (e.g., detailed interviews) and analyzing those data using narrative rather than quantitative techniques (see. Single-subject research, in contrast, focuses on understanding objective behavior through experimental manipulation and control, collecting highly structured data, and analyzing those data quantitatively.

It is also important to distinguish single-subject research from case studies. A case study is a detailed description of an individual, which can include both qualitative and quantitative analyses. (Case studies that include only qualitative analyses can be considered a type of qualitative research.) The history of psychology is filled with influential cases studies, such as Sigmund Freud’s description of “Anna O.” (see box “The Case of ‘Anna O.’”) and John Watson and Rosalie Rayner’s description of Little Albert ( Watson & Rayner, 1920 ) who learned to fear a white rat—along with other furry objects—when the researchers made a loud noise while he was playing with the rat. Case studies can be useful for suggesting new research questions and for illustrating general principles. They can also help researchers understand rare phenomena, such as the effects of damage to a specific part of the human brain. As a general rule, however, case studies cannot substitute for carefully designed group or single-subject research studies. One reason is that case studies usually do not allow researchers to determine whether specific events are causally related, or even related at all. For example, if a patient is described in a case study as having been sexually abused as a child and then as having developed an eating disorder as a teenager, there is no way to determine whether these two events had anything to do with each other. A second reason is that an individual case can always be unusual in some way and therefore be unrepresentative of people more generally. Thus case studies have serious problems with both internal and external validity.

The Case of “Anna O.”

Sigmund Freud used the case of a young woman he called “Anna O.” to illustrate many principles of his theory of psychoanalysis ( Freud, 1957 ) . (Her real name was Bertha Pappenheim, and she was an early feminist who went on to make important contributions to the field of social work.) Anna had come to Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer around 1880 with a variety of odd physical and psychological symptoms. One of them was that for several weeks she was unable to drink any fluids. According to Freud,

She would take up the glass of water that she longed for, but as soon as it touched her lips she would push it away like someone suffering from hydrophobia.…She lived only on fruit, such as melons, etc., so as to lessen her tormenting thirst (p. 9).

But according to Freud, a breakthrough came one day while Anna was under hypnosis.

[S]he grumbled about her English “lady-companion,” whom she did not care for, and went on to describe, with every sign of disgust, how she had once gone into this lady’s room and how her little dog—horrid creature!—had drunk out of a glass there. The patient had said nothing, as she had wanted to be polite. After giving further energetic expression to the anger she had held back, she asked for something to drink, drank a large quantity of water without any difficulty, and awoke from her hypnosis with the glass at her lips; and thereupon the disturbance vanished, never to return.

Freud’s interpretation was that Anna had repressed the memory of this incident along with the emotion that it triggered and that this was what had caused her inability to drink. Furthermore, her recollection of the incident, along with her expression of the emotion she had repressed, caused the symptom to go away.

As an illustration of Freud’s theory, the case study of Anna O. is quite effective. As evidence for the theory, however, it is essentially worthless. The description provides no way of knowing whether Anna had really repressed the memory of the dog drinking from the glass, whether this repression had caused her inability to drink, or whether recalling this “trauma” relieved the symptom. It is also unclear from this case study how typical or atypical Anna’s experience was.

Figure 7.3: “Anna O.” was the subject of a famous case study used by Freud to illustrate the principles of psychoanalysis. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Assumptions of Single-Subject Research

Again, single-subject research involves studying a small number of participants and focusing intensively on the behavior of each one. But why take this approach instead of the group approach? There are two important assumptions underlying single-subject research, and it will help to consider them now.

First and foremost is the assumption that it is important to focus intensively on the behavior of individual participants. One reason for this is that group research can hide individual differences and generate results that do not represent the behavior of any individual. For example, a treatment that has a positive effect for half the people exposed to it but a negative effect for the other half would, on average, appear to have no effect at all. Single-subject research, however, would likely reveal these individual differences. A second reason to focus intensively on individuals is that sometimes it is the behavior of a particular individual that is primarily of interest. A school psychologist, for example, might be interested in changing the behavior of a particular disruptive student. Although previous published research (both single-subject and group research) is likely to provide some guidance on how to do this, conducting a study on this student would be more direct and probably more effective.

Another assumption of single-subject research is that it is important to study strong and consistent effects that have biological or social importance. Applied researchers, in particular, are interested in treatments that have substantial effects on important behaviors and that can be implemented reliably in the real-world contexts in which they occur. This is sometimes referred to as social validity ( Wolf, 1978 ) . The study by Hall and his colleagues, for example, had good social validity because it showed strong and consistent effects of positive teacher attention on a behavior that is of obvious importance to teachers, parents, and students. Furthermore, the teachers found the treatment easy to implement, even in their often chaotic elementary school classrooms.

Who Uses Single-Subject Research?

Single-subject research has been around as long as the field of psychology itself. In the late 1800s, one of psychology’s founders, Wilhelm Wundt, studied sensation and consciousness by focusing intensively on each of a small number of research participants. Herman Ebbinghaus’s research on memory and Ivan Pavlov’s research on classical conditioning are other early examples, both of which are still described in almost every introductory psychology textbook.

In the middle of the 20th century, B. F. Skinner clarified many of the assumptions underlying single-subject research and refined many of its techniques ( Skinner, 1938 ) . He and other researchers then used it to describe how rewards, punishments, and other external factors affect behavior over time. This work was carried out primarily using nonhuman subjects—mostly rats and pigeons. This approach, which Skinner called the experimental analysis of behavior —remains an important subfield of psychology and continues to rely almost exclusively on single-subject research. For examples of this work, look at any issue of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior . By the 1960s, many researchers were interested in using this approach to conduct applied research primarily with humans—a subfield now called applied behavior analysis ( Baer et al., 1968 ) . Applied behavior analysis plays a significant role in contemporary research on developmental disabilities, education, organizational behavior, and health, among many other areas. Examples of this work (including the study by Hall and his colleagues) can be found in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis . The single-subject approach can also be used by clinicians who take any theoretical perspective—behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, or humanistic—to study processes of therapeutic change with individual clients and to document their clients’ improvement ( Kazdin, 2019 ) .

Single-Subject Research Designs

General features of single-subject designs.

Before looking at any specific single-subject research designs, it will be helpful to consider some features that are common to most of them. Many of these features are illustrated in Figure 7.4 , which shows the results of a generic single-subject study. First, the dependent variable (represented on the y-axis of the graph) is measured repeatedly over time (represented by the x-axis) at regular intervals. Second, the study is divided into distinct phases, and the participant is tested under one condition per phase. The conditions are often designated by capital letters: A, B, C, and so on. Thus Figure 7.4 represents a design in which the participant was tested first in one condition (A), then tested in another condition (B), and finally retested in the original condition (A). (This is called a reversal design and will be discussed in more detail shortly.)

Figure 7.4: Results of a generic single-subject study illustrating several principles of single-subject research.

Another important aspect of single-subject research is that the change from one condition to the next does not usually occur after a fixed amount of time or number of observations. Instead, it depends on the participant’s behavior. Specifically, the researcher waits until the participant’s behavior in one condition becomes fairly consistent from observation to observation before changing conditions. This is sometimes referred to as the steady state strategy ( Sidman, 1960 ) . The idea is that when the dependent variable has reached a steady state, then any change across conditions will be relatively easy to detect. Recall that we encountered this same principle when discussing experimental research more generally. The effect of an independent variable is easier to detect when the “noise” in the data is minimized.

Reversal Designs

The most basic single-subject research design is the reversal design , also called the ABA design . During the first phase, A, a baseline is established for the dependent variable. This is the level of responding before any treatment is introduced, and therefore the baseline phase is a kind of control condition. When steady state responding is reached, phase B begins as the researcher introduces the treatment. Again, the researcher waits until that dependent variable reaches a steady state so that it is clear whether and how much it has changed. Finally, the researcher removes the treatment and again waits until the dependent variable reaches a steady state. This basic reversal design can also be extended with the reintroduction of the treatment (ABAB), another return to baseline (ABABA), and so on. The study by Hall and his colleagues was an ABAB reversal design (Figure 7.5 ).

Figure 7.5: An approximation of the results for Hall and colleagues’ participant Robbie in their ABAB reversal design. The percentage of time he spent studying (the dependent variable) was low during the first baseline phase, increased during the first treatment phase until it leveled off, decreased during the second baseline phase, and again increased during the second treatment phase.

Why is the reversal—the removal of the treatment—considered to be necessary in this type of design? If the dependent variable changes after the treatment is introduced, it is not always clear that the treatment was responsible for the change. It is possible that something else changed at around the same time and that this extraneous variable is responsible for the change in the dependent variable. But if the dependent variable changes with the introduction of the treatment and then changes back with the removal of the treatment, it is much clearer that the treatment (and removal of the treatment) is the cause. In other words, the reversal greatly increases the internal validity of the study.

Multiple-Baseline Designs

There are two potential problems with the reversal design—both of which have to do with the removal of the treatment. One is that if a treatment is working, it may be unethical to remove it. For example, if a treatment seemed to reduce the incidence of self-injury in a developmentally disabled child, it would be unethical to remove that treatment just to show that the incidence of self-injury increases. The second problem is that the dependent variable may not return to baseline when the treatment is removed. For example, when positive attention for studying is removed, a student might continue to study at an increased rate. This could mean that the positive attention had a lasting effect on the student’s studying, which of course would be good, but it could also mean that the positive attention was not really the cause of the increased studying in the first place.

One solution to these problems is to use a multiple-baseline design , which is represented in Figure 7.6 . In one version of the design, a baseline is established for each of several participants, and the treatment is then introduced for each one. In essence, each participant is tested in an AB design. The key to this design is that the treatment is introduced at a different time for each participant. The idea is that if the dependent variable changes when the treatment is introduced for one participant, it might be a coincidence. But if the dependent variable changes when the treatment is introduced for multiple participants—especially when the treatment is introduced at different times for the different participants—then it is less likely to be a coincidence.

Figure 7.6: Results of a generic multiple-baseline study. The multiple baselines can be for different participants, dependent variables, or settings. The treatment is introduced at a different time on each baseline.

As an example, consider a study by Scott Ross and Robert Horner ( Ross et al., 2009 ) . They were interested in how a school-wide bullying prevention program affected the bullying behavior of particular problem students. At each of three different schools, the researchers studied two students who had regularly engaged in bullying. During the baseline phase, they observed the students for 10-minute periods each day during lunch recess and counted the number of aggressive behaviors they exhibited toward their peers. (The researchers used handheld computers to help record the data.) After 2 weeks, they implemented the program at one school. After 2 more weeks, they implemented it at the second school. And after 2 more weeks, they implemented it at the third school. They found that the number of aggressive behaviors exhibited by each student dropped shortly after the program was implemented at his or her school. Notice that if the researchers had only studied one school or if they had introduced the treatment at the same time at all three schools, then it would be unclear whether the reduction in aggressive behaviors was due to the bullying program or something else that happened at about the same time it was introduced (e.g., a holiday, a television program, a change in the weather). But with their multiple-baseline design, this kind of coincidence would have to happen three separate times—an unlikely occurrence—to explain their results.

Data Analysis in Single-Subject Research

In addition to its focus on individual participants, single-subject research differs from group research in the way the data are typically analyzed. As we have seen throughout the book, group research involves combining data across participants. Inferential statistics are used to help decide whether the result for the sample is likely to generalize to the population. Single-subject research, by contrast, relies heavily on a very different approach called visual inspection . This means plotting individual participants’ data as shown throughout this chapter, looking carefully at those data, and making judgments about whether and to what extent the independent variable had an effect on the dependent variable. Inferential statistics are typically not used.

In visually inspecting their data, single-subject researchers take several factors into account. One of them is changes in the level of the dependent variable from condition to condition. If the dependent variable is much higher or much lower in one condition than another, this suggests that the treatment had an effect. A second factor is trend , which refers to gradual increases or decreases in the dependent variable across observations. If the dependent variable begins increasing or decreasing with a change in conditions, then again this suggests that the treatment had an effect. It can be especially telling when a trend changes directions—for example, when an unwanted behavior is increasing during baseline but then begins to decrease with the introduction of the treatment. A third factor is latency , which is the time it takes for the dependent variable to begin changing after a change in conditions. In general, if a change in the dependent variable begins shortly after a change in conditions, this suggests that the treatment was responsible.

In the top panel of Figure 7.7 , there are fairly obvious changes in the level and trend of the dependent variable from condition to condition. Furthermore, the latencies of these changes are short; the change happens immediately. This pattern of results strongly suggests that the treatment was responsible for the changes in the dependent variable. In the bottom panel of Figure 7.7 , however, the changes in level are fairly small. And although there appears to be an increasing trend in the treatment condition, it looks as though it might be a continuation of a trend that had already begun during baseline. This pattern of results strongly suggests that the treatment was not responsible for any changes in the dependent variable—at least not to the extent that single-subject researchers typically hope to see.

Figure 7.7: Visual inspection of the data suggests an effective treatment in the top panel but an ineffective treatment in the bottom panel.

The results of single-subject research can also be analyzed using statistical procedures—and this is becoming more common. There are many different approaches, and single-subject researchers continue to debate which are the most useful. One approach parallels what is typically done in group research. The mean and standard deviation of each participant’s responses under each condition are computed and compared, and inferential statistical tests such as the t test or analysis of variance are applied ( Fisch, 2001 ) . (Note that averaging across participants is less common.) Another approach is to compute the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) for each participant ( Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2021 ) . This is the percentage of responses in the treatment condition that are more extreme than the most extreme response in a relevant control condition. In the study of Hall and his colleagues, for example, all measures of Robbie’s study time in the first treatment condition were greater than the highest measure in the first baseline, for a PND of 100%. The greater the percentage of nonoverlapping data, the stronger the treatment effect. Still, formal statistical approaches to data analysis in single-subject research are generally considered a supplement to visual inspection, not a replacement for it.

The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate”

Single-subject research is similar to group research—especially experimental group research—in many ways. They are both quantitative approaches that try to establish causal relationships by manipulating an independent variable, measuring a dependent variable, and controlling extraneous variables. As we will see, single-subject research and group research are probably best conceptualized as complementary approaches.

Data Analysis

One set of disagreements revolves around the issue of data analysis. Some advocates of group research worry that visual inspection is inadequate for deciding whether and to what extent a treatment has affected a dependent variable. One specific concern is that visual inspection is not sensitive enough to detect weak effects. A second is that visual inspection can be unreliable, with different researchers reaching different conclusions about the same set of data ( Danov & Symons, 2008 ) . A third is that the results of visual inspection—an overall judgment of whether or not a treatment was effective—cannot be clearly and efficiently summarized or compared across studies (unlike the measures of relationship strength typically used in group research).

In general, single-subject researchers share these concerns. However, they also argue that their use of the steady state strategy, combined with their focus on strong and consistent effects, minimizes most of them. If the effect of a treatment is difficult to detect by visual inspection because the effect is weak or the data are noisy, then single-subject researchers look for ways to increase the strength of the effect or reduce the noise in the data by controlling extraneous variables (e.g., by administering the treatment more consistently). If the effect is still difficult to detect, then they are likely to consider it neither strong enough nor consistent enough to be of further interest. Many single-subject researchers also point out that statistical analysis is becoming increasingly common and that many of them are using it as a supplement to visual inspection—especially for the purpose of comparing results across studies ( Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2021 ) .

Turning the tables, some advocates of single-subject research worry about the way that group researchers analyze their data. Specifically, they point out that focusing on group means can be highly misleading. Again, imagine that a treatment has a strong positive effect on half the people exposed to it and an equally strong negative effect on the other half. In a traditional between-subjects experiment, the positive effect on half the participants in the treatment condition would be statistically cancelled out by the negative effect on the other half. The mean for the treatment group would then be the same as the mean for the control group, making it seem as though the treatment had no effect when in fact it had a strong effect on every single participant!

But again, group researchers share this concern. Although they do focus on group statistics, they also emphasize the importance of examining distributions of individual scores. For example, if some participants were positively affected by a treatment and others negatively affected by it, this would produce a bimodal distribution of scores and could be detected by looking at a histogram of the data. The use of within-subjects designs is another strategy that allows group researchers to observe effects at the individual level and even to specify what percentage of individuals exhibit strong, medium, weak, and even negative effects.

External Validity

The second issue about which single-subject and group researchers sometimes disagree has to do with external validity—the ability to generalize the results of a study beyond the people and situation actually studied. In particular, advocates of group research point out the difficulty in knowing whether results for just a few participants are likely to generalize to others in the population. Imagine, for example, that in a single-subject study, a treatment has been shown to reduce self-injury for each of two developmentally disabled children. Even if the effect is strong for these two children, how can one know whether this treatment is likely to work for other developmentally disabled children?

Again, single-subject researchers share this concern. In response, they note that the strong and consistent effects they are typically interested in—even when observed in small samples—are likely to generalize to others in the population. Single-subject researchers also note that they place a strong emphasis on replicating their research results. When they observe an effect with a small sample of participants, they typically try to replicate it with another small sample—perhaps with a slightly different type of participant or under slightly different conditions. Each time they observe similar results, they rightfully become more confident in the generality of those results. Single-subject researchers can also point to the fact that the principles of classical and operant conditioning—most of which were discovered using the single-subject approach—have been successfully generalized across an incredibly wide range of species and situations.

And again turning the tables, single-subject researchers have concerns of their own about the external validity of group research. One extremely important point they make is that studying large groups of participants does not entirely solve the problem of generalizing to other individuals. Imagine, for example, a treatment that has been shown to have a small positive effect on average in a large group study. It is likely that although many participants exhibited a small positive effect, others exhibited a large positive effect, and still others exhibited a small negative effect. When it comes to applying this treatment to another large group , we can be fairly sure that it will have a small effect on average. But when it comes to applying this treatment to another individual , we cannot be sure whether it will have a small, a large, or even a negative effect. Another point that single-subject researchers make is that group researchers also face a similar problem when they study a single situation and then generalize their results to other situations. For example, researchers who conduct a study on the effect of cell phone use on drivers on a closed oval track probably want to apply their results to drivers in many other real-world driving situations. But notice that this requires generalizing from a single situation to a population of situations. Thus the ability to generalize is based on much more than just the sheer number of participants one has studied. It requires a careful consideration of the similarity of the participants and situations studied to the population of participants and situations that one wants to generalize to ( Shadish et al., 2002 ) .

Single-Subject and Group Research as Complementary Methods

As with quantitative and qualitative research, it is probably best to conceptualize single-subject research and group research as complementary methods that have different strengths and weaknesses and that are appropriate for answering different kinds of research questions ( Kazdin, 2019 ) . Single-subject research is particularly good for testing the effectiveness of treatments on individuals when the focus is on strong, consistent, and biologically or socially important effects. It is especially useful when the behavior of particular individuals is of interest. Clinicians who work with only one individual at a time may find that it is their only option for doing systematic quantitative research.

Group research, on the other hand, is good for testing the effectiveness of treatments at the group level. Among the advantages of this approach is that it allows researchers to detect weak effects, which can be of interest for many reasons. For example, finding a weak treatment effect might lead to refinements of the treatment that eventually produce a larger and more meaningful effect. Group research is also good for studying interactions between treatments and participant characteristics. For example, if a treatment is effective for those who are high in motivation to change and ineffective for those who are low in motivation to change, then a group design can detect this much more efficiently than a single-subject design. Group research is also necessary to answer questions that cannot be addressed using the single-subject approach, including questions about independent variables that cannot be manipulated (e.g., number of siblings, extroversion, culture).

• Single-subject research—which involves testing a small number of participants and focusing intensively on the behavior of each individual—is an important alternative to group research in psychology.
• Single-subject studies must be distinguished from case studies, in which an individual case is described in detail. Case studies can be useful for generating new research questions, for studying rare phenomena, and for illustrating general principles. However, they cannot substitute for carefully controlled experimental or correlational studies because they are low in internal and external validity.
• Single-subject research designs typically involve measuring the dependent variable repeatedly over time and changing conditions (e.g., from baseline to treatment) when the dependent variable has reached a steady state. This approach allows the researcher to see whether changes in the independent variable are causing changes in the dependent variable.
• Single-subject researchers typically analyze their data by graphing them and making judgments about whether the independent variable is affecting the dependent variable based on level, trend, and latency.
• Differences between single-subject research and group research sometimes lead to disagreements between single-subject and group researchers. These disagreements center on the issues of data analysis and external validity (especially generalization to other people). Single-subject research and group research are probably best seen as complementary methods, with different strengths and weaknesses, that are appropriate for answering different kinds of research questions.
• Does positive attention from a parent increase a child’s toothbrushing behavior?
• Does self-testing while studying improve a student’s performance on weekly spelling tests?
• Does regular exercise help relieve depression?
• Practice: Create a graph that displays the hypothetical results for the study you designed in Exercise 1. Write a paragraph in which you describe what the results show. Be sure to comment on level, trend, and latency.
• Discussion: Imagine you have conducted a single-subject study showing a positive effect of a treatment on the behavior of a man with social anxiety disorder. Your research has been criticized on the grounds that it cannot be generalized to others. How could you respond to this criticism?
• Discussion: Imagine you have conducted a group study showing a positive effect of a treatment on the behavior of a group of people with social anxiety disorder, but your research has been criticized on the grounds that “average” effects cannot be generalized to individuals. How could you respond to this criticism?

7.6 Glossary

The simplest reversal design, in which there is a baseline condition (A), followed by a treatment condition (B), followed by a return to baseline (A).

applied behavior analysis

A subfield of psychology that uses single-subject research and applies the principles of behavior analysis to real-world problems in areas that include education, developmental disabilities, organizational behavior, and health behavior.

A condition in a single-subject research design in which the dependent variable is measured repeatedly in the absence of any treatment. Most designs begin with a baseline condition, and many return to the baseline condition at least once.

A detailed description of an individual case.

experimental analysis of behavior

A subfield of psychology founded by B. F. Skinner that uses single-subject research—often with nonhuman animals—to study relationships primarily between environmental conditions and objectively observable behaviors.

group research

A type of quantitative research that involves studying a large number of participants and examining their behavior in terms of means, standard deviations, and other group-level statistics.

interrupted time-series design

A research design in which a series of measurements of the dependent variable are taken both before and after a treatment.

item-order effect

The effect of responding to one survey item on responses to a later survey item.

Refers collectively to extraneous developmental changes in participants that can occur between a pretest and posttest or between the first and last measurements in a time series. It can provide an alternative explanation for an observed change in the dependent variable.

multiple-baseline design

A single-subject research design in which multiple baselines are established for different participants, different dependent variables, or different contexts and the treatment is introduced at a different time for each baseline.

naturalistic observation

An approach to data collection in which the behavior of interest is observed in the environment in which it typically occurs.

nonequivalent groups design

A between-subjects research design in which participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, usually because participants are in preexisting groups (e.g., students at different schools).

nonexperimental research

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

open-ended item

A questionnaire item that asks a question and allows respondents to respond in whatever way they want.

percentage of nonoverlapping data

A statistic sometimes used in single-subject research. The percentage of observations in a treatment condition that are more extreme than the most extreme observation in a relevant baseline condition.

pretest-posttest design

A research design in which the dependent variable is measured (the pretest), a treatment is given, and the dependent variable is measured again (the posttest) to see if there is a change in the dependent variable from pretest to posttest.

quasi-experimental research

Research that involves the manipulation of an independent variable but lacks the random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions. It is generally used in field settings to test the effectiveness of a treatment.

rating scale

An ordered set of response options to a closed-ended questionnaire item.

The statistical fact that an individual who scores extremely on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion.

A term often used to refer to a participant in survey research.

reversal design

A single-subject research design that begins with a baseline condition with no treatment, followed by the introduction of a treatment, and after that a return to the baseline condition. It can include additional treatment conditions and returns to baseline.

single-subject research

A type of quantitative research that involves examining in detail the behavior of each of a small number of participants.

single-variable research

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

social validity

The extent to which a single-subject study focuses on an intervention that has a substantial effect on an important behavior and can be implemented reliably in the real-world contexts (e.g., by teachers in a classroom) in which that behavior occurs.

Improvement in a psychological or medical problem over time without any treatment.

steady state strategy

In single-subject research, allowing behavior to become fairly consistent from one observation to the next before changing conditions. This makes any effect of the treatment easier to detect.

survey research

A quantitative research approach that uses self-report measures and large, carefully selected samples.

testing effect

A bias in participants’ responses in which scores on the posttest are influenced by simple exposure to the pretest

visual inspection

The primary approach to data analysis in single-subject research, which involves graphing the data and making a judgment as to whether and to what extent the independent variable affected the dependent variable.

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

39 Non-Equivalent Groups Designs

Learning objectives.

• Describe the different types of nonequivalent groups quasi-experimental designs.
• Identify some of the threats to internal validity associated with each of these designs. 

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A  nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions. There are several types of nonequivalent groups designs we will consider.

Posttest Only Nonequivalent Groups Design

The first nonequivalent groups design we will consider is the posttest only nonequivalent groups design .  In this design, participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, a nonequivalent group is not exposed to the treatment, and then the two groups are compared. Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This design would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a posttest only nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Groups Design

Another way to improve upon the posttest only nonequivalent groups design is to add a pretest. In the  pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups design t here is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a nonequivalent control group that is given a pretest, does  not  receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve, but whether they improve  more  than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then are exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this change in attitude could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Returning to the example of evaluating a new measure of teaching third graders, this study could be improved by adding a pretest of students’ knowledge of fractions. The changes in scores from pretest to posttest would then be evaluated and compared across conditions to determine whether one group demonstrated a bigger improvement in knowledge of fractions than another. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might still be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students that are independent of the teaching intervention. Once again, differential history also represents a potential threat to internal validity.  If asbestos is found in one of the schools causing it to be shut down for a month then this interruption in teaching could produce a difference across groups on posttest scores.

If participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true between-groups experiment rather than a quasi-experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Interrupted Time-Series Design with Nonequivalent Groups

One way to improve upon the interrupted time-series design is to add a control group. The interrupted time-series design with nonequivalent group s involves taking  a set of measurements at intervals over a period of time both before and after an intervention of interest in two or more nonequivalent groups. Once again consider the manufacturing company that measures its workers’ productivity each week for a year before and after reducing work shifts from 10 hours to 8 hours. This design could be improved by locating another manufacturing company who does not plan to change their shift length and using them as a nonequivalent control group. If productivity  increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts in the treatment group but productivity remained consistent in the control group, then this provides better evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment. 

Similarly, in the example of examining the effects of taking attendance on student absences in a research methods course, the design could be improved by using students in another section of the research methods course as a control group. If a consistently higher number of absences was found in the treatment group before the intervention, followed by a sustained drop in absences after the treatment, while the nonequivalent control group showed consistently high absences across the semester then this would provide superior evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment in reducing absences.

Pretest-Posttest Design With Switching Replication

Some of these nonequivalent control group designs can be further improved by adding a switching replication. Using a pretest-posttest design with switching replication design , nonequivalent groups are administered a pretest of the dependent variable, then one group receives a treatment while a nonequivalent control group does not receive a treatment, the dependent variable is assessed again, and then the treatment is added to the control group, and finally the dependent variable is assessed one last time.

As a concrete example, let’s say we wanted to introduce an exercise intervention for the treatment of depression. We recruit one group of patients experiencing depression and a nonequivalent control group of students experiencing depression. We first measure depression levels in both groups, and then we introduce the exercise intervention to the patients experiencing depression, but we hold off on introducing the treatment to the students. We then measure depression levels in both groups. If the treatment is effective we should see a reduction in the depression levels of the patients (who received the treatment) but not in the students (who have not yet received the treatment). Finally, while the group of patients continues to engage in the treatment, we would introduce the treatment to the students with depression. Now and only now should we see the students’ levels of depression decrease.

One of the strengths of this design is that it includes a built in replication. In the example given, we would get evidence for the efficacy of the treatment in two different samples (patients and students). Another strength of this design is that it provides more control over history effects. It becomes rather unlikely that some outside event would perfectly coincide with the introduction of the treatment in the first group and with the delayed introduction of the treatment in the second group. For instance, if a change in the weather occurred when we first introduced the treatment to the patients, and this explained their reductions in depression the second time that depression was measured, then we would see depression levels decrease in both the groups. Similarly, the switching replication helps to control for maturation and instrumentation. Both groups would be expected to show the same rates of spontaneous remission of depression and if the instrument for assessing depression happened to change at some point in the study the change would be consistent across both of the groups. Of course, demand characteristics, placebo effects, and experimenter expectancy effects can still be problems. But they can be controlled for using some of the methods described in Chapter 5.

Switching Replication with Treatment Removal Design

In a basic pretest-posttest design with switching replication, the first group receives a treatment and the second group receives the same treatment a little bit later on (while the initial group continues to receive the treatment). In contrast, in a switching replication with treatment removal design , the treatment is removed from the first group when it is added to the second group. Once again, let’s assume we first measure the depression levels of patients with depression and students with depression. Then we introduce the exercise intervention to only the patients. After they have been exposed to the exercise intervention for a week we assess depression levels again in both groups. If the intervention is effective then we should see depression levels decrease in the patient group but not the student group (because the students haven’t received the treatment yet). Next, we would remove the treatment from the group of patients with depression. So we would tell them to stop exercising. At the same time, we would tell the student group to start exercising. After a week of the students exercising and the patients not exercising, we would reassess depression levels. Now if the intervention is effective we should see that the depression levels have decreased in the student group but that they have increased in the patient group (because they are no longer exercising).

Demonstrating a treatment effect in two groups staggered over time and demonstrating the reversal of the treatment effect after the treatment has been removed can provide strong evidence for the efficacy of the treatment. In addition to providing evidence for the replicability of the findings, this design can also provide evidence for whether the treatment continues to show effects after it has been withdrawn.

A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods3ecan/?p=45

{{unknown}}

• Define correlational research and give several examples.
• Explain why a researcher might choose to conduct correlational research rather than experimental research or another type of non-experimental research.
• Interpret the strength and direction of different correlation coefficients.
• Explain why correlation does not imply causation.

What Is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research in which the researcher measures two variables (binary or continuous) and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous variables. There are many reasons that researchers interested in statistical relationships between variables would choose to conduct a correlational study rather than an experiment. The first is that they do not believe that the statistical relationship is a causal one or are not interested in causal relationships. Recall two goals of science are to describe and to predict and the correlational research strategy allows researchers to achieve both of these goals. Specifically, this strategy can be used to describe the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables and if there is a relationship between the variables then the researchers can use scores on one variable to predict scores on the other (using a statistical technique called regression, which is discussed further in the section on Complex Correlation in this chapter).

Another reason that researchers would choose to use a correlational study rather than an experiment is that the statistical relationship of interest is thought to be causal, but the researcher  cannot manipulate the independent variable because it is impossible, impractical, or unethical. For example, while a researcher might be interested in the relationship between the frequency people use cannabis and their memory abilities they cannot ethically manipulate the frequency that people use cannabis. As such, they must rely on the correlational research strategy; they must simply measure the frequency that people use cannabis and measure their memory abilities using a standardized test of memory and then determine whether the frequency people use cannabis is statistically related to memory test performance. 

Correlation is also used to establish the reliability and validity of measurements. For example, a researcher might evaluate the validity of a brief extraversion test by administering it to a large group of participants along with a longer extraversion test that has already been shown to be valid. This researcher might then check to see whether participants’ scores on the brief test are strongly correlated with their scores on the longer one. Neither test score is thought to cause the other, so there is no independent variable to manipulate. In fact, the terms  independent variable  and dependent variabl e  do not apply to this kind of research.

Another strength of correlational research is that it is often higher in external validity than experimental research. Recall there is typically a trade-off between internal validity and external validity. As greater controls are added to experiments, internal validity is increased but often at the expense of external validity as artificial conditions are introduced that do not exist in reality. In contrast, correlational studies typically have low internal validity because nothing is manipulated or controlled but they often have high external validity. Since nothing is manipulated or controlled by the experimenter the results are more likely to reflect relationships that exist in the real world.

Finally, extending upon this trade-off between internal and external validity, correlational research can help to provide converging evidence for a theory. If a theory is supported by a true experiment that is high in internal validity as well as by a correlational study that is high in external validity then the researchers can have more confidence in the validity of their theory. As a concrete example, correlational 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) [1] .

Does Correlational Research Always Involve Quantitative Variables?

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that correlational research must involve two quantitative variables, such as scores on two extraversion tests or the number of daily hassles and number of symptoms people have experienced. However, the defining feature of correlational research is that the two variables are measured—neither one is manipulated—and this is true regardless of whether the variables are quantitative or categorical. 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 correlational study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. The same is true of the study by Cacioppo and Petty comparing college faculty and factory workers in terms of their need for cognition. It is a correlational study because the researchers did not manipulate the participants’ occupations.

Figure 6.2 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 correlational study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then it is an experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists, then it is a correlational study. 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 correlational 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 (the directionality problem). Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed (the third-variable problem). The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or correlational 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. What defines a study is how the study is conducted.

Data Collection in Correlational Research

Again, the defining feature of correlational research is that neither variable is manipulated. It does not matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could have participants come to a laboratory to complete a computerized backward digit span task and a computerized risky decision-making task and then assess the relationship between participants’ scores on the two tasks. Or a researcher could go to a shopping mall to ask people about their attitudes toward the environment and their shopping habits and then assess the relationship between these two variables. Both of these studies would be correlational because no independent variable is manipulated. 

Correlations Between Quantitative Variables

Correlations between quantitative variables are often presented using scatterplots . Figure 6.3 shows some hypothetical data on the relationship between the amount of stress people are under and the number of physical symptoms they have. Each point in the scatterplot represents one person’s score on both variables. For example, the circled point in Figure 6.3 represents a person whose stress score was 10 and who had three physical symptoms. Taking all the points into account, one can see that people under more stress tend to have more physical symptoms. This is a good example of a positive relationship , in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other. In other words, they move in the same direction, either both up or both down. A negative relationship is one in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other. In other words, they move in opposite directions. There is a negative relationship between stress and immune system functioning, for example, because higher stress is associated with lower immune system functioning.

The strength of a correlation between quantitative variables is typically measured using a statistic called  Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (or Pearson's  r ) . As Figure 6.4 shows, Pearson’s r ranges from −1.00 (the strongest possible negative relationship) to +1.00 (the strongest possible positive relationship). A value of 0 means there is no relationship between the two variables. When Pearson’s  r  is 0, the points on a scatterplot form a shapeless “cloud.” As its value moves toward −1.00 or +1.00, the points come closer and closer to falling on a single straight line. Correlation coefficients near ±.10 are considered small, values near ± .30 are considered medium, and values near ±.50 are considered large. Notice that the sign of Pearson’s  r  is unrelated to its strength. Pearson’s  r  values of +.30 and −.30, for example, are equally strong; it is just that one represents a moderate positive relationship and the other a moderate negative relationship. With the exception of reliability coefficients, most correlations that we find in Psychology are small or moderate in size. The website http://rpsychologist.com/d3/correlation/ , created by Kristoffer Magnusson, provides an excellent interactive visualization of correlations that permits you to adjust the strength and direction of a correlation while witnessing the corresponding changes to the scatterplot.

There are two common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading. Pearson’s  r  is a good measure only for linear relationships, in which the points are best approximated by a straight line. It is not a good measure for nonlinear relationships, in which the points are better approximated by a curved line. Figure 6.5, for example, shows a hypothetical relationship between the amount of sleep people get per night and their level of depression. In this example, the line that best approximates the points is a curve—a kind of upside-down “U”—because people who get about eight hours of sleep tend to be the least depressed. Those who get too little sleep and those who get too much sleep tend to be more depressed. Even though Figure 6.5 shows a fairly strong relationship between depression and sleep, Pearson’s  r  would be close to zero because the points in the scatterplot are not well fit by a single straight line. This means that it is important to make a scatterplot and confirm that a relationship is approximately linear before using Pearson’s  r . Nonlinear relationships are fairly common in psychology, but measuring their strength is beyond the scope of this book.

The other common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading is when one or both of the variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population. This problem is referred to as  restriction of range . Assume, for example, that there is a strong negative correlation between people’s age and their enjoyment of hip hop music as shown by the scatterplot in Figure 6.6. Pearson’s  r  here is −.77. However, if we were to collect data only from 18- to 24-year-olds—represented by the shaded area of Figure 6.6—then the relationship would seem to be quite weak. In fact, Pearson’s  r  for this restricted range of ages is 0. It is a good idea, therefore, to design studies to avoid restriction of range. For example, if age is one of your primary variables, then you can plan to collect data from people of a wide range of ages. Because restriction of range is not always anticipated or easily avoidable, however, it is good practice to examine your data for possible restriction of range and to interpret Pearson’s  r  in light of it. (There are also statistical methods to correct Pearson’s  r  for restriction of range, but they are beyond the scope of this book).

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

You have probably heard repeatedly that “Correlation does not imply causation.” An amusing example of this comes from a 2012 study that showed a positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.79) between the per capita chocolate consumption of a nation and the number of Nobel prizes awarded to citizens of that nation [2] . It seems clear, however, that this does not mean that eating chocolate causes people to win Nobel prizes, and it would not make sense to try to increase the number of Nobel prizes won by recommending that parents feed their children more chocolate.

There are two reasons that correlation does not imply causation. The first is called the  directionality problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related because X  causes  Y  or because  Y  causes  X . Consider, for example, a study showing that whether or not people exercise is statistically related to how happy they are—such that people who exercise are happier on average than people who do not. This statistical relationship is consistent with the idea that exercising causes happiness, but it is also consistent with the idea that happiness causes exercise. Perhaps being happy gives people more energy or leads them to seek opportunities to socialize with others by going to the gym. The second reason that correlation does not imply causation is called the  third-variable problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related not because  X  causes  Y , or because  Y  causes  X , but because some third variable,  Z , causes both  X  and  Y . For example, the fact that nations that have won more Nobel prizes tend to have higher chocolate consumption probably reflects geography in that European countries tend to have higher rates of per capita chocolate consumption and invest more in education and technology (once again, per capita) than many other countries in the world. Similarly, the statistical relationship between exercise and happiness could mean that some third variable, such as physical health, causes both of the others. Being physically healthy could cause people to exercise and cause them to be happier. Correlations that are a result of a third-variable are often referred to as  spurious correlations .

Some excellent and amusing examples of spurious correlations can be found at http://www.tylervigen.com  (Figure 6.7  provides one such example).

“Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence”

Although researchers in psychology know that correlation does not imply causation, many journalists do not. One website about correlation and causation, http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/correlation_or_causation.htm , links to dozens of media reports about real biomedical and psychological research. Many of the headlines suggest that a causal relationship has been demonstrated when a careful reading of the articles shows that it has not because of the directionality and third-variable problems.

One such article is about a study showing that children who ate candy every day were more likely than other children to be arrested for a violent offense later in life. But could candy really “lead to” violence, as the headline suggests? What alternative explanations can you think of for this statistical relationship? How could the headline be rewritten so that it is not misleading?

As you have learned by reading this book, there are various ways that researchers address the directionality and third-variable problems. The most effective is to conduct an experiment. For example, instead of simply measuring how much people exercise, a researcher could bring people into a laboratory and randomly assign half of them to run on a treadmill for 15 minutes and the rest to sit on a couch for 15 minutes. Although this seems like a minor change to the research design, it is extremely important. Now if the exercisers end up in more positive moods than those who did not exercise, it cannot be because their moods affected how much they exercised (because it was the researcher who used random assignment to determine how much they exercised). Likewise, it cannot be because some third variable (e.g., physical health) affected both how much they exercised and what mood they were in. Thus experiments eliminate the directionality and third-variable problems and allow researchers to draw firm conclusions about causal relationships.

• Explain the purpose of null hypothesis testing, including the role of sampling error.
• Describe the basic logic of null hypothesis testing.
• Describe the role of relationship strength and sample size in determining statistical significance and make reasonable judgments about statistical significance based on these two factors.

 The Purpose of Null Hypothesis Testing

As we have seen, psychological research typically involves measuring one or more variables in a sample and computing descriptive summary data (e.g., means, correlation coefficients) for those variables. These descriptive data for the sample are called statistics .  In general, however, the researcher’s goal is not to draw conclusions about that sample but to draw conclusions about the population that the sample was selected from. Thus researchers must use sample statistics to draw conclusions about the corresponding values in the population. These corresponding values in the population are called parameters . Imagine, for example, that a researcher measures the number of depressive symptoms exhibited by each of 50 adults with clinical depression and computes the mean number of symptoms. The researcher probably wants to use this sample statistic (the mean number of symptoms for the sample) to draw conclusions about the corresponding population parameter (the mean number of symptoms for adults with clinical depression).

Unfortunately, sample statistics are not perfect estimates of their corresponding population parameters. This is because there is a certain amount of random variability in any statistic from sample to sample. The mean number of depressive symptoms might be 8.73 in one sample of adults with clinical depression, 6.45 in a second sample, and 9.44 in a third—even though these samples are selected randomly from the same population. Similarly, the correlation (Pearson’s  r ) between two variables might be +.24 in one sample, −.04 in a second sample, and +.15 in a third—again, even though these samples are selected randomly from the same population. This random variability in a statistic from sample to sample is called  sampling error . (Note that the term error  here refers to random variability and does not imply that anyone has made a mistake. No one “commits a sampling error.”)

One implication of this is that when there is a statistical relationship in a sample, it is not always clear that there is a statistical relationship in the population. A small difference between two group means in a sample might indicate that there is a small difference between the two group means in the population. But it could also be that there is no difference between the means in the population and that the difference in the sample is just a matter of sampling error. Similarly, a Pearson’s  r  value of −.29 in a sample might mean that there is a negative relationship in the population. But it could also be that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample is just a matter of sampling error.

In fact, any statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in two ways:

• There is a relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects this.
• There is no relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error.

The purpose of null hypothesis testing is simply to help researchers decide between these two interpretations.

The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing

Null hypothesis testing (often called null hypothesis significance testing or NHST) is a formal approach to deciding between two interpretations of a statistical relationship in a sample. One interpretation is called the   null hypothesis  (often symbolized  H 0 and read as “H-zero”). This is the idea that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error. Informally, the null hypothesis is that the sample relationship “occurred by chance.” The other interpretation is called the alternative hypothesis  (often symbolized as  H 1 ). This is the idea that there is a relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects this relationship in the population.

Again, every statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in either of these two ways: It might have occurred by chance, or it might reflect a relationship in the population. So researchers need a way to decide between them. Although there are many specific null hypothesis testing techniques, they are all based on the same general logic. The steps are as follows:

• Assume for the moment that the null hypothesis is true. There is no relationship between the variables in the population.
• Determine how likely the sample relationship would be if the null hypothesis were true.
• If the sample relationship would be extremely unlikely, then reject the null hypothesis  in favor of the alternative hypothesis. If it would not be extremely unlikely, then  retain the null hypothesis .

Following this logic, we can begin to understand why Mehl and his colleagues concluded that there is no difference in talkativeness between women and men in the population. In essence, they asked the following question: “If there were no difference in the population, how likely is it that we would find a small difference of  d  = 0.06 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly likely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they retained the null hypothesis—concluding that there is no evidence of a sex difference in the population. We can also see why Kanner and his colleagues concluded that there is a correlation between hassles and symptoms in the population. They asked, “If the null hypothesis were true, how likely is it that we would find a strong correlation of +.60 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly unlikely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis—concluding that there is a positive correlation between these variables in the population.

A crucial step in null hypothesis testing is finding the probability of the sample result or a more extreme result if the null hypothesis were true (Lakens, 2017). [3] This probability is called the p value . A low  p value means that the sample or more extreme result would be unlikely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. A p value that is not low means that the sample or more extreme result would be likely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the retention of the null hypothesis. But how low must the p value criterion be before the sample result is considered unlikely enough to reject the null hypothesis? In null hypothesis testing, this criterion is called α (alpha) and is almost always set to .05. If there is a 5% chance or less of a result at least as extreme as the sample result if the null hypothesis were true, then the null hypothesis is rejected. When this happens, the result is said to be statistically significant . If there is greater than a 5% chance of a result as extreme as the sample result when the null hypothesis is true, then the null hypothesis is retained. This does not necessarily mean that the researcher accepts the null hypothesis as true—only that there is not currently enough evidence to reject it. Researchers often use the expression “fail to reject the null hypothesis” rather than “retain the null hypothesis,” but they never use the expression “accept the null hypothesis.”

The Misunderstood  p  Value

The  p  value is one of the most misunderstood quantities in psychological research (Cohen, 1994) [4] . Even professional researchers misinterpret it, and it is not unusual for such misinterpretations to appear in statistics textbooks!

The most common misinterpretation is that the  p  value is the probability that the null hypothesis is true—that the sample result occurred by chance. For example, a misguided researcher might say that because the  p  value is .02, there is only a 2% chance that the result is due to chance and a 98% chance that it reflects a real relationship in the population. But this is incorrect . The  p  value is really the probability of a result at least as extreme as the sample result  if  the null hypothesis  were  true. So a  p  value of .02 means that if the null hypothesis were true, a sample result this extreme would occur only 2% of the time.

You can avoid this misunderstanding by remembering that the  p  value is not the probability that any particular  hypothesis  is true or false. Instead, it is the probability of obtaining the  sample result  if the null hypothesis were true.

Role of Sample Size and Relationship Strength

Recall that null hypothesis testing involves answering the question, “If the null hypothesis were true, what is the probability of a sample result as extreme as this one?” In other words, “What is the  p  value?” It can be helpful to see that the answer to this question depends on just two considerations: the strength of the relationship and the size of the sample. Specifically, the stronger the sample relationship and the larger the sample, the less likely the result would be if the null hypothesis were true. That is, the lower the  p  value. This should make sense. Imagine a study in which a sample of 500 women is compared with a sample of 500 men in terms of some psychological characteristic, and Cohen’s  d  is a strong 0.50. If there were really no sex difference in the population, then a result this strong based on such a large sample should seem highly unlikely. Now imagine a similar study in which a sample of three women is compared with a sample of three men, and Cohen’s  d  is a weak 0.10. If there were no sex difference in the population, then a relationship this weak based on such a small sample should seem likely. And this is precisely why the null hypothesis would be rejected in the first example and retained in the second.

Of course, sometimes the result can be weak and the sample large, or the result can be strong and the sample small. In these cases, the two considerations trade off against each other so that a weak result can be statistically significant if the sample is large enough and a strong relationship can be statistically significant even if the sample is small. Table 13.1 shows roughly how relationship strength and sample size combine to determine whether a sample result is statistically significant. The columns of the table represent the three levels of relationship strength: weak, medium, and strong. The rows represent four sample sizes that can be considered small, medium, large, and extra large in the context of psychological research. Thus each cell in the table represents a combination of relationship strength and sample size. If a cell contains the word  Yes , then this combination would be statistically significant for both Cohen’s  d  and Pearson’s  r . If it contains the word  No , then it would not be statistically significant for either. There is one cell where the decision for  d  and  r  would be different and another where it might be different depending on some additional considerations, which are discussed in Section 13.2 "Some Basic Null Hypothesis Tests"

Although Table 13.1 provides only a rough guideline, it shows very clearly that weak relationships based on medium or small samples are never statistically significant and that strong relationships based on medium or larger samples are always statistically significant. If you keep this lesson in mind, you will often know whether a result is statistically significant based on the descriptive statistics alone. It is extremely useful to be able to develop this kind of intuitive judgment. One reason is that it allows you to develop expectations about how your formal null hypothesis tests are going to come out, which in turn allows you to detect problems in your analyses. For example, if your sample relationship is strong and your sample is medium, then you would expect to reject the null hypothesis. If for some reason your formal null hypothesis test indicates otherwise, then you need to double-check your computations and interpretations. A second reason is that the ability to make this kind of intuitive judgment is an indication that you understand the basic logic of this approach in addition to being able to do the computations.

Statistical Significance Versus Practical Significance

Table 13.1 illustrates another extremely important point. A statistically significant result is not necessarily a strong one. Even a very weak result can be statistically significant if it is based on a large enough sample. This is closely related to Janet Shibley Hyde’s argument about sex differences (Hyde, 2007) [5] . The differences between women and men in mathematical problem solving and leadership ability are statistically significant. But the word  significant  can cause people to interpret these differences as strong and important—perhaps even important enough to influence the college courses they take or even who they vote for. As we have seen, however, these statistically significant differences are actually quite weak—perhaps even “trivial.”

This is why it is important to distinguish between the  statistical  significance of a result and the  practical  significance of that result.  Practical significance refers to the importance or usefulness of the result in some real-world context. Many sex differences are statistically significant—and may even be interesting for purely scientific reasons—but they are not practically significant. In clinical practice, this same concept is often referred to as “clinical significance.” For example, a study on a new treatment for social phobia might show that it produces a statistically significant positive effect. Yet this effect still might not be strong enough to justify the time, effort, and other costs of putting it into practice—especially if easier and cheaper treatments that work almost as well already exist. Although statistically significant, this result would be said to lack practical or clinical significance.

• List the various types of observational research methods and distinguish between each.
• Describe the strengths and weakness of each observational research method. 

What Is Observational Research?

The term observational research is used to refer to several different types of non-experimental studies in which behavior is systematically observed and recorded. The goal of observational research is to describe a variable or set of variables. More generally, the goal is to obtain a snapshot of specific characteristics of an individual, group, or setting. As described previously, observational research is non-experimental because nothing is manipulated or controlled, and as such we cannot arrive at causal conclusions using this approach. The data that are collected in observational research studies are often qualitative in nature but they may also be quantitative or both (mixed-methods). There are several different types of observational methods that will be described below.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation  is an observational method that involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic observation is a type of field research (as opposed to a type of laboratory research). Jane Goodall's famous research on chimpanzees is a classic example of naturalistic observation. Dr.  Goodall spent three decades observing chimpanzees in their natural environment in East Africa. She examined such things as chimpanzee’s social structure, mating patterns, gender roles, family structure, and care of offspring by observing them in the wild. However, naturalistic observation  could more simply involve observing shoppers in a grocery store, children on a school playground, or psychiatric inpatients in their wards. Researchers engaged in naturalistic observation usually make their observations as unobtrusively as possible so that participants are not aware that they are being studied. Such an approach is called disguised naturalistic observation .  Ethically, this method is considered to be acceptable if the participants remain anonymous and the behavior occurs in a public setting where people would not normally have an expectation of privacy. Grocery shoppers putting items into their shopping carts, for example, are engaged in public behavior that is easily observable by store employees and other shoppers. For this reason, most researchers would consider it ethically acceptable to observe them for a study. On the other hand, one of the arguments against the ethicality of the naturalistic observation of “bathroom behavior” discussed earlier in the book is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public restroom and that this expectation was violated. 

In cases where it is not ethical or practical to conduct disguised naturalistic observation, researchers can conduct  undisguised naturalistic observation where the participants are made aware of the researcher presence and monitoring of their behavior. However, one concern with undisguised naturalistic observation is  reactivity. Reactivity refers to when a measure changes participants’ behavior. In the case of undisguised naturalistic observation, the concern with reactivity is that when people know they are being observed and studied, they may act differently than they normally would. This type of reactivity is known as the Hawthorne effect . For instance, you may act much differently in a bar if you know that someone is observing you and recording your behaviors and this would invalidate the study. So disguised observation is less reactive and therefore can have higher validity because people are not aware that their behaviors are being observed and recorded. However, we now know that people often become used to being observed and with time they begin to behave naturally in the researcher’s presence. In other words, over time people habituate to being observed. Think about reality shows like Big Brother or Survivor where people are constantly being observed and recorded. While they may be on their best behavior at first, in a fairly short amount of time they are flirting, having sex, wearing next to nothing, screaming at each other, and occasionally behaving in ways that are embarrassing.

Participant Observation

Another approach to data collection in observational research is participant observation. In  participant observation , researchers become active participants in the group or situation they are studying. Participant observation is very similar to naturalistic observation in that it involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. As with naturalistic observation, the data that are collected can include interviews (usually unstructured), notes based on their observations and interactions, documents, photographs, and other artifacts. The only difference between naturalistic observation and participant observation is that researchers engaged in participant observation become active members of the group or situations they are studying. The basic rationale for participant observation is that there may be important information that is only accessible to, or can be interpreted only by, someone who is an active participant in the group or situation. Like naturalistic observation, participant observation can be either disguised or undisguised. In disguised participant observation , the researchers pretend to be members of the social group they are observing and conceal their true identity as researchers.

In a famous example of disguised participant observation, Leon Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated a doomsday cult known as the Seekers, whose members believed that the apocalypse would occur on December 21, 1954. Interested in studying how members of the group would cope psychologically when the prophecy inevitably failed, they carefully recorded the events and reactions of the cult members in the days before and after the supposed end of the world. Unsurprisingly, the cult members did not give up their belief but instead convinced themselves that it was their faith and efforts that saved the world from destruction. Festinger and his colleagues later published a book about this experience, which they used to illustrate the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956) [6] .

In contrast with undisguised participant observation ,  the researchers become a part of the group they are studying and they disclose their true identity as researchers to the group under investigation. Once again there are important ethical issues to consider with disguised participant observation.  First no informed consent can be obtained and second deception is being used. The researcher is deceiving the participants by intentionally withholding information about their motivations for being a part of the social group they are studying. But sometimes disguised participation is the only way to access a protective group (like a cult). Further, disguised participant observation is less prone to reactivity than undisguised participant observation. 

Rosenhan’s study (1973) [7]   of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward would be considered disguised participant observation because Rosenhan and his pseudopatients were admitted into psychiatric hospitals on the pretense of being patients so that they could observe the way that psychiatric patients are treated by staff. The staff and other patients were unaware of their true identities as researchers.

Another example of participant observation comes from a study by sociologist Amy Wilkins on a university-based religious organization that emphasized how happy its members were (Wilkins, 2008) [8] . Wilkins spent 12 months attending and participating in the group’s meetings and social events, and she interviewed several group members. In her study, Wilkins identified several ways in which the group “enforced” happiness—for example, by continually talking about happiness, discouraging the expression of negative emotions, and using happiness as a way to distinguish themselves from other groups.

One of the primary benefits of participant observation is that the researchers are in a much better position to understand the viewpoint and experiences of the people they are studying when they are a part of the social group. The primary limitation with this approach is that the mere presence of the observer could affect the behavior of the people being observed. While this is also a concern with naturalistic observation, additional concerns arise when researchers become active members of the social group they are studying because that they may change the social dynamics and/or influence the behavior of the people they are studying. Similarly, if the researcher acts as a participant observer there can be concerns with biases resulting from developing relationships with the participants. Concretely, the researcher may become less objective resulting in more experimenter bias.

Structured Observation

Another observational method is structured observation . Here the investigator makes careful observations of one or more specific behaviors in a particular setting that is more structured than the settings used in naturalistic or participant observation. Often the setting in which the observations are made is not the natural setting. Instead, the researcher may observe people in the laboratory environment. Alternatively, the researcher may observe people in a natural setting (like a classroom setting) that they have structured some way, for instance by introducing some specific task participants are to engage in or by introducing a specific social situation or manipulation.

Structured observation is very similar to naturalistic observation and participant observation in that in all three cases researchers are observing naturally occurring behavior; however, the emphasis in structured observation is on gathering quantitative rather than qualitative data. Researchers using this approach are interested in a limited set of behaviors. This allows them to quantify the behaviors they are observing. In other words, structured observation is less global than naturalistic or participant observation because the researcher engaged in structured observations is interested in a small number of specific behaviors. Therefore, rather than recording everything that happens, the researcher only focuses on very specific behaviors of interest.

Researchers Robert Levine and Ara Norenzayan used structured observation to study differences in the “pace of life” across countries (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999) [9] . One of their measures involved observing pedestrians in a large city to see how long it took them to walk 60 feet. They found that people in some countries walked reliably faster than people in other countries. For example, people in Canada and Sweden covered 60 feet in just under 13 seconds on average, while people in Brazil and Romania took close to 17 seconds. When structured observation  takes place in the complex and even chaotic “real world,” the questions of when, where, and under what conditions the observations will be made, and who exactly will be observed are important to consider. Levine and Norenzayan described their sampling process as follows:

“Male and female walking speed over a distance of 60 feet was measured in at least two locations in main downtown areas in each city. Measurements were taken during main business hours on clear summer days. All locations were flat, unobstructed, had broad sidewalks, and were sufficiently uncrowded to allow pedestrians to move at potentially maximum speeds. To control for the effects of socializing, only pedestrians walking alone were used. Children, individuals with obvious physical handicaps, and window-shoppers were not timed. Thirty-five men and 35 women were timed in most cities.” (p. 186).

Precise specification of the sampling process in this way makes data collection manageable for the observers, and it also provides some control over important extraneous variables. For example, by making their observations on clear summer days in all countries, Levine and Norenzayan controlled for effects of the weather on people’s walking speeds.  In Levine and Norenzayan’s study, measurement was relatively straightforward. They simply measured out a 60-foot distance along a city sidewalk and then used a stopwatch to time participants as they walked over that distance.

As another example, researchers Robert Kraut and Robert Johnston wanted to study bowlers’ reactions to their shots, both when they were facing the pins and then when they turned toward their companions (Kraut & Johnston, 1979) [10] . But what “reactions” should they observe? Based on previous research and their own pilot testing, Kraut and Johnston created a list of reactions that included “closed smile,” “open smile,” “laugh,” “neutral face,” “look down,” “look away,” and “face cover” (covering one’s face with one’s hands). The observers committed this list to memory and then practiced by coding the reactions of bowlers who had been videotaped. During the actual study, the observers spoke into an audio recorder, describing the reactions they observed. Among the most interesting results of this study was that bowlers rarely smiled while they still faced the pins. They were much more likely to smile after they turned toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

In yet another example (this one in a laboratory environment), Dov Cohen and his colleagues had observers rate the emotional reactions of participants who had just been deliberately bumped and insulted by a confederate after they dropped off a completed questionnaire at the end of a hallway. The confederate was posing as someone who worked in the same building and who was frustrated by having to close a file drawer twice in order to permit the participants to walk past them (first to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and once again on their way back to the room where they believed the study they signed up for was taking place). The two observers were positioned at different ends of the hallway so that they could read the participants' body language and hear anything they might say. Interestingly, the researchers hypothesized that participants from the southern United States, which is one of several places in the world that has a "culture of honor," would react with more aggression than participants from the northern United States, a prediction that was in fact supported by the observational data (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996) [11] .

When the observations require a judgment on the part of the observers—as in the studies by Kraut and Johnston and Cohen and his colleagues—a process referred to as   coding is typically required . Coding generally requires clearly defining a set of target behaviors. The observers then categorize participants individually in terms of which behavior they have engaged in and the number of times they engaged in each behavior. The observers might even record the duration of each behavior. The target behaviors must be defined in such a way that guides different observers to code them in the same way. This difficulty with coding illustrates the issue of interrater reliability, as mentioned in Chapter 4. Researchers are expected to demonstrate the interrater reliability of their coding procedure by having multiple raters code the same behaviors independently and then showing that the different observers are in close agreement. Kraut and Johnston, for example, video recorded a subset of their participants’ reactions and had two observers independently code them. The two observers showed that they agreed on the reactions that were exhibited 97% of the time, indicating good interrater reliability.

One of the primary benefits of structured observation is that it is far more efficient than naturalistic and participant observation. Since the researchers are focused on specific behaviors this reduces time and expense. Also, often times the environment is structured to encourage the behaviors of interest which again means that researchers do not have to invest as much time in waiting for the behaviors of interest to naturally occur. Finally, researchers using this approach can clearly exert greater control over the environment. However, when researchers exert more control over the environment it may make the environment less natural which decreases external validity. It is less clear for instance whether structured observations made in a laboratory environment will generalize to a real world environment. Furthermore, since researchers engaged in structured observation are often not disguised there may be more concerns with reactivity.

Case Studies

A  case study   is an in-depth examination of an individual. Sometimes case studies are also completed on social units (e.g., a cult) and events (e.g., a natural disaster). Most commonly in psychology, however, case studies provide a detailed description and analysis of an individual. Often the individual has a rare or unusual condition or disorder or has damage to a specific region of the brain.

Like many observational research methods, case studies tend to be more qualitative in nature. Case study methods involve an in-depth, and often a longitudinal examination of an individual. Depending on the focus of the case study, individuals may or may not be observed in their natural setting. If the natural setting is not what is of interest, then the individual may be brought into a therapist’s office or a researcher’s lab for study. Also, the bulk of the case study report will focus on in-depth descriptions of the person rather than on statistical analyses. With that said some quantitative data may also be included in the write-up of a case study. For instance, an individual's depression score may be compared to normative scores or their score before and after treatment may be compared. As with other qualitative methods, a variety of different methods and tools can be used to collect information on the case. For instance, interviews, naturalistic observation, structured observation, psychological testing (e.g., IQ test), and/or physiological measurements (e.g., brain scans) may be used to collect information on the individual.

HM is one of the most notorious case studies in psychology. HM suffered from intractable and very severe epilepsy. A surgeon localized HM’s epilepsy to his medial temporal lobe and in 1953 he removed large sections of his hippocampus in an attempt to stop the seizures. The treatment was a success, in that it resolved his epilepsy and his IQ and personality were unaffected. However, the doctors soon realized that HM exhibited a strange form of amnesia, called anterograde amnesia. HM was able to carry out a conversation and he could remember short strings of letters, digits, and words. Basically, his short term memory was preserved. However, HM could not commit new events to memory. He lost the ability to transfer information from his short-term memory to his long term memory, something memory researchers call consolidation. So while he could carry on a conversation with someone, he would completely forget the conversation after it ended. This was an extremely important case study for memory researchers because it suggested that there’s a dissociation between short-term memory and long-term memory, it suggested that these were two different abilities sub-served by different areas of the brain. It also suggested that the temporal lobes are particularly important for consolidating new information (i.e., for transferring information from short-term memory to long-term memory).

The history of psychology is filled with influential cases studies, such as Sigmund Freud’s description of “Anna O.” (see Note 6.1 "The Case of “Anna O.”") and John Watson and Rosalie Rayner’s description of Little Albert (Watson & Rayner, 1920) [12] , who allegedly learned to fear a white rat—along with other furry objects—when the researchers repeatedly made a loud noise every time the rat approached him.

The Case of “Anna O.”

Sigmund Freud used the case of a young woman he called “Anna O.” to illustrate many principles of his theory of psychoanalysis (Freud, 1961) [13] . (Her real name was Bertha Pappenheim, and she was an early feminist who went on to make important contributions to the field of social work.) Anna had come to Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer around 1880 with a variety of odd physical and psychological symptoms. One of them was that for several weeks she was unable to drink any fluids. According to Freud,

She would take up the glass of water that she longed for, but as soon as it touched her lips she would push it away like someone suffering from hydrophobia.…She lived only on fruit, such as melons, etc., so as to lessen her tormenting thirst. (p. 9)

But according to Freud, a breakthrough came one day while Anna was under hypnosis.

[S]he grumbled about her English “lady-companion,” whom she did not care for, and went on to describe, with every sign of disgust, how she had once gone into this lady’s room and how her little dog—horrid creature!—had drunk out of a glass there. The patient had said nothing, as she had wanted to be polite. After giving further energetic expression to the anger she had held back, she asked for something to drink, drank a large quantity of water without any difficulty, and awoke from her hypnosis with the glass at her lips; and thereupon the disturbance vanished, never to return. (p.9)

Freud’s interpretation was that Anna had repressed the memory of this incident along with the emotion that it triggered and that this was what had caused her inability to drink. Furthermore, he believed that her recollection of the incident, along with her expression of the emotion she had repressed, caused the symptom to go away.

As an illustration of Freud’s theory, the case study of Anna O. is quite effective. As evidence for the theory, however, it is essentially worthless. The description provides no way of knowing whether Anna had really repressed the memory of the dog drinking from the glass, whether this repression had caused her inability to drink, or whether recalling this “trauma” relieved the symptom. It is also unclear from this case study how typical or atypical Anna’s experience was.

Case studies are useful because they provide a level of detailed analysis not found in many other research methods and greater insights may be gained from this more detailed analysis. As a result of the case study, the researcher may gain a sharpened understanding of what might become important to look at more extensively in future more controlled research. Case studies are also often the only way to study rare conditions because it may be impossible to find a large enough sample of individuals with the condition to use quantitative methods. Although at first glance a case study of a rare individual might seem to tell us little about ourselves, they often do provide insights into normal behavior. The case of HM provided important insights into the role of the hippocampus in memory consolidation.

However, it is important to note that while case studies can provide insights into certain areas and variables to study, and can be useful in helping develop theories, they should never be used as evidence for theories. In other words, case studies can be used as inspiration to formulate theories and hypotheses, but those hypotheses and theories then need to be formally tested using more rigorous quantitative methods. The reason case studies shouldn’t be used to provide support for theories is that they suffer from problems with both internal and external validity. Case studies lack the proper controls that true experiments contain. As such, they suffer from problems with internal validity, so they cannot be used to determine causation. For instance, during HM’s surgery, the surgeon may have accidentally lesioned another area of HM's brain (a possibility suggested by the dissection of HM's brain following his death) and that lesion may have contributed to his inability to consolidate new information. The fact is, with case studies we cannot rule out these sorts of alternative explanations. So, as with all observational methods, case studies do not permit determination of causation. In addition, because case studies are often of a single individual, and typically an abnormal individual, researchers cannot generalize their conclusions to other individuals. Recall that with most research designs there is a trade-off between internal and external validity. With case studies, however, there are problems with both internal validity and external validity. So there are limits both to the ability to determine causation and to generalize the results. A final limitation of case studies is that ample opportunity exists for the theoretical biases of the researcher to color or bias the case description. Indeed, there have been accusations that the woman who studied HM destroyed a lot of her data that were not published and she has been called into question for destroying contradictory data that didn’t support her theory about how memories are consolidated. There is a fascinating New York Times article that describes some of the controversies that ensued after HM's death and analysis of his brain that can be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/magazine/the-brain-that-couldnt-remember.html?_r=0

Archival Research

Another approach that is often considered observational research involves analyzing archival data that have already been collected for some other purpose. An example is a study by Brett Pelham and his colleagues on “implicit egotism”—the tendency for people to prefer people, places, and things that are similar to themselves (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005) [14] . In one study, they examined Social Security records to show that women with the names Virginia, Georgia, Louise, and Florence were especially likely to have moved to the states of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, respectively.

As with naturalistic observation, measurement can be more or less straightforward when working with archival data. For example, counting the number of people named Virginia who live in various states based on Social Security records is relatively straightforward. But consider a study by Christopher Peterson and his colleagues on the relationship between optimism and health using data that had been collected many years before for a study on adult development (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988) [15] . In the 1940s, healthy male college students had completed an open-ended questionnaire about difficult wartime experiences. In the late 1980s, Peterson and his colleagues reviewed the men’s questionnaire responses to obtain a measure of explanatory style—their habitual ways of explaining bad events that happen to them. More pessimistic people tend to blame themselves and expect long-term negative consequences that affect many aspects of their lives, while more optimistic people tend to blame outside forces and expect limited negative consequences. To obtain a measure of explanatory style for each participant, the researchers used a procedure in which all negative events mentioned in the questionnaire responses, and any causal explanations for them were identified and written on index cards. These were given to a separate group of raters who rated each explanation in terms of three separate dimensions of optimism-pessimism. These ratings were then averaged to produce an explanatory style score for each participant. The researchers then assessed the statistical relationship between the men’s explanatory style as undergraduate students and archival measures of their health at approximately 60 years of age. The primary result was that the more optimistic the men were as undergraduate students, the healthier they were as older men. Pearson’s  r  was +.25.

This method is an example of  content analysis —a family of systematic approaches to measurement using complex archival data. Just as structured observation requires specifying the behaviors of interest and then noting them as they occur, content analysis requires specifying keywords, phrases, or ideas and then finding all occurrences of them in the data. These occurrences can then be counted, timed (e.g., the amount of time devoted to entertainment topics on the nightly news show), or analyzed in a variety of other ways.

• Explain some reasons that researchers use complex correlational designs.
• Create and interpret a correlation matrix.
• Describe how researchers can use partial correlation and multiple regression to statistically control for third variables.

As we have already seen, researchers conduct correlational studies rather than experiments when they are interested in noncausal relationships or when they are interested in causal relationships but the independent variable cannot be manipulated for practical or ethical reasons. In this section, we look at some approaches to complex correlational research that involve measuring several variables and assessing the relationships among them.

Assessing Relationships Among Multiple Variables

Most complex correlational research involves measuring several variables—either binary or continuous—and then assessing the statistical relationships among them. For example, researchers Nathan Radcliffe and William Klein studied a sample of middle-aged adults to see how their level of optimism (measured by using a short questionnaire called the Life Orientation Test) relates to several other variables related to having a heart attack (Radcliffe & Klein, 2002) [16] . These included their health, their knowledge of heart attack risk factors, and their beliefs about their own risk of having a heart attack. They found that more optimistic participants were healthier (e.g., they exercised more and had lower blood pressure), knew about heart attack risk factors, and correctly believed their own risk to be lower than that of their peers.

In another example, Ernest Jouriles and his colleagues measured adolescents' experiences of physical and psychological relationship aggression and their psychological distress. Because measures of physical aggression (such as the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory and the Relationship Violence Interview) often tend to result in highly skewed distributions, the researchers transformed their measures of physical aggression into a dichotomous (i.e., binary) measure (0 = did not occur, 1 = did occur). They did the same with their measures of psychological aggression and then measured the correlations among these variables, finding that adolescents who experienced physical aggression were moderately likely to also have experienced psychological aggression and that experiencing psychological aggression was related to symptoms of psychological distress. (Jouriles, Garrido, Rosenfield, & McDonald, 2009) [17]

This approach is often used to assess the validity of new psychological measures. For example, when John Cacioppo and Richard Petty created their Need for Cognition Scale—a measure of the extent to which people like to think and value thinking—they used it to measure the need for cognition for a large sample of college students, along with three other variables: intelligence, socially desirable responding (the tendency to give what one thinks is the “appropriate” response), and dogmatism (Caccioppo & Petty, 1982) [18] . The results of this study are summarized in Table 6.1, which is a  correlation matrix   showing the correlation (Pearson’s  r ) between every possible pair of variables in the study. For example, the correlation between the need for cognition and intelligence was +.39, the correlation between intelligence and socially desirable responding was +.02, and so on. (Only half the matrix is filled in because the other half would contain exactly the same information. Also, because the correlation between a variable and itself is always +1.00, these values are replaced with dashes throughout the matrix.) In this case, the overall pattern of correlations was consistent with the researchers’ ideas about how scores on the need for cognition should be related to these other constructs.

Table 6.1 Correlation Matrix Showing Correlations Among the Need for Cognition and Three Other Variables Based on Research by Cacioppo and Petty (1982)

Factor Analysis

When researchers study relationships among a large number of conceptually similar variables, they often use a complex statistical technique called factor analysis . In essence, factor analysis organizes the variables into a smaller number of clusters, such that they are strongly correlated within each cluster but weakly correlated between clusters. Each cluster is then interpreted as multiple measures of the same underlying construct. These underlying constructs are also called “factors.” For example, when people perform a wide variety of mental tasks, factor analysis typically organizes them into two main factors—one that researchers interpret as mathematical intelligence (arithmetic, quantitative estimation, spatial reasoning, and so on) and another that they interpret as verbal intelligence (grammar, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and so on). The Big Five personality factors have been identified through factor analyses of people’s scores on a large number of more specific traits. For example, measures of warmth, gregariousness, activity level, and positive emotions tend to be highly correlated with each other and are interpreted as representing the construct of extraversion. As a final example, researchers Peter Rentfrow and Samuel Gosling asked more than 1,700 university students to rate how much they liked 14 different popular genres of music (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2008) [19] . They then submitted these 14 variables to a factor analysis, which identified four distinct factors. The researchers called them  Reflective and Complex  (blues, jazz, classical, and folk),  Intense and Rebellious  (rock, alternative, and heavy metal),  Upbeat and Conventional  (country, soundtrack, religious, pop), and  Energetic and Rhythmic (rap/hip-hop, soul/funk, and electronica); see Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Factor Loadings of the 14 Music Genres on Four Varimax-Rotated Principal Components. Based on Research by Rentfrow and Gosling (2003)

Two additional points about factor analysis are worth making here. One is that factors are not categories. Factor analysis does not tell us that people are  either extraverted  or  conscientious or that they like  either  “reflective and complex” music  or  “intense and rebellious” music. Instead, factors are constructs that operate independently of each other. So people who are high in extraversion might be high or low in conscientiousness, and people who like reflective and complex music might or might not also like intense and rebellious music. The second point is that factor analysis reveals only the underlying structure of the variables. It is up to researchers to interpret and label the factors and to explain the origin of that particular factor structure. For example, one reason that extraversion and the other Big Five operate as separate factors is that they appear to be controlled by different genes (Plomin, DeFries, McClean, & McGuffin, 2008) [20] .

Exploring Causal Relationships

Another important use of complex correlational research is to explore possible causal relationships among variables. This might seem surprising given the oft-quoted saying that "correlation does not imply causation.” It is true that correlational research cannot unambiguously establish that one variable causes another. Complex correlational research, however, can often be used to rule out other plausible interpretations. The primary way of doing this is through the statistical control of potential third variables. Instead of controlling these variables through random assignment or by holding them constant as in an experiment, the researcher instead measures them and includes them in the statistical analysis called  partial correlation . Using this technique, researchers can examine the relationship between two variables, while statistically controlling for one or more potential third variables.

For example, assume a researcher was interested in the relationship between watching violent television shows and aggressive behavior but she was concerned that socioeconomic status (SES) might represent a third variable that is driving this relationship. In this case, she could conduct a study in which she measures the amount of violent television that participants watch in their everyday life, the number of acts of aggression that they have engaged in, and their SES. She could first examine the correlation between violent television viewing and aggression. Let's say she found a correlation of +.35, which would be considered a moderate sized positive correlation. Next, she could use partial correlation to reexamine this relationship after statistically controlling for SES. This technique would allow her to examine the relationship between the part of violent television viewing that is independent of SES and the part of aggressive behavior that is independent of SES. If she found that the partial correlation between violent television viewing and aggression while controlling for SES was +.34, that would suggest that the relationship between violent television viewing and aggression is largely independent of SES (i.e., SES is not a third variable driving this relationship). On the other hand, if she found that after statistically controlling for SES the correlation between violent television viewing and aggression dropped to +.03, then that would suggest that SES is indeed a third variable that is driving the relationship. If, however, she found that statistically controlling for SES reduced the magnitude of the correlation from +.35 to +.20, then this would suggest that SES accounts for some, but not all, of the relationship between television violence and aggression. It is important to note that while partial correlation provides an important tool for researchers to statistically control for third variables, researchers using this technique are still limited in their ability to arrive at causal conclusions because this technique does not take care of the directionality problem and there may be other third variables driving the relationship that the researcher did not consider and statistically control.

Once a relationship between two variables has been established, researchers can use that information to make predictions about the value of one variable given the value of another variable. For, instance, once we have established that there is a correlation between IQ and GPA we can use people's IQ scores to predict their GPA. Thus, while correlation coefficients can be used to describe the strength and direction of relationships between variables, regression   is a statistical technique that allows researchers to predict one variable given another. Regression can also be used to describe more complex relationships between more than two variables. Typically the variable that is used to make the prediction is referred to as the  predictor variable   and the variable that is being predicted is called the  outcome variable or criterion variable .  This regression equation has the following general form:

Y = b 1 X 1

 Y in this formula represents the person's predicted score on the outcome variable, b 1   represents the slope of the line depicting the relationship between two variables (or the regression weight), and X 1  represents the person's score on the predictor variable. You can see that to predict a person's score on the outcome variable (Y), one simply needs to multiply their score on the predictor variable (X) by the regression weight ( b 1 )

While simple regression   involves using one variable to predict another,  multiple regression   involves measuring several variables ( X1, X2, X3,…Xi ), and using them to predict some outcome variable ( Y ). Multiple regression can also be used to simply describe the relationship between a single outcome variable (Y) and a set of predictor variables ( X1, X2, X3,…Xi ). The result of a multiple regression analysis is an equation that expresses the outcome variable as an additive combination of the predictor variables. This regression equation has the following general form:

Y = b 1 X 1 + b 2 X 2 + b 3 X 3 + … + b i X i 

The regression weights ( b 1 , b 2 , and so on) indicate how large a contribution a predictor variable makes, on average, to the prediction of the outcome variable. Specifically, they indicate how much the outcome variable changes for each one-unit change in the predictor variable.

The advantage of multiple regression is that it can show whether a predictor variable makes a contribution to an outcome variable  over and above  the contributions made by other predictor variables (i.e., it can be used to show whether a predictor variable is related to an outcome variable after statistically controlling for other predictor variables). As a hypothetical example, imagine that a researcher wants to know how income and health relate to happiness. This is tricky because income and health are themselves related to each other. Thus if people with greater incomes tend to be happier, then perhaps this is only because they tend to be healthier. Likewise, if people who are healthier tend to be happier, perhaps this is only because they tend to make more money. But a multiple regression analysis including both income and health as predictor variables would show whether each one makes a contribution to the prediction of happiness when the other is taken into account (when it is statistically controlled). In other words, multiple regression would allow the researcher to examine whether that part of income that is unrelated to health predicts or relates to happiness as well as whether that part of health that is unrelated to income predicts or relates to happiness. Research like this, by the way, has shown both income and health make extremely small contributions to happiness except in the case of severe poverty or illness (Diener, 2000 [21] ).

The examples discussed in this section only scratch the surface of how researchers use complex correlational research to explore possible causal relationships among variables. It is important to keep in mind, however, that purely correlational approaches cannot unambiguously establish that one variable causes another. The best they can do is show patterns of relationships that are consistent with some causal interpretations and inconsistent with others.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, Dana C. Leighton & Molly A. Metz is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
• > Volume 34 Issue 6
• > Quasi-Experimental Design (Pre-Test and Post-Test Studies)...

Article contents

Quasi-experimental design (pre-test and post-test studies) in prehospital and disaster research.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2019

This article is another in a series that discusses research methods frequently used in prehospital and disaster research. A common type of submission to Prehospital and Disaster Medicine is research based on a pre-test and post-test evaluation of an education curriculum, triage scheme, or simulation training method. This is particularly true of studies comparing or proposing validation of mass-casualty triage algorithms.

Pre-test and post-test research is one of many forms of quasi-experimental design. The term “quasi” means resembling experimental research, but does not imply that the quasi-experimental method is true experimental research. An example of quasi-experimental design is the testing of a new mass-casualty triage system by selecting a group of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel and first having the group participate in a pre-test session based on triage scenarios, participate in a training for a new triage method, and then compare post-test results with pre-test scores. If post-test scores are above the pre-test scores, one assumes the triage training was successful.

Pre-test and post-test design is also used in evaluations of participants attitudes or perceptions relative to an event or to assess comfort in applying the information presented in a training session or with introduction of new concept (acceptance and efficacy study). One would assume that an increase in knowledge or positive attitude that is evident in better scoring on a post-test compared to a pre-test implies better knowledge or perception relative to an intervention applied after the pre-test.

An advantage of a pre-test and post-test study design is that there is a directionality of the research, meaning there is testing of a dependent variable (knowledge or attitude) before and after intervention with an independent variable (training or an information presentation session). This appears to be similar to classic experimental design, yet because participants in the study are most often not randomly assigned, quasi-experimental design is also a correlation (non-experimental) design. Because quasi-experimental research is not truly experimental in design, outcome causality cannot be determined, rather associations between interventions and outcomes are made.

As far back as the 18th Century, pre-test and post-test research methods have been used in many fields, including medicine-nursing, health, mental health, and education. The method has remained in common use because it is a rapid, convenient method to assess a target group to which an intervention has been applied. The literature base is rich with pre-test/post-test studies, which allows for comparison of these studies and meta-analysis of previously published work of this form. Pre-test and post-test evaluation also allows for immediate assessment of an intervention (such as a simulation session) and provides a means for rapid refinement of instructor teaching or simulation technique. In addition to being a convenient research method, pre-test and post-test design allows for statistical analysis of data using established statistical methods.

Pre-test and post-test design based on purposeful sampling allows for assessment of specific representatives of a population of interest, but not of the population as a whole. For example, if one wishes to evaluate the effect of a simulation session on the knowledge of a disaster Emergency Medical Team, that team can be included as the participants in a simulation exercise in which a pre-test and a post-test is used to evaluate results. But, the results from such an evaluation are only valid for the Team tested and not other Emergency Medical Teams.

In the 1960s, the validity of quasi-experimental design came into question with a number of papers published that evaluated the various forms of this type of research. Since that time, limitations of pre-post-test study design have been identified. As noted above, the participants in these types of studies are rarely selected by random sampling and represent a convenience or purposeful sample. The lack of a randomized recruitment of participants represents non-probalistic sampling, and therefore, results of such a study can only be applied to the participants and not a general target population. The use of testing, in itself, may add bias to a study. A pre-test will likely sensitize those taking it to the test itself and alert participants to the limited material required to score better on a post-test rather than acquiring adequate general knowledge for the subject of interest. This is a particular problem when the pre-test and post-test are the same or similar. Pre-testing also allows for participants to become more familiar with terminology and allows for ease in taking and scoring higher on a post-test. Another limitation of pre-test and post-test design is the phenomenon of statistical regression or the tendency of a group to move to a common mean as an artifact of repeated testing. In other words, those that scored poorly on pre-testing have nowhere to go but up in score and those that scored high in pre-testing have nowhere to go but down in score of the post-test. Other limitations of pre-test and post-test design include knowledge or attitude “decay,” or changes in retaining information or skills that occur with time. For example, a knowledge-based pre-test and post-test study may show good initial results, but without application of the knowledge gained, concepts will be lost (forgotten) with time unless applied on a frequent basis. This is an even greater problem for attitude assessment pre-test and post-test studies in which attitudes can change rapidly based on personal experience and external stimulants (media, social interactions) with loss of positive results of an intervention over time.

There are a number of methods that can be used to improve validity of pre-test and post-test study designs. One obvious strategy is to select a target group (for example paramedics in a system) and randomly select a group of study participants and randomly select a group of controls. Both the study group and control group would then take the pre-test and post-test at the same time interval, with only the study group receiving the intervention (example, a simulation session). Comparing testing scores for the study and control group addresses some limitations inherent in testing validity. Another method to improve validity is to design a study with a pre-test, immediate post-test, and later post-test (usually six months following the intervention) to allow for consideration of learning or attitude decay and on-going external stimulation. Using different questions relative to general knowledge acquisition or attitude on a pre-test and post-test will also improve validity. Important is that both the pre-test and post-test are validated for showing accuracy in measuring the outcomes of interest prior to being used in the study. Tests should be scored consistently, preferably by a non-biased scorer (grader) who ideally is blinded to the participants for whom the tests apply and is not one who designed or organized the intervention session.

Finally, application of statistical test for evaluation of pre-test and post-test results should be appropriate. Essential is the use of 25% and 75% quartiles for ordinal data medians (such as Likert Scale data) and 95% Confidence Intervals for means and proportions. While probability statistics such as t-Tests and Chi-square analysis may show statistical significance, overlapping of the ranges in measures of central tendency (confidence intervals or quartiles) of the mean or median show a lack of clinical significance and poor practical application for research results.

In summary, quasi-experimental design has been a common research method used for centuries. Pre-test and post-test design is a form of quasi-experimental research that allows for uncomplicated assessment of an intervention applied to a group of study participants. Validity of pre-test and post-test studies is difficult to achieve as the research design has inherent flaws, but strategies such as use of randomization, limiting internal and external bias, and appropriate application of basic statistics allow a researcher to make associations in outcome measures with this popular study design.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 34, Issue 6
• Samuel J. Stratton
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X19005053

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

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

Chapter 7: Nonexperimental Research

Quasi-Experimental Research

Learning Objectives

• Explain what quasi-experimental research is and distinguish it clearly from both experimental and correlational research.
• Describe three different types of quasi-experimental research designs (nonequivalent groups, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time series) and identify examples of each one.

The prefix  quasi  means “resembling.” Thus quasi-experimental research is research that resembles experimental research but is not true experimental research. Although the independent variable is manipulated, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (Cook & Campbell, 1979). [1] Because the independent variable is manipulated before the dependent variable is measured, quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem. But because participants are not randomly assigned—making it likely that there are other differences between conditions—quasi-experimental research does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables. In terms of internal validity, therefore, quasi-experiments are generally somewhere between correlational studies and true experiments.

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. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here.

Nonequivalent Groups Design

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A  nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.

Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This design would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments, might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Design

In a  pretest-posttest design , the dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is implemented and once after it is implemented. Imagine, for example, a researcher who is interested in the effectiveness of an antidrug education program on elementary school students’ attitudes toward illegal drugs. The researcher could measure the attitudes of students at a particular elementary school during one week, implement the antidrug program during the next week, and finally, measure their attitudes again the following week. The pretest-posttest design is much like a within-subjects experiment in which each participant is tested first under the control condition and then under the treatment condition. It is unlike a within-subjects experiment, however, in that the order of conditions is not counterbalanced because it typically is not possible for a participant to be tested in the treatment condition first and then in an “untreated” control condition.

If the average posttest score is better than the average pretest score, then it makes sense to conclude that the treatment might be responsible for the improvement. Unfortunately, one often cannot conclude this with a high degree of certainty because there may be other explanations for why the posttest scores are better. One category of alternative explanations goes under the name of  history . Other things might have happened between the pretest and the posttest. Perhaps an antidrug program aired on television and many of the students watched it, or perhaps a celebrity died of a drug overdose and many of the students heard about it. Another category of alternative explanations goes under the name of  maturation . Participants might have changed between the pretest and the posttest in ways that they were going to anyway because they are growing and learning. If it were a yearlong program, participants might become less impulsive or better reasoners and this might be responsible for the change.

Another alternative explanation for a change in the dependent variable in a pretest-posttest design is  regression to the mean . This refers to the statistical fact that an individual who scores extremely on a variable on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion. For example, a bowler with a long-term average of 150 who suddenly bowls a 220 will almost certainly score lower in the next game. Her score will “regress” toward her mean score of 150. Regression to the mean can be a problem when participants are selected for further study  because  of their extreme scores. Imagine, for example, that only students who scored especially low on a test of fractions are given a special training program and then retested. Regression to the mean all but guarantees that their scores will be higher even if the training program has no effect. A closely related concept—and an extremely important one in psychological research—is  spontaneous remission . This is the tendency for many medical and psychological problems to improve over time without any form of treatment. The common cold is a good example. If one were to measure symptom severity in 100 common cold sufferers today, give them a bowl of chicken soup every day, and then measure their symptom severity again in a week, they would probably be much improved. This does not mean that the chicken soup was responsible for the improvement, however, because they would have been much improved without any treatment at all. The same is true of many psychological problems. A group of severely depressed people today is likely to be less depressed on average in 6 months. In reviewing the results of several studies of treatments for depression, researchers Michael Posternak and Ivan Miller found that participants in waitlist control conditions improved an average of 10 to 15% before they received any treatment at all (Posternak & Miller, 2001) [2] . Thus one must generally be very cautious about inferring causality from pretest-posttest designs.

Does Psychotherapy Work?

Early studies on the effectiveness of psychotherapy tended to use pretest-posttest designs. In a classic 1952 article, researcher Hans Eysenck summarized the results of 24 such studies showing that about two thirds of patients improved between the pretest and the posttest (Eysenck, 1952) [3] . But Eysenck also compared these results with archival data from state hospital and insurance company records showing that similar patients recovered at about the same rate  without  receiving psychotherapy. This parallel suggested to Eysenck that the improvement that patients showed in the pretest-posttest studies might be no more than spontaneous remission. Note that Eysenck did not conclude that psychotherapy was ineffective. He merely concluded that there was no evidence that it was, and he wrote of “the necessity of properly planned and executed experimental studies into this important field” (p. 323). You can read the entire article here: Classics in the History of Psychology .

Fortunately, many other researchers took up Eysenck’s challenge, and by 1980 hundreds of experiments had been conducted in which participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions, and the results were summarized in a classic book by Mary Lee Smith, Gene Glass, and Thomas Miller (Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980) [4] . They found that overall psychotherapy was quite effective, with about 80% of treatment participants improving more than the average control participant. Subsequent research has focused more on the conditions under which different types of psychotherapy are more or less effective.

Interrupted Time Series Design

A variant of the pretest-posttest design is the  interrupted time-series design . A time series is a set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time. For example, a manufacturing company might measure its workers’ productivity each week for a year. In an interrupted time series-design, a time series like this one is “interrupted” by a treatment. In one classic example, the treatment was the reduction of the work shifts in a factory from 10 hours to 8 hours (Cook & Campbell, 1979) [5] . Because productivity increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts, and because it remained elevated for many months afterward, the researcher concluded that the shortening of the shifts caused the increase in productivity. Notice that the interrupted time-series design is like a pretest-posttest design in that it includes measurements of the dependent variable both before and after the treatment. It is unlike the pretest-posttest design, however, in that it includes multiple pretest and posttest measurements.

Figure 7.3 shows data from a hypothetical interrupted time-series study. The dependent variable is the number of student absences per week in a research methods course. The treatment is that the instructor begins publicly taking attendance each day so that students know that the instructor is aware of who is present and who is absent. The top panel of  Figure 7.3 shows how the data might look if this treatment worked. There is a consistently high number of absences before the treatment, and there is an immediate and sustained drop in absences after the treatment. The bottom panel of  Figure 7.3 shows how the data might look if this treatment did not work. On average, the number of absences after the treatment is about the same as the number before. This figure also illustrates an advantage of the interrupted time-series design over a simpler pretest-posttest design. If there had been only one measurement of absences before the treatment at Week 7 and one afterward at Week 8, then it would have looked as though the treatment were responsible for the reduction. The multiple measurements both before and after the treatment suggest that the reduction between Weeks 7 and 8 is nothing more than normal week-to-week variation.

Combination Designs

A type of quasi-experimental design that is generally better than either the nonequivalent groups design or the pretest-posttest design is one that combines elements of both. There is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a control group that is given a pretest, does  not  receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve but whether they improve  more  than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then are exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this change in attitude could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Finally, if participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true experiment rather than a quasi experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Key Takeaways

• Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions. Among the important types are nonequivalent groups designs, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time-series designs.
• Quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem because it involves the manipulation of the independent variable. It does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables, however, because it does not involve random assignment to conditions. For these reasons, quasi-experimental research is generally higher in internal validity than correlational studies but lower than true experiments.
• Practice: Imagine that two professors decide to test the effect of giving daily quizzes on student performance in a statistics course. They decide that Professor A will give quizzes but Professor B will not. They will then compare the performance of students in their two sections on a common final exam. List five other variables that might differ between the two sections that could affect the results.
• regression to the mean
• spontaneous remission

Image Descriptions

Figure 7.3 image description: Two line graphs charting the number of absences per week over 14 weeks. The first 7 weeks are without treatment and the last 7 weeks are with treatment. In the first line graph, there are between 4 to 8 absences each week. After the treatment, the absences drop to 0 to 3 each week, which suggests the treatment worked. In the second line graph, there is no noticeable change in the number of absences per week after the treatment, which suggests the treatment did not work. [Return to Figure 7.3]

• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. ↵
• Posternak, M. A., & Miller, I. (2001). Untreated short-term course of major depression: A meta-analysis of studies using outcomes from studies using wait-list control groups. Journal of Affective Disorders, 66 , 139–146. ↵
• Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 , 319–324. ↵
• Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ↵

A between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.

The dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is implemented and once after it is implemented.

A category of alternative explanations for differences between scores such as events that happened between the pretest and posttest, unrelated to the study.

An alternative explanation that refers to how the participants might have changed between the pretest and posttest in ways that they were going to anyway because they are growing and learning.

The statistical fact that an individual who scores extremely on a variable on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion.

The tendency for many medical and psychological problems to improve over time without any form of treatment.

A set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time that are interrupted by a treatment.

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples

Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples

Published on July 31, 2020 by Lauren Thomas . Revised on January 22, 2024.

Like a true experiment , a quasi-experimental design aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable .

However, unlike a true experiment, a quasi-experiment does not rely on random assignment . Instead, subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria.

Quasi-experimental design is a useful tool in situations where true experiments cannot be used for ethical or practical reasons.

Table of contents

Differences between quasi-experiments and true experiments, types of quasi-experimental designs, when to use quasi-experimental design, advantages and disadvantages, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about quasi-experimental designs.

There are several common differences between true and quasi-experimental designs.

Example of a true experiment vs a quasi-experiment

However, for ethical reasons, the directors of the mental health clinic may not give you permission to randomly assign their patients to treatments. In this case, you cannot run a true experiment.

Instead, you can use a quasi-experimental design.

You can use these pre-existing groups to study the symptom progression of the patients treated with the new therapy versus those receiving the standard course of treatment.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Many types of quasi-experimental designs exist. Here we explain three of the most common types: nonequivalent groups design, regression discontinuity, and natural experiments.

Nonequivalent groups design

In nonequivalent group design, the researcher chooses existing groups that appear similar, but where only one of the groups experiences the treatment.

In a true experiment with random assignment , the control and treatment groups are considered equivalent in every way other than the treatment. But in a quasi-experiment where the groups are not random, they may differ in other ways—they are nonequivalent groups .

When using this kind of design, researchers try to account for any confounding variables by controlling for them in their analysis or by choosing groups that are as similar as possible.

This is the most common type of quasi-experimental design.

Regression discontinuity

Many potential treatments that researchers wish to study are designed around an essentially arbitrary cutoff, where those above the threshold receive the treatment and those below it do not.

Near this threshold, the differences between the two groups are often so minimal as to be nearly nonexistent. Therefore, researchers can use individuals just below the threshold as a control group and those just above as a treatment group.

However, since the exact cutoff score is arbitrary, the students near the threshold—those who just barely pass the exam and those who fail by a very small margin—tend to be very similar, with the small differences in their scores mostly due to random chance. You can therefore conclude that any outcome differences must come from the school they attended.

Natural experiments

In both laboratory and field experiments, researchers normally control which group the subjects are assigned to. In a natural experiment, an external event or situation (“nature”) results in the random or random-like assignment of subjects to the treatment group.

Even though some use random assignments, natural experiments are not considered to be true experiments because they are observational in nature.

Although the researchers have no control over the independent variable , they can exploit this event after the fact to study the effect of the treatment.

However, as they could not afford to cover everyone who they deemed eligible for the program, they instead allocated spots in the program based on a random lottery.

Although true experiments have higher internal validity , you might choose to use a quasi-experimental design for ethical or practical reasons.

Sometimes it would be unethical to provide or withhold a treatment on a random basis, so a true experiment is not feasible. In this case, a quasi-experiment can allow you to study the same causal relationship without the ethical issues.

The Oregon Health Study is a good example. It would be unethical to randomly provide some people with health insurance but purposely prevent others from receiving it solely for the purposes of research.

However, since the Oregon government faced financial constraints and decided to provide health insurance via lottery, studying this event after the fact is a much more ethical approach to studying the same problem.

True experimental design may be infeasible to implement or simply too expensive, particularly for researchers without access to large funding streams.

At other times, too much work is involved in recruiting and properly designing an experimental intervention for an adequate number of subjects to justify a true experiment.

In either case, quasi-experimental designs allow you to study the question by taking advantage of data that has previously been paid for or collected by others (often the government).

Quasi-experimental designs have various pros and cons compared to other types of studies.

• Higher external validity than most true experiments, because they often involve real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.
• Higher internal validity than other non-experimental types of research, because they allow you to better control for confounding variables than other types of studies do.
• Lower internal validity than true experiments—without randomization, it can be difficult to verify that all confounding variables have been accounted for.
• The use of retrospective data that has already been collected for other purposes can be inaccurate, incomplete or difficult to access.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.

In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomization. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.

Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .

Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity  as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Thomas, L. (2024, January 22). Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quasi-experimental-design/

Is this article helpful?

Lauren Thomas

Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, random assignment in experiments | introduction & examples, control variables | what are they & why do they matter, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

A review of the non-equivalent control group post-test-only design

Affiliation.

• 1 Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Winnipeg MB, Canada, and graduate student, College of Nursing, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB, Canada.
• PMID: 30226337
• DOI: 10.7748/nr.2018.e1582

Background: Quantitative research designs are broadly classified as either experimental or quasi-experimental. The main distinguishing feature of the quasi-experiment is the manipulation of the independent variable without randomisation. When randomisation or use of a control group is unfeasible, a researcher can choose from a range of quasi-experimental designs.

Aim: To present the features of the quasi-experimental 'non-equivalent control group post-test-only' design, which aims to demonstrate causality between an intervention and an outcome.

Discussion: This paper provides an overview of the non-equivalent control group post-test-only design in terms of its design features, applications and statistical analysis, as well as its advantages and disadvantages.

Conclusion: The non-equivalent control group post-test-only design can be used in natural settings, where randomisation cannot be conducted for ethical or practical reasons. Although the design is less complex than some other designs, with low error propagation, it is vulnerable to threats to internal validity.

Keywords: nursing research; quantitative research; quasi-experimental design; statistical analysis.

©2018 RCN Publishing Company Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be copied, transmitted or recorded in any way, in whole or part, without prior permission of the publishers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared

Similar articles

• Quasi experimental designs in pharmacist intervention research. Krass I. Krass I. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):647-54. doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0256-y. Epub 2016 Jan 29. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016. PMID: 26825756 Review.
• When and how to use factorial design in nursing research. Krishnan P. Krishnan P. Nurse Res. 2021 Mar 11;29(1):26-31. doi: 10.7748/nr.2020.e1757. Epub 2020 Dec 3. Nurse Res. 2021. PMID: 33269843 Review.
• Quasi-experimental research designs. Behi R, Nolan M. Behi R, et al. Br J Nurs. 1996 Sep 26-Oct 9;5(17):1079-81. doi: 10.12968/bjon.1996.5.17.1079. Br J Nurs. 1996. PMID: 8918770 Review.
• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs in implementation research. Miller CJ, Smith SN, Pugatch M. Miller CJ, et al. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jan;283:112452. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.027. Epub 2019 Jun 20. Psychiatry Res. 2020. PMID: 31255320 Free PMC article. Review.
• Single-case experimental designs. 1: Using idiographic research. Behi R, Nolan M. Behi R, et al. Br J Nurs. 1996 Nov 28-Dec 11;5(21):1334-7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.1996.5.21.1334. Br J Nurs. 1996. PMID: 9015990 Review.
• Cross-Coupled Sliding Mode Synchronous Control for a Double Lifting Point Hydraulic Hoist. Sun C, Dong X, Li J. Sun C, et al. Sensors (Basel). 2023 Nov 24;23(23):9387. doi: 10.3390/s23239387. Sensors (Basel). 2023. PMID: 38067759 Free PMC article.
• Assessment of Functional Capacity in Patients with Nondialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease with the Glittre Activities of Daily Living Test. Balata MR, Ferreira AS, da Silva Sousa A, Meinertz LF, de Sá LM, Araujo VG, Papathanasiou J, Lopes AJ. Balata MR, et al. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jun 20;11(12):1809. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11121809. Healthcare (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37372926 Free PMC article.
• Advancing environmental health sciences through implementation science. Neta G, Martin L, Collman G. Neta G, et al. Environ Health. 2022 Dec 23;21(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00933-0. Environ Health. 2022. PMID: 36564832 Free PMC article. Review.
• Providing gender affirming and inclusive care to transgender men experiencing pregnancy. Chu H, Kirby L, Booth A, Klepper M, Sherman ADF, Bower KM, Wright EM. Chu H, et al. Midwifery. 2023 Jan;116:103550. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2022.103550. Epub 2022 Nov 10. Midwifery. 2023. PMID: 36423562 Free PMC article.
• Impact of a School Mental Health Program on Children's and Adolescents' Socio-Emotional Skills and Psychosocial Difficulties. Colomeischi AA, Duca DS, Bujor L, Rusu PP, Grazzani I, Cavioni V. Colomeischi AA, et al. Children (Basel). 2022 Oct 30;9(11):1661. doi: 10.3390/children9111661. Children (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36360389 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

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.

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

Quasi-Experimental Research

39 Non-Equivalent Groups Designs

Learning objectives.

• Describe the different types of nonequivalent groups quasi-experimental designs.
• Identify some of the threats to internal validity associated with each of these designs. 

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A  nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions. There are several types of nonequivalent groups designs we will consider.

Posttest Only Nonequivalent Groups Design

The first nonequivalent groups design we will consider is the posttest only nonequivalent groups design .  In this design, participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, a nonequivalent group is not exposed to the treatment, and then the two groups are compared. Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This design would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a posttest only nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Groups Design

Another way to improve upon the posttest only nonequivalent groups design is to add a pretest. In the  pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups design t here is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a nonequivalent control group that is given a pretest, does  not  receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve, but whether they improve  more  than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then are exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this change in attitude could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Returning to the example of evaluating a new measure of teaching third graders, this study could be improved by adding a pretest of students’ knowledge of fractions. The changes in scores from pretest to posttest would then be evaluated and compared across conditions to determine whether one group demonstrated a bigger improvement in knowledge of fractions than another. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might still be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students that are independent of the teaching intervention. Once again, differential history also represents a potential threat to internal validity.  If asbestos is found in one of the schools causing it to be shut down for a month then this interruption in teaching could produce a difference across groups on posttest scores.

If participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true between-groups experiment rather than a quasi-experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Interrupted Time-Series Design with Nonequivalent Groups

One way to improve upon the interrupted time-series design is to add a control group. The interrupted time-series design with nonequivalent group s involves taking  a set of measurements at intervals over a period of time both before and after an intervention of interest in two or more nonequivalent groups. Once again consider the manufacturing company that measures its workers’ productivity each week for a year before and after reducing work shifts from 10 hours to 8 hours. This design could be improved by locating another manufacturing company who does not plan to change their shift length and using them as a nonequivalent control group. If productivity  increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts in the treatment group but productivity remained consistent in the control group, then this provides better evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment. 

Similarly, in the example of examining the effects of taking attendance on student absences in a research methods course, the design could be improved by using students in another section of the research methods course as a control group. If a consistently higher number of absences was found in the treatment group before the intervention, followed by a sustained drop in absences after the treatment, while the nonequivalent control group showed consistently high absences across the semester then this would provide superior evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment in reducing absences.

A between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.

Participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, a nonequivalent group is not exposed to the treatment, and then the two groups are compared.

In this design there is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. Then, at the same time there is a nonequivalent control group that is given a pretest, does not receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest.

Involves taking a set of measurements at intervals over a period of time both before and after an intervention of interest in two or more nonequivalent groups.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2023 by William L. Kelemen, 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

Method research is quasi-experiment with non-equivalent pretest-posttest control group design

Context in source publication

Similar publications.

• Anna Juniar
• Mayloretta Barus
• Lia Sania Nur Haulia
• Sri Hartati

• Sharipah Ruzaina

• Anis Trisusana
• Ririn Pusparini

• Anak Agung Istri Yudhi Pramawati

• Nina Nisrina

• Nurlaili Wisda Agustin
• Sarwanto Sarwanto

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

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

Quasi-Experimental Research

39 Non-Equivalent Groups Designs

Learning objectives.

• Describe the different types of nonequivalent groups quasi-experimental designs.
• Identify some of the threats to internal validity associated with each of these designs. 

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider them to be nonequivalent. A  nonequivalent groups design , then, is a between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions. There are several types of nonequivalent groups designs we will consider.

Posttest Only Nonequivalent Groups Design

The first nonequivalent groups design we will consider is the posttest only nonequivalent groups design .  In this design, participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, a nonequivalent group is not exposed to the treatment, and then the two groups are compared. Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade students. This design would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a posttest only nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Groups Design

Another way to improve upon the posttest only nonequivalent groups design is to add a pretest. In the  pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups design t here is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same time there is a nonequivalent control group that is given a pretest, does  not  receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve, but whether they improve  more  than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward drugs, then are exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Students in a similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an anti-drug program, and finally, are given a posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this change in attitude could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however. Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.

Returning to the example of evaluating a new measure of teaching third graders, this study could be improved by adding a pretest of students’ knowledge of fractions. The changes in scores from pretest to posttest would then be evaluated and compared across conditions to determine whether one group demonstrated a bigger improvement in knowledge of fractions than another. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments might still be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the students that are independent of the teaching intervention. Once again, differential history also represents a potential threat to internal validity.  If asbestos is found in one of the schools causing it to be shut down for a month then this interruption in teaching could produce a difference across groups on posttest scores.

If participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a true between-groups experiment rather than a quasi-experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Interrupted Time-Series Design with Nonequivalent Groups

One way to improve upon the interrupted time-series design is to add a control group. The interrupted time-series design with nonequivalent group s involves taking  a set of measurements at intervals over a period of time both before and after an intervention of interest in two or more nonequivalent groups. Once again consider the manufacturing company that measures its workers’ productivity each week for a year before and after reducing work shifts from 10 hours to 8 hours. This design could be improved by locating another manufacturing company who does not plan to change their shift length and using them as a nonequivalent control group. If productivity  increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work shifts in the treatment group but productivity remained consistent in the control group, then this provides better evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment. 

Similarly, in the example of examining the effects of taking attendance on student absences in a research methods course, the design could be improved by using students in another section of the research methods course as a control group. If a consistently higher number of absences was found in the treatment group before the intervention, followed by a sustained drop in absences after the treatment, while the nonequivalent control group showed consistently high absences across the semester then this would provide superior evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment in reducing absences.

Pretest-Posttest Design With Switching Replication

Some of these nonequivalent control group designs can be further improved by adding a switching replication. Using a pretest-posttest design with switching replication design , nonequivalent groups are administered a pretest of the dependent variable, then one group receives a treatment while a nonequivalent control group does not receive a treatment, the dependent variable is assessed again, and then the treatment is added to the control group, and finally the dependent variable is assessed one last time.

As a concrete example, let’s say we wanted to introduce an exercise intervention for the treatment of depression. We recruit one group of patients experiencing depression and a nonequivalent control group of students experiencing depression. We first measure depression levels in both groups, and then we introduce the exercise intervention to the patients experiencing depression, but we hold off on introducing the treatment to the students. We then measure depression levels in both groups. If the treatment is effective we should see a reduction in the depression levels of the patients (who received the treatment) but not in the students (who have not yet received the treatment). Finally, while the group of patients continues to engage in the treatment, we would introduce the treatment to the students with depression. Now and only now should we see the students’ levels of depression decrease.

One of the strengths of this design is that it includes a built in replication. In the example given, we would get evidence for the efficacy of the treatment in two different samples (patients and students). Another strength of this design is that it provides more control over history effects. It becomes rather unlikely that some outside event would perfectly coincide with the introduction of the treatment in the first group and with the delayed introduction of the treatment in the second group. For instance, if a change in the weather occurred when we first introduced the treatment to the patients, and this explained their reductions in depression the second time that depression was measured, then we would see depression levels decrease in both the groups. Similarly, the switching replication helps to control for maturation and instrumentation. Both groups would be expected to show the same rates of spontaneous remission of depression and if the instrument for assessing depression happened to change at some point in the study the change would be consistent across both of the groups. Of course, demand characteristics, placebo effects, and experimenter expectancy effects can still be problems. But they can be controlled for using some of the methods described in Chapter 5.

Switching Replication with Treatment Removal Design

In a basic pretest-posttest design with switching replication, the first group receives a treatment and the second group receives the same treatment a little bit later on (while the initial group continues to receive the treatment). In contrast, in a switching replication with treatment removal design , the treatment is removed from the first group when it is added to the second group. Once again, let’s assume we first measure the depression levels of patients with depression and students with depression. Then we introduce the exercise intervention to only the patients. After they have been exposed to the exercise intervention for a week we assess depression levels again in both groups. If the intervention is effective then we should see depression levels decrease in the patient group but not the student group (because the students haven’t received the treatment yet). Next, we would remove the treatment from the group of patients with depression. So we would tell them to stop exercising. At the same time, we would tell the student group to start exercising. After a week of the students exercising and the patients not exercising, we would reassess depression levels. Now if the intervention is effective we should see that the depression levels have decreased in the student group but that they have increased in the patient group (because they are no longer exercising).

Demonstrating a treatment effect in two groups staggered over time and demonstrating the reversal of the treatment effect after the treatment has been removed can provide strong evidence for the efficacy of the treatment. In addition to providing evidence for the replicability of the findings, this design can also provide evidence for whether the treatment continues to show effects after it has been withdrawn.

A between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.

Participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, a nonequivalent group is not exposed to the treatment, and then the two groups are compared.

In this design there is a treatment group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. Then, at the same time there is a nonequivalent control group that is given a pretest, does not receive the treatment, and then is given a posttest.

Involves taking a set of measurements at intervals over a period of time both before and after an intervention of interest in two or more nonequivalent groups.

In this design nonequivalent groups are administered a pretest of the dependent variable, then one group receives a treatment while a nonequivalent control group does not receive a treatment, the dependent variable is assessed again, and then the treatment is added to the control group, and finally the dependent variable is assessed one last time.

In this design the treatment is removed from the first group when it is added to the second group.

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