experimental design sampling methods

• Sampling Techniques

Understanding Sampling Techniques in Experimental Research: A Comprehensive Guide

• August 6, 2024

Experimental research is a crucial aspect of scientific investigation, allowing researchers to test hypotheses and draw conclusions about various phenomena. However, the success of experimental research depends heavily on the quality of the sampling technique used. Sampling techniques refer to the methods used to select participants or observations for a study. In this comprehensive guide, we will explore the various sampling techniques used in experimental research, their advantages and disadvantages, and how to choose the right sampling technique for your study. By understanding the principles of sampling techniques, you can ensure that your experimental research is valid, reliable, and provides meaningful insights. So, let’s dive in and explore the world of sampling techniques in experimental research!

Importance of Sampling Techniques in Experimental Research

Definition of sampling techniques.

Sampling techniques refer to the methods used to select a subset of individuals or units from a larger population for the purpose of research. These techniques are crucial in experimental research as they determine the representativeness and generalizability of the findings to the larger population.

Sampling techniques can be broadly classified into two categories: probability sampling and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling involves selecting samples based on known probabilities or random selection from the population. Examples of probability sampling techniques include simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, and cluster sampling.

Non-probability sampling involves selecting samples based on non-random criteria, such as convenience or purposeful sampling. Examples of non-probability sampling techniques include snowball sampling, quota sampling, and purposive sampling.

The choice of sampling technique depends on the research question, the size and characteristics of the population, and the resources available for the study. The sampling technique should be representative of the population to ensure that the findings can be generalized to the larger population.

The Significance of Proper Sampling in Experimental Research

Proper sampling is a critical aspect of experimental research, as it determines the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. The significance of proper sampling lies in its ability to ensure that the sample accurately reflects the population of interest, thereby minimizing bias and maximizing the validity of the results. In addition, proper sampling techniques help researchers to draw meaningful conclusions and generalize their findings to the larger population.

Types of Sampling Techniques

Random sampling.

Random sampling is a technique used in experimental research to select participants or samples from a population in a way that ensures a representative and unbiased sample. In this method, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected, and the selection is made using a randomization process. This process can be done using various methods such as random number generators, tables of random numbers, or algorithms.

Random sampling is widely used in experimental research as it helps to eliminate selection bias, which occurs when the sample is not representative of the population. This technique is also efficient as it allows for a larger sample size to be drawn from a larger population. Additionally, it ensures that the sample is a fair representation of the population, and the results obtained can be generalized to the population.

There are several types of random sampling techniques, including simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, and cluster sampling. Simple random sampling involves selecting participants or samples randomly from the population. Stratified random sampling involves dividing the population into groups or strata and then selecting participants or samples randomly from each stratum. Cluster sampling involves dividing the population into clusters and then selecting clusters randomly for inclusion in the sample.

In conclusion, random sampling is a widely used technique in experimental research as it ensures a representative and unbiased sample. It eliminates selection bias and allows for a larger sample size to be drawn from a larger population. Additionally, there are several types of random sampling techniques that can be used depending on the research design and sample size.

Stratified Sampling

Stratified sampling is a type of sampling technique used in experimental research to ensure that the sample is representative of the population . This technique involves dividing the population into smaller groups or strata based on specific characteristics and then selecting a sample from each stratum.

The process of stratified sampling involves the following steps:

• Identify the population: The first step is to identify the population that you want to study. This population can be defined by demographic characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, or geographic location.
• Define the strata: Once the population has been identified, the next step is to define the strata or subgroups within the population. These strata are defined based on specific characteristics that are relevant to the research question.
• Select the sample: After defining the strata, a sample is selected from each stratum. The sample size for each stratum is determined based on the research question and the desired level of precision.
• Ensure adequate representation: Stratified sampling ensures that each stratum is adequately represented in the sample. This means that the sample should reflect the characteristics of the population in each stratum.

Stratified sampling is particularly useful when the population is heterogeneous and the research question requires a representative sample. It is also useful when the researcher wants to ensure that the sample is proportionate to the population.

However, stratified sampling can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, particularly when the population is large and complex. Additionally, the researcher must have a clear understanding of the population and the relevant characteristics to define the strata effectively.

Overall, stratified sampling is a useful sampling technique in experimental research that ensures a representative sample and helps to minimize bias.

Cluster Sampling

Cluster sampling is a technique that involves dividing a population into smaller groups or clusters and selecting a subset of these clusters for study. This method is particularly useful when it is difficult or expensive to access the entire population. The selection of clusters is random, and each cluster is treated as a single unit.

Here are some key points to consider when using cluster sampling:

• Advantages: Cluster sampling can be more efficient and cost-effective than other sampling methods, especially when studying large populations. It also allows for the study of groups that may be difficult to access individually.
• Disadvantages: The main disadvantage of cluster sampling is that it may not be as representative of the entire population as other sampling methods. Additionally, there may be variability within clusters that can affect the results of the study.
• Considerations: When using cluster sampling, it is important to ensure that the clusters are selected randomly and that the sample size is sufficient to produce meaningful results. Additionally, it is important to consider the size and homogeneity of the clusters and to account for any variability within them.

Overall, cluster sampling can be a useful sampling technique in experimental research, but it is important to carefully consider its advantages and disadvantages and to select the appropriate sampling method based on the research question and population being studied.

Convenience Sampling

Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that involves selecting participants based on their availability and accessibility. This method is often used when the population is difficult to identify or when time and resources are limited. The main advantage of convenience sampling is its speed and ease of implementation. However, the main disadvantage is that the sample may not be representative of the population, which can lead to biased results.

To ensure that the sample is as representative as possible, researchers should take steps to ensure that the sample is diverse and includes individuals from different backgrounds and demographics. This can be achieved by recruiting participants from different locations, using multiple sources to recruit participants, and actively seeking out underrepresented groups. Additionally, researchers should aim to collect a sufficient sample size to ensure that the results are reliable and accurate.

It is important to note that convenience sampling should only be used when other sampling techniques are not feasible or practical. Researchers should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of this method before deciding to use it. In general, convenience sampling is best suited for exploratory research or pilot studies, where the aim is to gather preliminary data to inform future research.

Snowball Sampling

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that is often used in studies where the population is difficult to identify or recruit. It is particularly useful in studying hard-to-reach populations or those that are sensitive to researchers. The method involves recruiting a small number of initial participants and then asking them to recruit additional participants who fit the study criteria. This process continues until a sufficient sample size is reached.

Snowball sampling has several advantages over other sampling techniques. It is often more efficient and cost-effective than other methods, as it relies on the existing social networks of the initial participants to recruit additional participants. It also allows for a more diverse sample, as participants are not limited by pre-defined criteria and can recruit others who may not have otherwise been included in the study.

However, snowball sampling also has some limitations. It is not a random sampling technique, so there is a risk of bias in the sample. Additionally, the process of recruiting participants can be time-consuming and may require a significant amount of effort from the researcher. It is important to carefully consider the potential benefits and limitations of snowball sampling before deciding to use it in a study.

Sampling Techniques in Clinical Research

Clinical research involves the study of drugs, devices, and biologics in human subjects to determine their safety and efficacy. In clinical research, sampling techniques play a crucial role in selecting the right participants for the study. Here are some commonly used sampling techniques in clinical research:

Randomization

Randomization is a sampling technique used to assign participants to different treatment groups. Participants are randomly selected from the eligible population and assigned to different treatment groups using a predetermined algorithm. Randomization helps to reduce bias and ensure that each treatment group is comparable.

Stratified Randomization

Stratified randomization is a variation of randomization in which participants are divided into strata based on certain characteristics, such as age, gender, or disease severity. Participants within each stratum are then randomly assigned to treatment groups. Stratified randomization helps to ensure that each treatment group has a similar distribution of the stratifying factors.

Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique in which participants are selected based on their availability and accessibility. Participants are typically recruited from hospitals, clinics, or other healthcare facilities. Convenience sampling is often used when it is difficult or expensive to recruit a representative sample from the general population.

Purposive Sampling

Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique in which participants are selected based on specific criteria or characteristics. Participants are typically recruited based on their knowledge, experience, or expertise related to the research topic. Purposive sampling is often used in qualitative research to obtain in-depth insights from experts or stakeholders.

Cluster sampling is a sampling technique in which participants are selected from clusters or groups rather than from the entire population. Participants within each cluster are then randomly selected for the study. Cluster sampling is often used in clinical research when it is difficult or impractical to recruit participants from the entire population.

Overall, sampling techniques in clinical research play a critical role in ensuring the validity and reliability of study results. Researchers must carefully consider the appropriate sampling technique based on the research question, study design, and population characteristics.

Factors to Consider When Selecting Sampling Techniques

Sample size.

The sample size is a crucial factor to consider when selecting a sampling technique in experimental research. It refers to the number of participants or observations that will be included in the study. The sample size determines the statistical power of the study, which is the probability of detecting a true effect if it exists. A larger sample size increases the statistical power of the study, making it more likely to detect a true effect, even if it is small.

Importance of Sample Size

The sample size is important for several reasons. First, it affects the precision and accuracy of the results. A larger sample size increases the precision of the results, making them more reliable. Second, it affects the statistical power of the study, which determines the likelihood of detecting a true effect. A smaller sample size decreases the statistical power of the study, making it less likely to detect a true effect, even if it is large. Third, it affects the generalizability of the results, as a larger sample size increases the likelihood that the results will be representative of the population.

Determining Sample Size

The sample size should be determined based on several factors, including the research question, the level of precision required, the expected effect size, and the variability of the data. A power analysis can be used to determine the appropriate sample size for the study. A power analysis considers the research question, the expected effect size, the variability of the data, and the level of precision required to determine the appropriate sample size.

Implications of Sample Size

The sample size has several implications for the study design and data analysis. A larger sample size may require more resources, such as time and money, to collect and analyze the data. A smaller sample size may require a larger effect size to be detected, making it more difficult to detect a true effect. Additionally, a smaller sample size may require a larger variability in the data to detect a true effect, making it more difficult to detect a true effect.

Overall, the sample size is a critical factor to consider when selecting a sampling technique in experimental research. It affects the precision, accuracy, and generalizability of the results, and should be determined based on several factors, including the research question, the level of precision required, the expected effect size, and the variability of the data.

Diversity and Inclusion

When selecting a sampling technique, it is important to consider diversity and inclusion. Diversity refers to the representation of different groups within the sample, while inclusion refers to the extent to which the sample reflects the population of interest. Both diversity and inclusion are important to ensure that the sample accurately represents the population being studied and to avoid bias in the results.

There are several strategies that can be used to increase diversity and inclusion in the sample. One approach is to use random sampling techniques, such as simple random sampling or stratified random sampling, to ensure that the sample is representative of the population . Another approach is to oversample certain groups, such as underrepresented populations, to ensure that they are adequately represented in the sample.

It is also important to consider the potential for self-selection bias when using certain sampling techniques, such as convenience sampling or snowball sampling. Self-selection bias occurs when individuals who are more likely to have certain characteristics or opinions are more likely to participate in the study, leading to biased results. To mitigate this bias, researchers can use methods such as random assignment or controlled recruitment to ensure that the sample is representative of the population .

In addition to diversity and inclusion, researchers should also consider other factors when selecting a sampling technique, such as cost, time, and the nature of the research question. By carefully selecting the appropriate sampling technique, researchers can ensure that their study produces valid and reliable results.

Cost and Time Constraints

When it comes to selecting sampling techniques, it is important to consider the costs and time constraints associated with each method. In some cases, certain sampling techniques may be more expensive or time-consuming than others, which can have a significant impact on the overall feasibility of a research project.

One factor to consider is the cost of data collection. For example, some sampling techniques may require specialized equipment or software that can be expensive to obtain or maintain. Additionally, some methods may require a larger sample size in order to be statistically valid, which can increase the cost of the study.

Another factor to consider is the time required to conduct the study. Some sampling techniques may be faster to implement than others, which can be important if a researcher is working with a tight deadline. However, it is important to note that some methods may require more time for data analysis and interpretation, which can impact the overall timeline of the study.

It is important to carefully weigh the costs and time constraints associated with each sampling technique in order to select the most appropriate method for a given research project. By considering these factors, researchers can ensure that they are able to conduct high-quality studies that are both feasible and practical.

Ethical Considerations

When selecting sampling techniques, it is important to consider ethical considerations. These considerations are essential to ensure that the research process is conducted in a manner that is respectful of human rights and dignity.

• Informed Consent: Informed consent is a crucial ethical consideration in experimental research. It involves obtaining permission from participants before they take part in the study. Participants should be provided with all relevant information about the study, including its purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and confidentiality measures.
• Voluntary Participation: Participation in experimental research should be voluntary, and participants should be free to withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences.
• Deception: Deception is a common ethical issue in experimental research. It occurs when participants are misled or deceived about the nature or purpose of the study. Researchers should avoid deception and if it is necessary, they should take steps to minimize harm and provide appropriate debriefing after the study.
• Risk of Harm: Experimental research may involve some risks of harm to participants, such as physical or psychological harm. Researchers should take all necessary precautions to minimize the risk of harm and provide appropriate care if harm occurs.
• Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an essential ethical consideration in experimental research. Researchers should ensure that participants’ personal information is kept confidential and only used for the intended purpose of the study.
• Fairness: Experimental research should be conducted in a fair manner. Participants should be selected randomly or based on specific criteria that are relevant to the study. Researchers should avoid any form of discrimination or bias in the selection process.

In summary, ethical considerations are crucial in experimental research. Researchers should obtain informed consent, ensure voluntary participation, avoid deception, minimize the risk of harm, maintain confidentiality, and conduct the study in a fair manner.

Sampling Techniques in Practice

Case study: random sampling in a psychology experiment.

Random sampling is a widely used technique in experimental research, particularly in psychology. It involves selecting participants from a population in a way that ensures that each participant has an equal chance of being selected. In this section, we will examine a case study that demonstrates the use of random sampling in a psychology experiment.

Participants

In this case study, the researcher selected 100 participants from a pool of undergraduate students at a large university. The researcher used a random number generator to select the participants, ensuring that each participant had an equal chance of being selected.

The researcher designed an experiment to investigate the effects of stress on memory performance. The experiment consisted of two phases: a stress induction phase and a memory recall phase.

During the stress induction phase, the participants were asked to give a brief impromptu speech in front of a video camera. This was designed to induce stress in the participants. The participants were then randomly assigned to one of two groups: a stress group or a control group. The stress group was asked to solve a difficult math problem, while the control group was asked to solve an easy math problem.

During the memory recall phase, the participants were asked to recall as many words as they could from a list of 20 words. The researcher measured the number of words recalled by each participant and compared the results between the stress group and the control group.

Data Analysis

The researcher analyzed the data using statistical tests to determine whether there was a significant difference in memory recall between the stress group and the control group. The results showed that the stress group recalled significantly fewer words than the control group.

This case study demonstrates the use of random sampling in a psychology experiment. The researcher used random sampling to select participants from a population and ensured that each participant had an equal chance of being selected. The results of the experiment suggest that stress can have a negative impact on memory performance.

Random sampling is a useful technique in experimental research as it ensures that the sample is representative of the population and reduces the risk of bias. However, it is important to ensure that the sample size is large enough to provide accurate results and that the participants are selected using a fair and unbiased method.

Case Study: Stratified Sampling in a Public Health Study

In this case study, we will explore the use of stratified sampling in a public health study. Stratified sampling is a technique where the population is divided into subgroups or strata based on specific criteria, and then a random sample is drawn from each stratum. This method is particularly useful when the researcher wants to ensure that the sample is representative of the population and that each stratum is proportionally represented in the sample.

Objectives of the Public Health Study

The primary objective of this public health study was to investigate the prevalence of a particular disease in a specific population and identify any potential risk factors associated with the disease.

Population and Sampling Frame

The population of interest in this study was the adult population living in a specific geographic area. The sampling frame was a list of all adults living in the area, which was obtained from the local government.

Stratification Criteria

The population was stratified based on age, gender, and socioeconomic status. The rationale behind this stratification was to ensure that the sample was representative of the population in terms of these key demographic factors.

Sampling Procedure

A random sample of 1000 adults was drawn from the sampling frame. The sample was stratified based on the three criteria mentioned above, and a random sample of 100 adults was drawn from each stratum.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data was collected through a combination of self-reported surveys and medical examinations. The data was analyzed using statistical software to identify any patterns or associations between the disease and the stratified factors.

Case Study: Cluster Sampling in a Sociology Study

Cluster sampling is a technique that involves dividing a population into smaller groups or clusters and selecting a sample from each cluster. This method is often used in sociology studies to examine social phenomena at the community level. In this case study, we will explore how cluster sampling was used in a sociology study to investigate the impact of a community-based program on crime rates.

Study Design

The study was a quasi-experimental design, where the researchers compared crime rates in a community that received a community-based program aimed at reducing crime with a control community that did not receive the program. The study used cluster sampling to select the communities for the study.

The study used a two-stage sampling process. In the first stage, the researchers identified 20 clusters of census tracts based on their crime rates. Each cluster consisted of contiguous census tracts with similar crime rates. In the second stage, the researchers randomly selected one community from each cluster to participate in the study. The final sample consisted of 10 communities, with five in the treatment group and five in the control group.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Cluster sampling has several advantages, including the ability to collect data from large populations, reduce costs, and increase the generalizability of the findings. However, cluster sampling also has some disadvantages, such as the potential for selection bias and the loss of within-cluster variation.

In this study, the researchers used cluster sampling to address the issue of limited resources and time, as it allowed them to collect data from a large number of communities with limited resources. However, the study was also subject to selection bias, as the researchers chose communities based on their crime rates, which could have influenced the results. Additionally, the use of clusters may have led to a loss of within-cluster variation, as the researchers may have missed important differences between communities within the same cluster.

Cluster sampling is a useful technique in sociology studies when the population is large and diverse, and resources are limited. However, researchers must be aware of the potential for selection bias and the loss of within-cluster variation when using this method. In this case study, the researchers used cluster sampling to investigate the impact of a community-based program on crime rates, but they were subject to selection bias and the loss of within-cluster variation.

Best Practices for Sampling Techniques

1. defining the study population.

Before selecting a sample, it is crucial to define the study population. This involves identifying the individuals or units that meet the criteria for inclusion in the study. For instance, if the study is focused on college students, the study population would include all the college students who meet the inclusion criteria. Defining the study population helps to ensure that the sample is representative of the population of interest.

2. Determining Sample Size

Another best practice is to determine the appropriate sample size for the study. Sample size determination involves estimating the number of participants needed to achieve the desired level of statistical power and precision. Researchers can use sample size calculators or consult statistical experts to determine the appropriate sample size. It is important to note that underpowered samples can lead to incorrect conclusions, while overpowered samples can result in wasted resources.

3. Randomization

Randomization is a critical aspect of sampling techniques in experimental research. It involves assigning participants to treatment groups randomly to minimize selection bias. Randomization can be achieved using various methods, such as simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, or blocked random sampling. Randomization ensures that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to a particular treatment group, thereby reducing the impact of selection bias.

4. Control of Confounding Variables

Sampling techniques in experimental research should also control for confounding variables. Confounding variables are factors that can influence the outcome of the study and may cause misleading results. Researchers should take steps to control for confounding variables by matching participants or adjusting for potential confounders in the analysis. Failure to control for confounding variables can lead to biased results and incorrect conclusions.

5. Replication and Replication Bias

Finally, best practices for sampling techniques in experimental research should address the issue of replication and replication bias. Replication refers to the process of repeating a study to confirm the results. Replication bias occurs when researchers only report positive findings or selectively publish studies that support their hypotheses. To avoid replication bias, researchers should aim to publish all their findings, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. Replication studies can also help to confirm the validity of previous findings and reduce the impact of sampling bias.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the numerous advantages of sampling techniques in experimental research, there are limitations that researchers should be aware of when planning and conducting studies. Moreover, there are areas for future exploration to further enhance the accuracy and validity of experimental findings.

• Sampling Errors: Sampling errors occur when the sample does not accurately represent the population of interest. This can lead to biased results and incorrect conclusions. Researchers should ensure that their sampling technique is appropriate for the research question and population of interest.
• Generalizability: The generalizability of experimental findings depends on the representativeness of the sample. If the sample is not representative of the population, the results may not be generalizable to other settings or groups. Future research should focus on developing more inclusive sampling techniques to improve generalizability.
• Sample Size: The sample size is an important consideration in experimental research. Small samples may not provide sufficient statistical power to detect significant effects, while large samples may be impractical or expensive to obtain. Researchers should consider the trade-offs between sample size and other factors, such as cost and time.
• Non-Response Bias: Non-response bias occurs when non-responders differ systematically from responders. This can lead to biased results and incorrect conclusions. Future research should explore methods to reduce non-response bias, such as incentives for participation or follow-up strategies to encourage response.
• Technological Advancements: Technological advancements offer new opportunities for sampling techniques in experimental research . For example, online surveys and social media platforms provide new avenues for recruiting diverse and representative samples. Future research should explore the potential of these new technologies to improve sampling techniques and enhance experimental validity.

Overall, while sampling techniques have proven to be an essential component of experimental research, it is important to be aware of their limitations and potential biases. Future research should focus on developing new and innovative sampling techniques to overcome these limitations and improve the accuracy and validity of experimental findings.

Resources for Further Learning

If you are interested in learning more about sampling techniques in experimental research , there are a variety of resources available to you. Some useful places to start include:

• “Experimental Design and Analysis: An Introduction” by David Blaxter
• “The Practice of Statistics in the Sciences” by Geoff Cumming and Chris Wallace
• “Design of Experiments: A Practical Perspective” by Richard J. St. Anne

Online Courses

• “Sampling and Sample Size Calculations for Clinical Research” offered by the University of Florida
• “Experimental Design and Analysis” offered by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• “Introduction to Statistical Methods for Clinical Research” offered by the University of California, San Diego
• The Statistical Methods for Practice website ( https://www.stats4stem.com/ ) offers a variety of resources for learning about experimental design and sampling techniques.
• The Experimental Design webpage ( https://www.ncsu.edu/statistics/examples/experimental-design/ ) provides an overview of the different types of experimental designs and sampling techniques.

By taking advantage of these resources, you can deepen your understanding of sampling techniques in experimental research and improve your ability to design and analyze experiments.

1. What is sampling in experimental research?

Sampling is the process of selecting a subset of individuals or cases from a larger population for the purpose of studying particular characteristics or behaviors. It is an essential part of experimental research as it helps to ensure that the results obtained are representative of the population being studied.

2. What are the different types of sampling techniques in experimental research?

There are several types of sampling techniques used in experimental research, including random sampling, stratified sampling, cluster sampling, and oversampling/undersampling. Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of technique depends on the research question, sample size, and population characteristics.

3. What is random sampling in experimental research?

Random sampling is a technique where every individual or case in the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. It is considered the most representative and unbiased sampling technique, as it ensures that the sample is a true reflection of the population.

4. What is stratified sampling in experimental research?

Stratified sampling is a technique where the population is divided into smaller groups or strata based on certain characteristics, and a sample is then selected from each stratum. This technique is useful when the population is heterogeneous and the researcher wants to ensure that the sample is representative of each stratum.

5. What is cluster sampling in experimental research?

Cluster sampling is a technique where groups or clusters of individuals or cases are selected for the sample, rather than individuals or cases being selected randomly. This technique is useful when it is difficult or expensive to reach all individuals or cases in the population.

6. What is oversampling/undersampling in experimental research?

Oversampling and undersampling are techniques where the sample size is increased or decreased, respectively, to ensure that certain groups or characteristics are adequately represented in the sample. These techniques are useful when the population is imbalanced or when certain groups or characteristics are underrepresented in the population.

7. How do sampling techniques affect experimental research results?

Sampling techniques can have a significant impact on the results of experimental research. If the sample is not representative of the population, the results may not be generalizable to the population of interest. Therefore, it is essential to carefully consider the sampling technique and ensure that it is appropriate for the research question and population characteristics.

How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research | Sampling Methods in Research Methodology

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Articles

Understanding the Role of Sampling Techniques in Research Studies

Understanding the 5 Sampling Techniques and Their Meanings in Research

Understanding the Four Sampling Techniques Used in Research Studies

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

What are sampling methods and how do you choose the best one?

Posted on 18th November 2020 by Mohamed Khalifa

This tutorial will introduce sampling methods and potential sampling errors to avoid when conducting medical research.

Introduction to sampling methods

Examples of different sampling methods, choosing the best sampling method.

It is important to understand why we sample the population; for example, studies are built to investigate the relationships between risk factors and disease. In other words, we want to find out if this is a true association, while still aiming for the minimum risk for errors such as: chance, bias or confounding .

However, it would not be feasible to experiment on the whole population, we would need to take a good sample and aim to reduce the risk of having errors by proper sampling technique.

What is a sampling frame?

A sampling frame is a record of the target population containing all participants of interest. In other words, it is a list from which we can extract a sample.

What makes a good sample?

A good sample should be a representative subset of the population we are interested in studying, therefore, with each participant having equal chance of being randomly selected into the study.

We could choose a sampling method based on whether we want to account for sampling bias; a random sampling method is often preferred over a non-random method for this reason. Random sampling examples include: simple, systematic, stratified, and cluster sampling. Non-random sampling methods are liable to bias, and common examples include: convenience, purposive, snowballing, and quota sampling. For the purposes of this blog we will be focusing on random sampling methods .

Example: We want to conduct an experimental trial in a small population such as: employees in a company, or students in a college. We include everyone in a list and use a random number generator to select the participants

Advantages: Generalisable results possible, random sampling, the sampling frame is the whole population, every participant has an equal probability of being selected

Disadvantages: Less precise than stratified method, less representative than the systematic method

Example: Every nth patient entering the out-patient clinic is selected and included in our sample

Advantages: More feasible than simple or stratified methods, sampling frame is not always required

Disadvantages:  Generalisability may decrease if baseline characteristics repeat across every nth participant

Example: We have a big population (a city) and we want to ensure representativeness of all groups with a pre-determined characteristic such as: age groups, ethnic origin, and gender

Advantages:  Inclusive of strata (subgroups), reliable and generalisable results

Disadvantages: Does not work well with multiple variables

Example: 10 schools have the same number of students across the county. We can randomly select 3 out of 10 schools as our clusters

Advantages: Readily doable with most budgets, does not require a sampling frame

Disadvantages: Results may not be reliable nor generalisable

How can you identify sampling errors?

Non-random selection increases the probability of sampling (selection) bias if the sample does not represent the population we want to study. We could avoid this by random sampling and ensuring representativeness of our sample with regards to sample size.

An inadequate sample size decreases the confidence in our results as we may think there is no significant difference when actually there is. This type two error results from having a small sample size, or from participants dropping out of the sample.

In medical research of disease, if we select people with certain diseases while strictly excluding participants with other co-morbidities, we run the risk of diagnostic purity bias where important sub-groups of the population are not represented.

Furthermore, measurement bias may occur during re-collection of risk factors by participants (recall bias) or assessment of outcome where people who live longer are associated with treatment success, when in fact people who died were not included in the sample or data analysis (survivors bias).

By following the steps below we could choose the best sampling method for our study in an orderly fashion.

Research objectiveness

Firstly, a refined research question and goal would help us define our population of interest. If our calculated sample size is small then it would be easier to get a random sample. If, however, the sample size is large, then we should check if our budget and resources can handle a random sampling method.

Sampling frame availability

Secondly, we need to check for availability of a sampling frame (Simple), if not, could we make a list of our own (Stratified). If neither option is possible, we could still use other random sampling methods, for instance, systematic or cluster sampling.

Study design

Moreover, we could consider the prevalence of the topic (exposure or outcome) in the population, and what would be the suitable study design. In addition, checking if our target population is widely varied in its baseline characteristics. For example, a population with large ethnic subgroups could best be studied using a stratified sampling method.

Random sampling

Finally, the best sampling method is always the one that could best answer our research question while also allowing for others to make use of our results (generalisability of results). When we cannot afford a random sampling method, we can always choose from the non-random sampling methods.

To sum up, we now understand that choosing between random or non-random sampling methods is multifactorial. We might often be tempted to choose a convenience sample from the start, but that would not only decrease precision of our results, and would make us miss out on producing research that is more robust and reliable.

References (pdf)

Mohamed Khalifa

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments on What are sampling methods and how do you choose the best one?

Thank you for this overview. A concise approach for research.

really helps! am an ecology student preparing to write my lab report for sampling.

I learned a lot to the given presentation.. It’s very comprehensive… Thanks for sharing…

Very informative and useful for my study. Thank you

Oversimplified info on sampling methods. Probabilistic of the sampling and sampling of samples by chance does rest solely on the random methods. Factors such as the random visits or presentation of the potential participants at clinics or sites could be sufficiently random in nature and should be used for the sake of efficiency and feasibility. Nevertheless, this approach has to be taken only after careful thoughts. Representativeness of the study samples have to be checked at the end or during reporting by comparing it to the published larger studies or register of some kind in/from the local population.

Thank you so much Mr.mohamed very useful and informative article

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

How to read a funnel plot

This blog introduces you to funnel plots, guiding you through how to read them and what may cause them to look asymmetrical.

Internal and external validity: what are they and how do they differ?

Is this study valid? Can I trust this study’s methods and design? Can I apply the results of this study to other contexts? Learn more about internal and external validity in research to help you answer these questions when you next look at a paper.

Cluster Randomized Trials: Concepts

This blog summarizes the concepts of cluster randomization, and the logistical and statistical considerations while designing a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Statistical Design and Analysis of Biological Experiments

Chapter 1 principles of experimental design, 1.1 introduction.

The validity of conclusions drawn from a statistical analysis crucially hinges on the manner in which the data are acquired, and even the most sophisticated analysis will not rescue a flawed experiment. Planning an experiment and thinking about the details of data acquisition is so important for a successful analysis that R. A. Fisher—who single-handedly invented many of the experimental design techniques we are about to discuss—famously wrote

To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say what the experiment died of. ( Fisher 1938 )

(Statistical) design of experiments provides the principles and methods for planning experiments and tailoring the data acquisition to an intended analysis. Design and analysis of an experiment are best considered as two aspects of the same enterprise: the goals of the analysis strongly inform an appropriate design, and the implemented design determines the possible analyses.

The primary aim of designing experiments is to ensure that valid statistical and scientific conclusions can be drawn that withstand the scrutiny of a determined skeptic. Good experimental design also considers that resources are used efficiently, and that estimates are sufficiently precise and hypothesis tests adequately powered. It protects our conclusions by excluding alternative interpretations or rendering them implausible. Three main pillars of experimental design are randomization , replication , and blocking , and we will flesh out their effects on the subsequent analysis as well as their implementation in an experimental design.

An experimental design is always tailored towards predefined (primary) analyses and an efficient analysis and unambiguous interpretation of the experimental data is often straightforward from a good design. This does not prevent us from doing additional analyses of interesting observations after the data are acquired, but these analyses can be subjected to more severe criticisms and conclusions are more tentative.

In this chapter, we provide the wider context for using experiments in a larger research enterprise and informally introduce the main statistical ideas of experimental design. We use a comparison of two samples as our main example to study how design choices affect an analysis, but postpone a formal quantitative analysis to the next chapters.

1.2 A Cautionary Tale

For illustrating some of the issues arising in the interplay of experimental design and analysis, we consider a simple example. We are interested in comparing the enzyme levels measured in processed blood samples from laboratory mice, when the sample processing is done either with a kit from a vendor A, or a kit from a competitor B. For this, we take 20 mice and randomly select 10 of them for sample preparation with kit A, while the blood samples of the remaining 10 mice are prepared with kit B. The experiment is illustrated in Figure 1.1 A and the resulting data are given in Table 1.1 .

One option for comparing the two kits is to look at the difference in average enzyme levels, and we find an average level of 10.32 for vendor A and 10.66 for vendor B. We would like to interpret their difference of -0.34 as the difference due to the two preparation kits and conclude whether the two kits give equal results or if measurements based on one kit are systematically different from those based on the other kit.

Such interpretation, however, is only valid if the two groups of mice and their measurements are identical in all aspects except the sample preparation kit. If we use one strain of mice for kit A and another strain for kit B, any difference might also be attributed to inherent differences between the strains. Similarly, if the measurements using kit B were conducted much later than those using kit A, any observed difference might be attributed to changes in, e.g., mice selected, batches of chemicals used, device calibration, or any number of other influences. None of these competing explanations for an observed difference can be excluded from the given data alone, but good experimental design allows us to render them (almost) arbitrarily implausible.

A second aspect for our analysis is the inherent uncertainty in our calculated difference: if we repeat the experiment, the observed difference will change each time, and this will be more pronounced for a smaller number of mice, among others. If we do not use a sufficient number of mice in our experiment, the uncertainty associated with the observed difference might be too large, such that random fluctuations become a plausible explanation for the observed difference. Systematic differences between the two kits, of practically relevant magnitude in either direction, might then be compatible with the data, and we can draw no reliable conclusions from our experiment.

In each case, the statistical analysis—no matter how clever—was doomed before the experiment was even started, while simple ideas from statistical design of experiments would have provided correct and robust results with interpretable conclusions.

1.3 The Language of Experimental Design

By an experiment we understand an investigation where the researcher has full control over selecting and altering the experimental conditions of interest, and we only consider investigations of this type. The selected experimental conditions are called treatments . An experiment is comparative if the responses to several treatments are to be compared or contrasted. The experimental units are the smallest subdivision of the experimental material to which a treatment can be assigned. All experimental units given the same treatment constitute a treatment group . Especially in biology, we often compare treatments to a control group to which some standard experimental conditions are applied; a typical example is using a placebo for the control group, and different drugs for the other treatment groups.

The values observed are called responses and are measured on the response units ; these are often identical to the experimental units but need not be. Multiple experimental units are sometimes combined into groupings or blocks , such as mice grouped by litter, or samples grouped by batches of chemicals used for their preparation. More generally, we call any grouping of the experimental material (even with group size one) a unit .

In our example, we selected the mice, used a single sample per mouse, deliberately chose the two specific vendors, and had full control over which kit to assign to which mouse. In other words, the two kits are the treatments and the mice are the experimental units. We took the measured enzyme level of a single sample from a mouse as our response, and samples are therefore the response units. The resulting experiment is comparative, because we contrast the enzyme levels between the two treatment groups.

Figure 1.1: Three designs to determine the difference between two preparation kits A and B based on four mice. A: One sample per mouse. Comparison between averages of samples with same kit. B: Two samples per mouse treated with the same kit. Comparison between averages of mice with same kit requires averaging responses for each mouse first. C: Two samples per mouse each treated with different kit. Comparison between two samples of each mouse, with differences averaged.

In this example, we can coalesce experimental and response units, because we have a single response per mouse and cannot distinguish a sample from a mouse in the analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1.1 A for four mice. Responses from mice with the same kit are averaged, and the kit difference is the difference between these two averages.

By contrast, if we take two samples per mouse and use the same kit for both samples, then the mice are still the experimental units, but each mouse now groups the two response units associated with it. Now, responses from the same mouse are first averaged, and these averages are used to calculate the difference between kits; even though eight measurements are available, this difference is still based on only four mice (Figure 1.1 B).

If we take two samples per mouse, but apply each kit to one of the two samples, then the samples are both the experimental and response units, while the mice are blocks that group the samples. Now, we calculate the difference between kits for each mouse, and then average these differences (Figure 1.1 C).

If we only use one kit and determine the average enzyme level, then this investigation is still an experiment, but is not comparative.

To summarize, the design of an experiment determines the logical structure of the experiment ; it consists of (i) a set of treatments (the two kits); (ii) a specification of the experimental units (animals, cell lines, samples) (the mice in Figure 1.1 A,B and the samples in Figure 1.1 C); (iii) a procedure for assigning treatments to units; and (iv) a specification of the response units and the quantity to be measured as a response (the samples and associated enzyme levels).

1.4 Experiment Validity

Before we embark on the more technical aspects of experimental design, we discuss three components for evaluating an experiment’s validity: construct validity , internal validity , and external validity . These criteria are well-established in areas such as educational and psychological research, and have more recently been discussed for animal research ( Würbel 2017 ) where experiments are increasingly scrutinized for their scientific rationale and their design and intended analyses.

1.4.1 Construct Validity

Construct validity concerns the choice of the experimental system for answering our research question. Is the system even capable of providing a relevant answer to the question?

Studying the mechanisms of a particular disease, for example, might require careful choice of an appropriate animal model that shows a disease phenotype and is accessible to experimental interventions. If the animal model is a proxy for drug development for humans, biological mechanisms must be sufficiently similar between animal and human physiologies.

Another important aspect of the construct is the quantity that we intend to measure (the measurand ), and its relation to the quantity or property we are interested in. For example, we might measure the concentration of the same chemical compound once in a blood sample and once in a highly purified sample, and these constitute two different measurands, whose values might not be comparable. Often, the quantity of interest (e.g., liver function) is not directly measurable (or even quantifiable) and we measure a biomarker instead. For example, pre-clinical and clinical investigations may use concentrations of proteins or counts of specific cell types from blood samples, such as the CD4+ cell count used as a biomarker for immune system function.

1.4.2 Internal Validity

The internal validity of an experiment concerns the soundness of the scientific rationale, statistical properties such as precision of estimates, and the measures taken against risk of bias. It refers to the validity of claims within the context of the experiment. Statistical design of experiments plays a prominent role in ensuring internal validity, and we briefly discuss the main ideas before providing the technical details and an application to our example in the subsequent sections.

Scientific Rationale and Research Question

The scientific rationale of a study is (usually) not immediately a statistical question. Translating a scientific question into a quantitative comparison amenable to statistical analysis is no small task and often requires careful consideration. It is a substantial, if non-statistical, benefit of using experimental design that we are forced to formulate a precise-enough research question and decide on the main analyses required for answering it before we conduct the experiment. For example, the question: is there a difference between placebo and drug? is insufficiently precise for planning a statistical analysis and determine an adequate experimental design. What exactly is the drug treatment? What should the drug’s concentration be and how is it administered? How do we make sure that the placebo group is comparable to the drug group in all other aspects? What do we measure and what do we mean by “difference?” A shift in average response, a fold-change, change in response before and after treatment?

The scientific rationale also enters the choice of a potential control group to which we compare responses. The quote

The deep, fundamental question in statistical analysis is ‘Compared to what?’ ( Tufte 1997 )

highlights the importance of this choice.

There are almost never enough resources to answer all relevant scientific questions. We therefore define a few questions of highest interest, and the main purpose of the experiment is answering these questions in the primary analysis . This intended analysis drives the experimental design to ensure relevant estimates can be calculated and have sufficient precision, and tests are adequately powered. This does not preclude us from conducting additional secondary analyses and exploratory analyses , but we are not willing to enlarge the experiment to ensure that strong conclusions can also be drawn from these analyses.

Risk of Bias

Experimental bias is a systematic difference in response between experimental units in addition to the difference caused by the treatments. The experimental units in the different groups are then not equal in all aspects other than the treatment applied to them. We saw several examples in Section 1.2 .

Minimizing the risk of bias is crucial for internal validity and we look at some common measures to eliminate or reduce different types of bias in Section 1.5 .

Precision and Effect Size

Another aspect of internal validity is the precision of estimates and the expected effect sizes. Is the experimental setup, in principle, able to detect a difference of relevant magnitude? Experimental design offers several methods for answering this question based on the expected heterogeneity of samples, the measurement error, and other sources of variation: power analysis is a technique for determining the number of samples required to reliably detect a relevant effect size and provide estimates of sufficient precision. More samples yield more precision and more power, but we have to be careful that replication is done at the right level: simply measuring a biological sample multiple times as in Figure 1.1 B yields more measured values, but is pseudo-replication for analyses. Replication should also ensure that the statistical uncertainties of estimates can be gauged from the data of the experiment itself, without additional untestable assumptions. Finally, the technique of blocking , shown in Figure 1.1 C, can remove a substantial proportion of the variation and thereby increase power and precision if we find a way to apply it.

1.4.3 External Validity

The external validity of an experiment concerns its replicability and the generalizability of inferences. An experiment is replicable if its results can be confirmed by an independent new experiment, preferably by a different lab and researcher. Experimental conditions in the replicate experiment usually differ from the original experiment, which provides evidence that the observed effects are robust to such changes. A much weaker condition on an experiment is reproducibility , the property that an independent researcher draws equivalent conclusions based on the data from this particular experiment, using the same analysis techniques. Reproducibility requires publishing the raw data, details on the experimental protocol, and a description of the statistical analyses, preferably with accompanying source code. Many scientific journals subscribe to reporting guidelines to ensure reproducibility and these are also helpful for planning an experiment.

A main threat to replicability and generalizability are too tightly controlled experimental conditions, when inferences only hold for a specific lab under the very specific conditions of the original experiment. Introducing systematic heterogeneity and using multi-center studies effectively broadens the experimental conditions and therefore the inferences for which internal validity is available.

For systematic heterogeneity , experimental conditions are systematically altered in addition to the treatments, and treatment differences estimated for each condition. For example, we might split the experimental material into several batches and use a different day of analysis, sample preparation, batch of buffer, measurement device, and lab technician for each batch. A more general inference is then possible if effect size, effect direction, and precision are comparable between the batches, indicating that the treatment differences are stable over the different conditions.

In multi-center experiments , the same experiment is conducted in several different labs and the results compared and merged. Multi-center approaches are very common in clinical trials and often necessary to reach the required number of patient enrollments.

Generalizability of randomized controlled trials in medicine and animal studies can suffer from overly restrictive eligibility criteria. In clinical trials, patients are often included or excluded based on co-medications and co-morbidities, and the resulting sample of eligible patients might no longer be representative of the patient population. For example, Travers et al. ( 2007 ) used the eligibility criteria of 17 random controlled trials of asthma treatments and found that out of 749 patients, only a median of 6% (45 patients) would be eligible for an asthma-related randomized controlled trial. This puts a question mark on the relevance of the trials’ findings for asthma patients in general.

1.5 Reducing the Risk of Bias

1.5.1 randomization of treatment allocation.

If systematic differences other than the treatment exist between our treatment groups, then the effect of the treatment is confounded with these other differences and our estimates of treatment effects might be biased.

We remove such unwanted systematic differences from our treatment comparisons by randomizing the allocation of treatments to experimental units. In a completely randomized design , each experimental unit has the same chance of being subjected to any of the treatments, and any differences between the experimental units other than the treatments are distributed over the treatment groups. Importantly, randomization is the only method that also protects our experiment against unknown sources of bias: we do not need to know all or even any of the potential differences and yet their impact is eliminated from the treatment comparisons by random treatment allocation.

Randomization has two effects: (i) differences unrelated to treatment become part of the ‘statistical noise’ rendering the treatment groups more similar; and (ii) the systematic differences are thereby eliminated as sources of bias from the treatment comparison.

Randomization transforms systematic variation into random variation.

In our example, a proper randomization would select 10 out of our 20 mice fully at random, such that the probability of any one mouse being picked is 1/20. These ten mice are then assigned to kit A, and the remaining mice to kit B. This allocation is entirely independent of the treatments and of any properties of the mice.

To ensure random treatment allocation, some kind of random process needs to be employed. This can be as simple as shuffling a pack of 10 red and 10 black cards or using a software-based random number generator. Randomization is slightly more difficult if the number of experimental units is not known at the start of the experiment, such as when patients are recruited for an ongoing clinical trial (sometimes called rolling recruitment ), and we want to have reasonable balance between the treatment groups at each stage of the trial.

Seemingly random assignments “by hand” are usually no less complicated than fully random assignments, but are always inferior. If surprising results ensue from the experiment, such assignments are subject to unanswerable criticism and suspicion of unwanted bias. Even worse are systematic allocations; they can only remove bias from known causes, and immediately raise red flags under the slightest scrutiny.

The Problem of Undesired Assignments

Even with a fully random treatment allocation procedure, we might end up with an undesirable allocation. For our example, the treatment group of kit A might—just by chance—contain mice that are all bigger or more active than those in the other treatment group. Statistical orthodoxy recommends using the design nevertheless, because only full randomization guarantees valid estimates of residual variance and unbiased estimates of effects. This argument, however, concerns the long-run properties of the procedure and seems of little help in this specific situation. Why should we care if the randomization yields correct estimates under replication of the experiment, if the particular experiment is jeopardized?

Another solution is to create a list of all possible allocations that we would accept and randomly choose one of these allocations for our experiment. The analysis should then reflect this restriction in the possible randomizations, which often renders this approach difficult to implement.

The most pragmatic method is to reject highly undesirable designs and compute a new randomization ( Cox 1958 ) . Undesirable allocations are unlikely to arise for large sample sizes, and we might accept a small bias in estimation for small sample sizes, when uncertainty in the estimated treatment effect is already high. In this approach, whenever we reject a particular outcome, we must also be willing to reject the outcome if we permute the treatment level labels. If we reject eight big and two small mice for kit A, then we must also reject two big and eight small mice. We must also be transparent and report a rejected allocation, so that critics may come to their own conclusions about potential biases and their remedies.

1.5.2 Blinding

Bias in treatment comparisons is also introduced if treatment allocation is random, but responses cannot be measured entirely objectively, or if knowledge of the assigned treatment affects the response. In clinical trials, for example, patients might react differently when they know to be on a placebo treatment, an effect known as cognitive bias . In animal experiments, caretakers might report more abnormal behavior for animals on a more severe treatment. Cognitive bias can be eliminated by concealing the treatment allocation from technicians or participants of a clinical trial, a technique called single-blinding .

If response measures are partially based on professional judgement (such as a clinical scale), patient or physician might unconsciously report lower scores for a placebo treatment, a phenomenon known as observer bias . Its removal requires double blinding , where treatment allocations are additionally concealed from the experimentalist.

Blinding requires randomized treatment allocation to begin with and substantial effort might be needed to implement it. Drug companies, for example, have to go to great lengths to ensure that a placebo looks, tastes, and feels similar enough to the actual drug. Additionally, blinding is often done by coding the treatment conditions and samples, and effect sizes and statistical significance are calculated before the code is revealed.

In clinical trials, double-blinding creates a conflict of interest. The attending physicians do not know which patient received which treatment, and thus accumulation of side-effects cannot be linked to any treatment. For this reason, clinical trials have a data monitoring committee not involved in the final analysis, that performs intermediate analyses of efficacy and safety at predefined intervals. If severe problems are detected, the committee might recommend altering or aborting the trial. The same might happen if one treatment already shows overwhelming evidence of superiority, such that it becomes unethical to withhold this treatment from the other patients.

1.5.3 Analysis Plan and Registration

An often overlooked source of bias has been termed the researcher degrees of freedom or garden of forking paths in the data analysis. For any set of data, there are many different options for its analysis: some results might be considered outliers and discarded, assumptions are made on error distributions and appropriate test statistics, different covariates might be included into a regression model. Often, multiple hypotheses are investigated and tested, and analyses are done separately on various (overlapping) subgroups. Hypotheses formed after looking at the data require additional care in their interpretation; almost never will \(p\) -values for these ad hoc or post hoc hypotheses be statistically justifiable. Many different measured response variables invite fishing expeditions , where patterns in the data are sought without an underlying hypothesis. Only reporting those sub-analyses that gave ‘interesting’ findings invariably leads to biased conclusions and is called cherry-picking or \(p\) -hacking (or much less flattering names).

The statistical analysis is always part of a larger scientific argument and we should consider the necessary computations in relation to building our scientific argument about the interpretation of the data. In addition to the statistical calculations, this interpretation requires substantial subject-matter knowledge and includes (many) non-statistical arguments. Two quotes highlight that experiment and analysis are a means to an end and not the end in itself.

There is a boundary in data interpretation beyond which formulas and quantitative decision procedures do not go, where judgment and style enter. ( Abelson 1995 )

Often, perfectly reasonable people come to perfectly reasonable decisions or conclusions based on nonstatistical evidence. Statistical analysis is a tool with which we support reasoning. It is not a goal in itself. ( Bailar III 1981 )

There is often a grey area between exploiting researcher degrees of freedom to arrive at a desired conclusion, and creative yet informed analyses of data. One way to navigate this area is to distinguish between exploratory studies and confirmatory studies . The former have no clearly stated scientific question, but are used to generate interesting hypotheses by identifying potential associations or effects that are then further investigated. Conclusions from these studies are very tentative and must be reported honestly as such. In contrast, standards are much higher for confirmatory studies, which investigate a specific predefined scientific question. Analysis plans and pre-registration of an experiment are accepted means for demonstrating lack of bias due to researcher degrees of freedom, and separating primary from secondary analyses allows emphasizing the main goals of the study.

Analysis Plan

The analysis plan is written before conducting the experiment and details the measurands and estimands, the hypotheses to be tested together with a power and sample size calculation, a discussion of relevant effect sizes, detection and handling of outliers and missing data, as well as steps for data normalization such as transformations and baseline corrections. If a regression model is required, its factors and covariates are outlined. Particularly in biology, handling measurements below the limit of quantification and saturation effects require careful consideration.

In the context of clinical trials, the problem of estimands has become a recent focus of attention. An estimand is the target of a statistical estimation procedure, for example the true average difference in enzyme levels between the two preparation kits. A main problem in many studies are post-randomization events that can change the estimand, even if the estimation procedure remains the same. For example, if kit B fails to produce usable samples for measurement in five out of ten cases because the enzyme level was too low, while kit A could handle these enzyme levels perfectly fine, then this might severely exaggerate the observed difference between the two kits. Similar problems arise in drug trials, when some patients stop taking one of the drugs due to side-effects or other complications.

Registration

Registration of experiments is an even more severe measure used in conjunction with an analysis plan and is becoming standard in clinical trials. Here, information about the trial, including the analysis plan, procedure to recruit patients, and stopping criteria, are registered in a public database. Publications based on the trial then refer to this registration, such that reviewers and readers can compare what the researchers intended to do and what they actually did. Similar portals for pre-clinical and translational research are also available.

1.6 Notes and Summary

The problem of measurements and measurands is further discussed for statistics in Hand ( 1996 ) and specifically for biological experiments in Coxon, Longstaff, and Burns ( 2019 ) . A general review of methods for handling missing data is Dong and Peng ( 2013 ) . The different roles of randomization are emphasized in Cox ( 2009 ) .

Two well-known reporting guidelines are the ARRIVE guidelines for animal research ( Kilkenny et al. 2010 ) and the CONSORT guidelines for clinical trials ( Moher et al. 2010 ) . Guidelines describing the minimal information required for reproducing experimental results have been developed for many types of experimental techniques, including microarrays (MIAME), RNA sequencing (MINSEQE), metabolomics (MSI) and proteomics (MIAPE) experiments; the FAIRSHARE initiative provides a more comprehensive collection ( Sansone et al. 2019 ) .

The problems of experimental design in animal experiments and particularly translation research are discussed in Couzin-Frankel ( 2013 ) . Multi-center studies are now considered for these investigations, and using a second laboratory already increases reproducibility substantially ( Richter et al. 2010 ; Richter 2017 ; Voelkl et al. 2018 ; Karp 2018 ) and allows standardizing the treatment effects ( Kafkafi et al. 2017 ) . First attempts are reported of using designs similar to clinical trials ( Llovera and Liesz 2016 ) . Exploratory-confirmatory research and external validity for animal studies is discussed in Kimmelman, Mogil, and Dirnagl ( 2014 ) and Pound and Ritskes-Hoitinga ( 2018 ) . Further information on pilot studies is found in Moore et al. ( 2011 ) , Sim ( 2019 ) , and Thabane et al. ( 2010 ) .

The deliberate use of statistical analyses and their interpretation for supporting a larger argument was called statistics as principled argument ( Abelson 1995 ) . Employing useless statistical analysis without reference to the actual scientific question is surrogate science ( Gigerenzer and Marewski 2014 ) and adaptive thinking is integral to meaningful statistical analysis ( Gigerenzer 2002 ) .

In an experiment, the investigator has full control over the experimental conditions applied to the experiment material. The experimental design gives the logical structure of an experiment: the units describing the organization of the experimental material, the treatments and their allocation to units, and the response. Statistical design of experiments includes techniques to ensure internal validity of an experiment, and methods to make inference from experimental data efficient.

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

6.2 Experimental Design

Learning objectives.

• Explain the difference between between-subjects and within-subjects experiments, list some of the pros and cons of each approach, and decide which approach to use to answer a particular research question.
• Define random assignment, distinguish it from random sampling, explain its purpose in experimental research, and use some simple strategies to implement it.
• Define what a control condition is, explain its purpose in research on treatment effectiveness, and describe some alternative types of control conditions.
• Define several types of carryover effect, give examples of each, and explain how counterbalancing helps to deal with them.

In this section, we look at some different ways to design an experiment. The primary distinction we will make is between approaches in which each participant experiences one level of the independent variable and approaches in which each participant experiences all levels of the independent variable. The former are called between-subjects experiments and the latter are called within-subjects experiments.

Between-Subjects Experiments

In a between-subjects experiment , each participant is tested in only one condition. For example, a researcher with a sample of 100 college students might assign half of them to write about a traumatic event and the other half write about a neutral event. Or a researcher with a sample of 60 people with severe agoraphobia (fear of open spaces) might assign 20 of them to receive each of three different treatments for that disorder. It is essential in a between-subjects experiment that the researcher assign participants to conditions so that the different groups are, on average, highly similar to each other. Those in a trauma condition and a neutral condition, for example, should include a similar proportion of men and women, and they should have similar average intelligence quotients (IQs), similar average levels of motivation, similar average numbers of health problems, and so on. This is a matter of controlling these extraneous participant variables across conditions so that they do not become confounding variables.

Random Assignment

The primary way that researchers accomplish this kind of control of extraneous variables across conditions is called random assignment , which means using a random process to decide which participants are tested in which conditions. Do not confuse random assignment with random sampling. Random sampling is a method for selecting a sample from a population, and it is rarely used in psychological research. Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other fields too.

In its strictest sense, random assignment should meet two criteria. One is that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition (e.g., a 50% chance of being assigned to each of two conditions). The second is that each participant is assigned to a condition independently of other participants. Thus one way to assign participants to two conditions would be to flip a coin for each one. If the coin lands heads, the participant is assigned to Condition A, and if it lands tails, the participant is assigned to Condition B. For three conditions, one could use a computer to generate a random integer from 1 to 3 for each participant. If the integer is 1, the participant is assigned to Condition A; if it is 2, the participant is assigned to Condition B; and if it is 3, the participant is assigned to Condition C. In practice, a full sequence of conditions—one for each participant expected to be in the experiment—is usually created ahead of time, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence as he or she is tested. When the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the random assignment.

One problem with coin flipping and other strict procedures for random assignment is that they are likely to result in unequal sample sizes in the different conditions. Unequal sample sizes are generally not a serious problem, and you should never throw away data you have already collected to achieve equal sample sizes. However, for a fixed number of participants, it is statistically most efficient to divide them into equal-sized groups. It is standard practice, therefore, to use a kind of modified random assignment that keeps the number of participants in each group as similar as possible. One approach is block randomization . In block randomization, all the conditions occur once in the sequence before any of them is repeated. Then they all occur again before any of them is repeated again. Within each of these “blocks,” the conditions occur in a random order. Again, the sequence of conditions is usually generated before any participants are tested, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence. Table 6.2 “Block Randomization Sequence for Assigning Nine Participants to Three Conditions” shows such a sequence for assigning nine participants to three conditions. The Research Randomizer website ( http://www.randomizer.org ) will generate block randomization sequences for any number of participants and conditions. Again, when the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the block randomization.

Table 6.2 Block Randomization Sequence for Assigning Nine Participants to Three Conditions

Random assignment is not guaranteed to control all extraneous variables across conditions. It is always possible that just by chance, the participants in one condition might turn out to be substantially older, less tired, more motivated, or less depressed on average than the participants in another condition. However, there are some reasons that this is not a major concern. One is that random assignment works better than one might expect, especially for large samples. Another is that the inferential statistics that researchers use to decide whether a difference between groups reflects a difference in the population takes the “fallibility” of random assignment into account. Yet another reason is that even if random assignment does result in a confounding variable and therefore produces misleading results, this is likely to be detected when the experiment is replicated. The upshot is that random assignment to conditions—although not infallible in terms of controlling extraneous variables—is always considered a strength of a research design.

Treatment and Control Conditions

Between-subjects experiments are often used to determine whether a treatment works. In psychological research, a treatment is any intervention meant to change people’s behavior for the better. This includes psychotherapies and medical treatments for psychological disorders but also interventions designed to improve learning, promote conservation, reduce prejudice, and so on. To determine whether a treatment works, participants are randomly assigned to either a treatment condition , in which they receive the treatment, or a control condition , in which they do not receive the treatment. If participants in the treatment condition end up better off than participants in the control condition—for example, they are less depressed, learn faster, conserve more, express less prejudice—then the researcher can conclude that the treatment works. In research on the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical treatments, this type of experiment is often called a randomized clinical trial .

There are different types of control conditions. In a no-treatment control condition , participants receive no treatment whatsoever. One problem with this approach, however, is the existence of placebo effects. A placebo is a simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective, and a placebo effect is a positive effect of such a treatment. Many folk remedies that seem to work—such as eating chicken soup for a cold or placing soap under the bedsheets to stop nighttime leg cramps—are probably nothing more than placebos. Although placebo effects are not well understood, they are probably driven primarily by people’s expectations that they will improve. Having the expectation to improve can result in reduced stress, anxiety, and depression, which can alter perceptions and even improve immune system functioning (Price, Finniss, & Benedetti, 2008).

Placebo effects are interesting in their own right (see Note 6.28 “The Powerful Placebo” ), but they also pose a serious problem for researchers who want to determine whether a treatment works. Figure 6.2 “Hypothetical Results From a Study Including Treatment, No-Treatment, and Placebo Conditions” shows some hypothetical results in which participants in a treatment condition improved more on average than participants in a no-treatment control condition. If these conditions (the two leftmost bars in Figure 6.2 “Hypothetical Results From a Study Including Treatment, No-Treatment, and Placebo Conditions” ) were the only conditions in this experiment, however, one could not conclude that the treatment worked. It could be instead that participants in the treatment group improved more because they expected to improve, while those in the no-treatment control condition did not.

Figure 6.2 Hypothetical Results From a Study Including Treatment, No-Treatment, and Placebo Conditions

Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. One is to include a placebo control condition , in which participants receive a placebo that looks much like the treatment but lacks the active ingredient or element thought to be responsible for the treatment’s effectiveness. When participants in a treatment condition take a pill, for example, then those in a placebo control condition would take an identical-looking pill that lacks the active ingredient in the treatment (a “sugar pill”). In research on psychotherapy effectiveness, the placebo might involve going to a psychotherapist and talking in an unstructured way about one’s problems. The idea is that if participants in both the treatment and the placebo control groups expect to improve, then any improvement in the treatment group over and above that in the placebo control group must have been caused by the treatment and not by participants’ expectations. This is what is shown by a comparison of the two outer bars in Figure 6.2 “Hypothetical Results From a Study Including Treatment, No-Treatment, and Placebo Conditions” .

Of course, the principle of informed consent requires that participants be told that they will be assigned to either a treatment or a placebo control condition—even though they cannot be told which until the experiment ends. In many cases the participants who had been in the control condition are then offered an opportunity to have the real treatment. An alternative approach is to use a waitlist control condition , in which participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the treatment condition have already received it. This allows researchers to compare participants who have received the treatment with participants who are not currently receiving it but who still expect to improve (eventually). A final solution to the problem of placebo effects is to leave out the control condition completely and compare any new treatment with the best available alternative treatment. For example, a new treatment for simple phobia could be compared with standard exposure therapy. Because participants in both conditions receive a treatment, their expectations about improvement should be similar. This approach also makes sense because once there is an effective treatment, the interesting question about a new treatment is not simply “Does it work?” but “Does it work better than what is already available?”

The Powerful Placebo

Many people are not surprised that placebos can have a positive effect on disorders that seem fundamentally psychological, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. However, placebos can also have a positive effect on disorders that most people think of as fundamentally physiological. These include asthma, ulcers, and warts (Shapiro & Shapiro, 1999). There is even evidence that placebo surgery—also called “sham surgery”—can be as effective as actual surgery.

Medical researcher J. Bruce Moseley and his colleagues conducted a study on the effectiveness of two arthroscopic surgery procedures for osteoarthritis of the knee (Moseley et al., 2002). The control participants in this study were prepped for surgery, received a tranquilizer, and even received three small incisions in their knees. But they did not receive the actual arthroscopic surgical procedure. The surprising result was that all participants improved in terms of both knee pain and function, and the sham surgery group improved just as much as the treatment groups. According to the researchers, “This study provides strong evidence that arthroscopic lavage with or without débridement [the surgical procedures used] is not better than and appears to be equivalent to a placebo procedure in improving knee pain and self-reported function” (p. 85).

Research has shown that patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who receive a “sham surgery” experience reductions in pain and improvement in knee function similar to those of patients who receive a real surgery.

Army Medicine – Surgery – CC BY 2.0.

Within-Subjects Experiments

In a within-subjects experiment , each participant is tested under all conditions. Consider an experiment on the effect of a defendant’s physical attractiveness on judgments of his guilt. Again, in a between-subjects experiment, one group of participants would be shown an attractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt, and another group of participants would be shown an unattractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt. In a within-subjects experiment, however, the same group of participants would judge the guilt of both an attractive and an unattractive defendant.

The primary advantage of this approach is that it provides maximum control of extraneous participant variables. Participants in all conditions have the same mean IQ, same socioeconomic status, same number of siblings, and so on—because they are the very same people. Within-subjects experiments also make it possible to use statistical procedures that remove the effect of these extraneous participant variables on the dependent variable and therefore make the data less “noisy” and the effect of the independent variable easier to detect. We will look more closely at this idea later in the book.

Carryover Effects and Counterbalancing

The primary disadvantage of within-subjects designs is that they can result in carryover effects. A carryover effect is an effect of being tested in one condition on participants’ behavior in later conditions. One type of carryover effect is a practice effect , where participants perform a task better in later conditions because they have had a chance to practice it. Another type is a fatigue effect , where participants perform a task worse in later conditions because they become tired or bored. Being tested in one condition can also change how participants perceive stimuli or interpret their task in later conditions. This is called a context effect . For example, an average-looking defendant might be judged more harshly when participants have just judged an attractive defendant than when they have just judged an unattractive defendant. Within-subjects experiments also make it easier for participants to guess the hypothesis. For example, a participant who is asked to judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then is asked to judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant is likely to guess that the hypothesis is that defendant attractiveness affects judgments of guilt. This could lead the participant to judge the unattractive defendant more harshly because he thinks this is what he is expected to do. Or it could make participants judge the two defendants similarly in an effort to be “fair.”

Carryover effects can be interesting in their own right. (Does the attractiveness of one person depend on the attractiveness of other people that we have seen recently?) But when they are not the focus of the research, carryover effects can be problematic. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant. If they judge the unattractive defendant more harshly, this might be because of his unattractiveness. But it could be instead that they judge him more harshly because they are becoming bored or tired. In other words, the order of the conditions is a confounding variable. The attractive condition is always the first condition and the unattractive condition the second. Thus any difference between the conditions in terms of the dependent variable could be caused by the order of the conditions and not the independent variable itself.

There is a solution to the problem of order effects, however, that can be used in many situations. It is counterbalancing , which means testing different participants in different orders. For example, some participants would be tested in the attractive defendant condition followed by the unattractive defendant condition, and others would be tested in the unattractive condition followed by the attractive condition. With three conditions, there would be six different orders (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA), so some participants would be tested in each of the six orders. With counterbalancing, participants are assigned to orders randomly, using the techniques we have already discussed. Thus random assignment plays an important role in within-subjects designs just as in between-subjects designs. Here, instead of randomly assigning to conditions, they are randomly assigned to different orders of conditions. In fact, it can safely be said that if a study does not involve random assignment in one form or another, it is not an experiment.

There are two ways to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes. One is that it controls the order of conditions so that it is no longer a confounding variable. Instead of the attractive condition always being first and the unattractive condition always being second, the attractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Likewise, the unattractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Thus any overall difference in the dependent variable between the two conditions cannot have been caused by the order of conditions. A second way to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes is that if there are carryover effects, it makes it possible to detect them. One can analyze the data separately for each order to see whether it had an effect.

When 9 Is “Larger” Than 221

Researcher Michael Birnbaum has argued that the lack of context provided by between-subjects designs is often a bigger problem than the context effects created by within-subjects designs. To demonstrate this, he asked one group of participants to rate how large the number 9 was on a 1-to-10 rating scale and another group to rate how large the number 221 was on the same 1-to-10 rating scale (Birnbaum, 1999). Participants in this between-subjects design gave the number 9 a mean rating of 5.13 and the number 221 a mean rating of 3.10. In other words, they rated 9 as larger than 221! According to Birnbaum, this is because participants spontaneously compared 9 with other one-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively large) and compared 221 with other three-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively small).

Simultaneous Within-Subjects Designs

So far, we have discussed an approach to within-subjects designs in which participants are tested in one condition at a time. There is another approach, however, that is often used when participants make multiple responses in each condition. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of 10 attractive defendants and 10 unattractive defendants. Instead of having people make judgments about all 10 defendants of one type followed by all 10 defendants of the other type, the researcher could present all 20 defendants in a sequence that mixed the two types. The researcher could then compute each participant’s mean rating for each type of defendant. Or imagine an experiment designed to see whether people with social anxiety disorder remember negative adjectives (e.g., “stupid,” “incompetent”) better than positive ones (e.g., “happy,” “productive”). The researcher could have participants study a single list that includes both kinds of words and then have them try to recall as many words as possible. The researcher could then count the number of each type of word that was recalled. There are many ways to determine the order in which the stimuli are presented, but one common way is to generate a different random order for each participant.

Between-Subjects or Within-Subjects?

Almost every experiment can be conducted using either a between-subjects design or a within-subjects design. This means that researchers must choose between the two approaches based on their relative merits for the particular situation.

Between-subjects experiments have the advantage of being conceptually simpler and requiring less testing time per participant. They also avoid carryover effects without the need for counterbalancing. Within-subjects experiments have the advantage of controlling extraneous participant variables, which generally reduces noise in the data and makes it easier to detect a relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

A good rule of thumb, then, is that if it is possible to conduct a within-subjects experiment (with proper counterbalancing) in the time that is available per participant—and you have no serious concerns about carryover effects—this is probably the best option. If a within-subjects design would be difficult or impossible to carry out, then you should consider a between-subjects design instead. For example, if you were testing participants in a doctor’s waiting room or shoppers in line at a grocery store, you might not have enough time to test each participant in all conditions and therefore would opt for a between-subjects design. Or imagine you were trying to reduce people’s level of prejudice by having them interact with someone of another race. A within-subjects design with counterbalancing would require testing some participants in the treatment condition first and then in a control condition. But if the treatment works and reduces people’s level of prejudice, then they would no longer be suitable for testing in the control condition. This is true for many designs that involve a treatment meant to produce long-term change in participants’ behavior (e.g., studies testing the effectiveness of psychotherapy). Clearly, a between-subjects design would be necessary here.

Remember also that using one type of design does not preclude using the other type in a different study. There is no reason that a researcher could not use both a between-subjects design and a within-subjects design to answer the same research question. In fact, professional researchers often do exactly this.

Key Takeaways

• Experiments can be conducted using either between-subjects or within-subjects designs. Deciding which to use in a particular situation requires careful consideration of the pros and cons of each approach.
• Random assignment to conditions in between-subjects experiments or to orders of conditions in within-subjects experiments is a fundamental element of experimental research. Its purpose is to control extraneous variables so that they do not become confounding variables.
• Experimental research on the effectiveness of a treatment requires both a treatment condition and a control condition, which can be a no-treatment control condition, a placebo control condition, or a waitlist control condition. Experimental treatments can also be compared with the best available alternative.

Discussion: For each of the following topics, list the pros and cons of a between-subjects and within-subjects design and decide which would be better.

• You want to test the relative effectiveness of two training programs for running a marathon.
• Using photographs of people as stimuli, you want to see if smiling people are perceived as more intelligent than people who are not smiling.
• In a field experiment, you want to see if the way a panhandler is dressed (neatly vs. sloppily) affects whether or not passersby give him any money.
• You want to see if concrete nouns (e.g., dog ) are recalled better than abstract nouns (e.g., truth ).
• Discussion: Imagine that an experiment shows that participants who receive psychodynamic therapy for a dog phobia improve more than participants in a no-treatment control group. Explain a fundamental problem with this research design and at least two ways that it might be corrected.

Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4 , 243–249.

Moseley, J. B., O’Malley, K., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., … Wray, N. P. (2002). A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347 , 81–88.

Price, D. D., Finniss, D. G., & Benedetti, F. (2008). A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 565–590.

Shapiro, A. K., & Shapiro, E. (1999). The powerful placebo: From ancient priest to modern physician . 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.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Sampling Methods – Types, Techniques and Examples

Sampling Methods – Types, Techniques and Examples

Table of Contents

Sampling refers to the process of selecting a subset of data from a larger population or dataset in order to analyze or make inferences about the whole population.

In other words, sampling involves taking a representative sample of data from a larger group or dataset in order to gain insights or draw conclusions about the entire group.

Sampling Methods

Sampling methods refer to the techniques used to select a subset of individuals or units from a larger population for the purpose of conducting statistical analysis or research.

Sampling is an essential part of the Research because it allows researchers to draw conclusions about a population without having to collect data from every member of that population, which can be time-consuming, expensive, or even impossible.

Types of Sampling Methods

Sampling can be broadly categorized into two main categories:

Probability Sampling

This type of sampling is based on the principles of random selection, and it involves selecting samples in a way that every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample.. Probability sampling is commonly used in scientific research and statistical analysis, as it provides a representative sample that can be generalized to the larger population.

Type of Probability Sampling :

• Simple Random Sampling: In this method, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. This can be done using a random number generator or by drawing names out of a hat, for example.
• Systematic Sampling: In this method, the population is first divided into a list or sequence, and then every nth member is selected for the sample. For example, if every 10th person is selected from a list of 100 people, the sample would include 10 people.
• Stratified Sampling: In this method, the population is divided into subgroups or strata based on certain characteristics, and then a random sample is taken from each stratum. This is often used to ensure that the sample is representative of the population as a whole.
• Cluster Sampling: In this method, the population is divided into clusters or groups, and then a random sample of clusters is selected. Then, all members of the selected clusters are included in the sample.
• Multi-Stage Sampling : This method combines two or more sampling techniques. For example, a researcher may use stratified sampling to select clusters, and then use simple random sampling to select members within each cluster.

Non-probability Sampling

This type of sampling does not rely on random selection, and it involves selecting samples in a way that does not give every member of the population an equal chance of being included in the sample. Non-probability sampling is often used in qualitative research, where the aim is not to generalize findings to a larger population, but to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomenon or group. Non-probability sampling methods can be quicker and more cost-effective than probability sampling methods, but they may also be subject to bias and may not be representative of the larger population.

Types of Non-probability Sampling :

• Convenience Sampling: In this method, participants are chosen based on their availability or willingness to participate. This method is easy and convenient but may not be representative of the population.
• Purposive Sampling: In this method, participants are selected based on specific criteria, such as their expertise or knowledge on a particular topic. This method is often used in qualitative research, but may not be representative of the population.
• Snowball Sampling: In this method, participants are recruited through referrals from other participants. This method is often used when the population is hard to reach, but may not be representative of the population.
• Quota Sampling: In this method, a predetermined number of participants are selected based on specific criteria, such as age or gender. This method is often used in market research, but may not be representative of the population.
• Volunteer Sampling: In this method, participants volunteer to participate in the study. This method is often used in research where participants are motivated by personal interest or altruism, but may not be representative of the population.

Applications of Sampling Methods

Applications of Sampling Methods from different fields:

• Psychology : Sampling methods are used in psychology research to study various aspects of human behavior and mental processes. For example, researchers may use stratified sampling to select a sample of participants that is representative of the population based on factors such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Random sampling may also be used to select participants for experimental studies.
• Sociology : Sampling methods are commonly used in sociological research to study social phenomena and relationships between individuals and groups. For example, researchers may use cluster sampling to select a sample of neighborhoods to study the effects of economic inequality on health outcomes. Stratified sampling may also be used to select a sample of participants that is representative of the population based on factors such as income, education, and occupation.
• Social sciences: Sampling methods are commonly used in social sciences to study human behavior and attitudes. For example, researchers may use stratified sampling to select a sample of participants that is representative of the population based on factors such as age, gender, and income.
• Marketing : Sampling methods are used in marketing research to collect data on consumer preferences, behavior, and attitudes. For example, researchers may use random sampling to select a sample of consumers to participate in a survey about a new product.
• Healthcare : Sampling methods are used in healthcare research to study the prevalence of diseases and risk factors, and to evaluate interventions. For example, researchers may use cluster sampling to select a sample of health clinics to participate in a study of the effectiveness of a new treatment.
• Environmental science: Sampling methods are used in environmental science to collect data on environmental variables such as water quality, air pollution, and soil composition. For example, researchers may use systematic sampling to collect soil samples at regular intervals across a field.
• Education : Sampling methods are used in education research to study student learning and achievement. For example, researchers may use stratified sampling to select a sample of schools that is representative of the population based on factors such as demographics and academic performance.

Examples of Sampling Methods

Probability Sampling Methods Examples:

• Simple random sampling Example : A researcher randomly selects participants from the population using a random number generator or drawing names from a hat.
• Stratified random sampling Example : A researcher divides the population into subgroups (strata) based on a characteristic of interest (e.g. age or income) and then randomly selects participants from each subgroup.
• Systematic sampling Example : A researcher selects participants at regular intervals from a list of the population.

Non-probability Sampling Methods Examples:

• Convenience sampling Example: A researcher selects participants who are conveniently available, such as students in a particular class or visitors to a shopping mall.
• Purposive sampling Example : A researcher selects participants who meet specific criteria, such as individuals who have been diagnosed with a particular medical condition.
• Snowball sampling Example : A researcher selects participants who are referred to them by other participants, such as friends or acquaintances.

How to Conduct Sampling Methods

some general steps to conduct sampling methods:

• Define the population: Identify the population of interest and clearly define its boundaries.
• Choose the sampling method: Select an appropriate sampling method based on the research question, characteristics of the population, and available resources.
• Determine the sample size: Determine the desired sample size based on statistical considerations such as margin of error, confidence level, or power analysis.
• Create a sampling frame: Develop a list of all individuals or elements in the population from which the sample will be drawn. The sampling frame should be comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.
• Select the sample: Use the chosen sampling method to select the sample from the sampling frame. The sample should be selected randomly, or if using a non-random method, every effort should be made to minimize bias and ensure that the sample is representative of the population.
• Collect data: Once the sample has been selected, collect data from each member of the sample using appropriate research methods (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations).
• Analyze the data: Analyze the data collected from the sample to draw conclusions about the population of interest.

When to use Sampling Methods

Sampling methods are used in research when it is not feasible or practical to study the entire population of interest. Sampling allows researchers to study a smaller group of individuals, known as a sample, and use the findings from the sample to make inferences about the larger population.

Sampling methods are particularly useful when:

• The population of interest is too large to study in its entirety.
• The cost and time required to study the entire population are prohibitive.
• The population is geographically dispersed or difficult to access.
• The research question requires specialized or hard-to-find individuals.
• The data collected is quantitative and statistical analyses are used to draw conclusions.

Purpose of Sampling Methods

The main purpose of sampling methods in research is to obtain a representative sample of individuals or elements from a larger population of interest, in order to make inferences about the population as a whole. By studying a smaller group of individuals, known as a sample, researchers can gather information about the population that would be difficult or impossible to obtain from studying the entire population.

Sampling methods allow researchers to:

• Study a smaller, more manageable group of individuals, which is typically less time-consuming and less expensive than studying the entire population.
• Reduce the potential for data collection errors and improve the accuracy of the results by minimizing sampling bias.
• Make inferences about the larger population with a certain degree of confidence, using statistical analyses of the data collected from the sample.
• Improve the generalizability and external validity of the findings by ensuring that the sample is representative of the population of interest.

Characteristics of Sampling Methods

Here are some characteristics of sampling methods:

• Randomness : Probability sampling methods are based on random selection, meaning that every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. This helps to minimize bias and ensure that the sample is representative of the population.
• Representativeness : The goal of sampling is to obtain a sample that is representative of the larger population of interest. This means that the sample should reflect the characteristics of the population in terms of key demographic, behavioral, or other relevant variables.
• Size : The size of the sample should be large enough to provide sufficient statistical power for the research question at hand. The sample size should also be appropriate for the chosen sampling method and the level of precision desired.
• Efficiency : Sampling methods should be efficient in terms of time, cost, and resources required. The method chosen should be feasible given the available resources and time constraints.
• Bias : Sampling methods should aim to minimize bias and ensure that the sample is representative of the population of interest. Bias can be introduced through non-random selection or non-response, and can affect the validity and generalizability of the findings.
• Precision : Sampling methods should be precise in terms of providing estimates of the population parameters of interest. Precision is influenced by sample size, sampling method, and level of variability in the population.
• Validity : The validity of the sampling method is important for ensuring that the results obtained from the sample are accurate and can be generalized to the population of interest. Validity can be affected by sampling method, sample size, and the representativeness of the sample.

Advantages of Sampling Methods

Sampling methods have several advantages, including:

• Cost-Effective : Sampling methods are often much cheaper and less time-consuming than studying an entire population. By studying only a small subset of the population, researchers can gather valuable data without incurring the costs associated with studying the entire population.
• Convenience : Sampling methods are often more convenient than studying an entire population. For example, if a researcher wants to study the eating habits of people in a city, it would be very difficult and time-consuming to study every single person in the city. By using sampling methods, the researcher can obtain data from a smaller subset of people, making the study more feasible.
• Accuracy: When done correctly, sampling methods can be very accurate. By using appropriate sampling techniques, researchers can obtain a sample that is representative of the entire population. This allows them to make accurate generalizations about the population as a whole based on the data collected from the sample.
• Time-Saving: Sampling methods can save a lot of time compared to studying the entire population. By studying a smaller sample, researchers can collect data much more quickly than they could if they studied every single person in the population.
• Less Bias : Sampling methods can reduce bias in a study. If a researcher were to study the entire population, it would be very difficult to eliminate all sources of bias. However, by using appropriate sampling techniques, researchers can reduce bias and obtain a sample that is more representative of the entire population.

Limitations of Sampling Methods

• Sampling Error : Sampling error is the difference between the sample statistic and the population parameter. It is the result of selecting a sample rather than the entire population. The larger the sample, the lower the sampling error. However, no matter how large the sample size, there will always be some degree of sampling error.
• Selection Bias: Selection bias occurs when the sample is not representative of the population. This can happen if the sample is not selected randomly or if some groups are underrepresented in the sample. Selection bias can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the population.
• Non-response Bias : Non-response bias occurs when some members of the sample do not respond to the survey or study. This can result in a biased sample if the non-respondents differ from the respondents in important ways.
• Time and Cost : While sampling can be cost-effective, it can still be expensive and time-consuming to select a sample that is representative of the population. Depending on the sampling method used, it may take a long time to obtain a sample that is large enough and representative enough to be useful.
• Limited Information : Sampling can only provide information about the variables that are measured. It may not provide information about other variables that are relevant to the research question but were not measured.
• Generalization : The extent to which the findings from a sample can be generalized to the population depends on the representativeness of the sample. If the sample is not representative of the population, it may not be possible to generalize the findings to the population as a whole.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Non-probability Sampling – Types, Methods and...

Stratified Random Sampling – Definition, Method...

Convenience Sampling – Method, Types and Examples

Systematic Sampling – Types, Method and Examples

Volunteer Sampling – Definition, Methods and...

Purposive Sampling – Methods, Types and Examples

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

Experimental Research

Experimental research is commonly used in sciences such as sociology and psychology, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine etc.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Pretest-Posttest
• Third Variable
• Research Bias
• Independent Variable
• Between Subjects

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Experimental Research
• 2.1 Independent Variable
• 2.2 Dependent Variable
• 2.3 Controlled Variables
• 2.4 Third Variable
• 3.1 Control Group
• 3.2 Research Bias
• 3.3.1 Placebo Effect
• 3.3.2 Double Blind Method
• 4.1 Randomized Controlled Trials
• 4.2 Pretest-Posttest
• 4.3 Solomon Four Group
• 4.4 Between Subjects
• 4.5 Within Subject
• 4.6 Repeated Measures
• 4.7 Counterbalanced Measures
• 4.8 Matched Subjects

It is a collection of research designs which use manipulation and controlled testing to understand causal processes. Generally, one or more variables are manipulated to determine their effect on a dependent variable.

The experimental method is a systematic and scientific approach to research in which the researcher manipulates one or more variables, and controls and measures any change in other variables.

Experimental Research is often used where:

• There is time priority in a causal relationship ( cause precedes effect )
• There is consistency in a causal relationship (a cause will always lead to the same effect)
• The magnitude of the correlation is great.

(Reference: en.wikipedia.org)

The word experimental research has a range of definitions. In the strict sense, experimental research is what we call a true experiment .

This is an experiment where the researcher manipulates one variable, and control/randomizes the rest of the variables. It has a control group , the subjects have been randomly assigned between the groups, and the researcher only tests one effect at a time. It is also important to know what variable(s) you want to test and measure.

A very wide definition of experimental research, or a quasi experiment , is research where the scientist actively influences something to observe the consequences. Most experiments tend to fall in between the strict and the wide definition.

A rule of thumb is that physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry and geology tend to define experiments more narrowly than social sciences, such as sociology and psychology, which conduct experiments closer to the wider definition.

Aims of Experimental Research

Experiments are conducted to be able to predict phenomenons. Typically, an experiment is constructed to be able to explain some kind of causation . Experimental research is important to society - it helps us to improve our everyday lives.

Identifying the Research Problem

After deciding the topic of interest, the researcher tries to define the research problem . This helps the researcher to focus on a more narrow research area to be able to study it appropriately.  Defining the research problem helps you to formulate a  research hypothesis , which is tested against the  null hypothesis .

The research problem is often operationalizationed , to define how to measure the research problem. The results will depend on the exact measurements that the researcher chooses and may be operationalized differently in another study to test the main conclusions of the study.

An ad hoc analysis is a hypothesis invented after testing is done, to try to explain why the contrary evidence. A poor ad hoc analysis may be seen as the researcher's inability to accept that his/her hypothesis is wrong, while a great ad hoc analysis may lead to more testing and possibly a significant discovery.

Constructing the Experiment

There are various aspects to remember when constructing an experiment. Planning ahead ensures that the experiment is carried out properly and that the results reflect the real world, in the best possible way.

Sampling Groups to Study

Sampling groups correctly is especially important when we have more than one condition in the experiment. One sample group often serves as a control group , whilst others are tested under the experimental conditions.

Deciding the sample groups can be done in using many different sampling techniques. Population sampling may chosen by a number of methods, such as randomization , "quasi-randomization" and pairing.

Reducing sampling errors is vital for getting valid results from experiments. Researchers often adjust the sample size to minimize chances of random errors .

Here are some common sampling techniques :

• probability sampling
• non-probability sampling
• simple random sampling
• convenience sampling
• stratified sampling
• systematic sampling
• cluster sampling
• sequential sampling
• disproportional sampling
• judgmental sampling
• snowball sampling
• quota sampling

Creating the Design

The research design is chosen based on a range of factors. Important factors when choosing the design are feasibility, time, cost, ethics, measurement problems and what you would like to test. The design of the experiment is critical for the validity of the results.

Typical Designs and Features in Experimental Design

• Pretest-Posttest Design Check whether the groups are different before the manipulation starts and the effect of the manipulation. Pretests sometimes influence the effect.
• Control Group Control groups are designed to measure research bias and measurement effects, such as the Hawthorne Effect or the Placebo Effect . A control group is a group not receiving the same manipulation as the experimental group. Experiments frequently have 2 conditions, but rarely more than 3 conditions at the same time.
• Randomized Controlled Trials Randomized Sampling, comparison between an Experimental Group and a Control Group and strict control/randomization of all other variables
• Solomon Four-Group Design With two control groups and two experimental groups. Half the groups have a pretest and half do not have a pretest. This to test both the effect itself and the effect of the pretest.
• Between Subjects Design Grouping Participants to Different Conditions
• Within Subject Design Participants Take Part in the Different Conditions - See also: Repeated Measures Design
• Counterbalanced Measures Design Testing the effect of the order of treatments when no control group is available/ethical
• Matched Subjects Design Matching Participants to Create Similar Experimental- and Control-Groups
• Double-Blind Experiment Neither the researcher, nor the participants, know which is the control group. The results can be affected if the researcher or participants know this.
• Bayesian Probability Using bayesian probability to "interact" with participants is a more "advanced" experimental design. It can be used for settings were there are many variables which are hard to isolate. The researcher starts with a set of initial beliefs, and tries to adjust them to how participants have responded

Pilot Study

It may be wise to first conduct a pilot-study or two before you do the real experiment. This ensures that the experiment measures what it should, and that everything is set up right.

Minor errors, which could potentially destroy the experiment, are often found during this process. With a pilot study, you can get information about errors and problems, and improve the design, before putting a lot of effort into the real experiment.

If the experiments involve humans, a common strategy is to first have a pilot study with someone involved in the research, but not too closely, and then arrange a pilot with a person who resembles the subject(s) . Those two different pilots are likely to give the researcher good information about any problems in the experiment.

Conducting the Experiment

An experiment is typically carried out by manipulating a variable, called the independent variable , affecting the experimental group. The effect that the researcher is interested in, the dependent variable(s) , is measured.

Identifying and controlling non-experimental factors which the researcher does not want to influence the effects, is crucial to drawing a valid conclusion. This is often done by controlling variables , if possible, or randomizing variables to minimize effects that can be traced back to third variables . Researchers only want to measure the effect of the independent variable(s) when conducting an experiment , allowing them to conclude that this was the reason for the effect.

Analysis and Conclusions

In quantitative research , the amount of data measured can be enormous. Data not prepared to be analyzed is called "raw data". The raw data is often summarized as something called "output data", which typically consists of one line per subject (or item). A cell of the output data is, for example, an average of an effect in many trials for a subject. The output data is used for statistical analysis, e.g. significance tests, to see if there really is an effect.

The aim of an analysis is to draw a conclusion , together with other observations. The researcher might generalize the results to a wider phenomenon, if there is no indication of confounding variables "polluting" the results.

If the researcher suspects that the effect stems from a different variable than the independent variable, further investigation is needed to gauge the validity of the results. An experiment is often conducted because the scientist wants to know if the independent variable is having any effect upon the dependent variable. Variables correlating are not proof that there is causation .

Experiments are more often of quantitative nature than qualitative nature, although it happens.

Examples of Experiments

This website contains many examples of experiments. Some are not true experiments , but involve some kind of manipulation to investigate a phenomenon. Others fulfill most or all criteria of true experiments.

Here are some examples of scientific experiments:

Social Psychology

• Stanley Milgram Experiment - Will people obey orders, even if clearly dangerous?
• Asch Experiment - Will people conform to group behavior?
• Stanford Prison Experiment - How do people react to roles? Will you behave differently?
• Good Samaritan Experiment - Would You Help a Stranger? - Explaining Helping Behavior
• Law Of Segregation - The Mendel Pea Plant Experiment
• Transforming Principle - Griffith's Experiment about Genetics
• Ben Franklin Kite Experiment - Struck by Lightning
• J J Thomson Cathode Ray Experiment
• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Oskar Blakstad (Jul 10, 2008). Experimental Research. Retrieved Sep 05, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/experimental-research

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Get all these articles in 1 guide.

Want the full version to study at home, take to school or just scribble on?

Whether you are an academic novice, or you simply want to brush up your skills, this book will take your academic writing skills to the next level.

Download electronic versions: - Epub for mobiles and tablets - For Kindle here - For iBooks here - PDF version here

Save this course for later

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Emerg (Tehran)
• v.5(1); 2017

Sampling methods in Clinical Research; an Educational Review

Mohamed elfil.

1 Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt.

Ahmed Negida

2 Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt.

Clinical research usually involves patients with a certain disease or a condition. The generalizability of clinical research findings is based on multiple factors related to the internal and external validity of the research methods. The main methodological issue that influences the generalizability of clinical research findings is the sampling method. In this educational article, we are explaining the different sampling methods in clinical research.

Introduction

In clinical research, we define the population as a group of people who share a common character or a condition, usually the disease. If we are conducting a study on patients with ischemic stroke, it will be difficult to include the whole population of ischemic stroke all over the world. It is difficult to locate the whole population everywhere and to have access to all the population. Therefore, the practical approach in clinical research is to include a part of this population, called “sample population”. The whole population is sometimes called “target population” while the sample population is called “study population. When doing a research study, we should consider the sample to be representative to the target population, as much as possible, with the least possible error and without substitution or incompleteness. The process of selecting a sample population from the target population is called the “sampling method”.

Sampling types

There are two major categories of sampling methods ( figure 1 ): 1; probability sampling methods where all subjects in the target population have equal chances to be selected in the sample [ 1 , 2 ] and 2; non-probability sampling methods where the sample population is selected in a non-systematic process that does not guarantee equal chances for each subject in the target population [ 2 , 3 ]. Samples which were selected using probability sampling methods are more representatives of the target population.

Sampling methods.

Probability sampling method

Simple random sampling

This method is used when the whole population is accessible and the investigators have a list of all subjects in this target population. The list of all subjects in this population is called the “sampling frame”. From this list, we draw a random sample using lottery method or using a computer generated random list [ 4 ].

Stratified random sampling

This method is a modification of the simple random sampling therefore, it requires the condition of sampling frame being available, as well. However, in this method, the whole population is divided into homogeneous strata or subgroups according a demographic factor (e.g. gender, age, religion, socio-economic level, education, or diagnosis etc.). Then, the researchers select draw a random sample from the different strata [ 3 , 4 ]. The advantages of this method are: (1) it allows researchers to obtain an effect size from each strata separately, as if it was a different study. Therefore, the between group differences become apparent, and (2) it allows obtaining samples from minority/under-represented populations. If the researchers used the simple random sampling, the minority population will remain underrepresented in the sample, as well. Simply, because the simple random method usually represents the whole target population. In such case, investigators can better use the stratified random sample to obtain adequate samples from all strata in the population.

Systematic random sampling (Interval sampling)

In this method, the investigators select subjects to be included in the sample based on a systematic rule, using a fixed interval. For example: If the rule is to include the last patient from every 5 patients. We will include patients with these numbers (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, ...etc.). In some situations, it is not necessary to have the sampling frame if there is a specific hospital or center which the patients are visiting regularly. In this case, the researcher can start randomly and then systemically chooses next patients using a fixed interval [ 4 ].

Cluster sampling (Multistage sampling)

It is used when creating a sampling frame is nearly impossible due to the large size of the population. In this method, the population is divided by geographic location into clusters. A list of all clusters is made and investigators draw a random number of clusters to be included. Then, they list all individuals within these clusters, and run another turn of random selection to get a final random sample exactly as simple random sampling. This method is called multistage because the selection passed with two stages: firstly, the selection of eligible clusters, then, the selection of sample from individuals of these clusters. An example for this, if we are conducting a research project on primary school students from Iran. It will be very difficult to get a list of all primary school students all over the country. In this case, a list of primary schools is made and the researcher randomly picks up a number of schools, then pick a random sample from the eligible schools [ 3 ].

Non-probability sampling method

Convenience sampling

Although it is a non-probability sampling method, it is the most applicable and widely used method in clinical research. In this method, the investigators enroll subjects according to their availability and accessibility. Therefore, this method is quick, inexpensive, and convenient. It is called convenient sampling as the researcher selects the sample elements according to their convenient accessibility and proximity [ 3 , 6 ]. For example: assume that we will perform a cohort study on Egyptian patients with Hepatitis C (HCV) virus. The convenience sample here will be confined to the accessible population for the research team. Accessible population are HCV patients attending in Zagazig University Hospital and Cairo University Hospitals. Therefore, within the study period, all patients attending these two hospitals and meet the eligibility criteria will be included in this study.

Judgmental sampling

In this method, the subjects are selected by the choice of the investigators. The researcher assumes specific characteristics for the sample (e.g. male/female ratio = 2/1) and therefore, they judge the sample to be suitable for representing the population. This method is widely criticized due to the likelihood of bias by investigator judgement [ 5 ].

Snow-ball sampling

This method is used when the population cannot be located in a specific place and therefore, it is different to access this population. In this method, the investigator asks each subject to give him access to his colleagues from the same population. This situation is common in social science research, for example, if we running a survey on street children, there will be no list with the homeless children and it will be difficult to locate this population in one place e.g. a school/hospital. Here, the investigators will deliver the survey to one child then, ask him to take them to his colleagues or deliver the surveys to them.

Conflict of interest:

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques, & Examples

Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques, & Examples

Published on 3 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

When you conduct research about a group of people, it’s rarely possible to collect data from every person in that group. Instead, you select a sample. The sample is the group of individuals who will actually participate in the research.

To draw valid conclusions from your results, you have to carefully decide how you will select a sample that is representative of the group as a whole. There are two types of sampling methods:

• Probability sampling involves random selection, allowing you to make strong statistical inferences about the whole group. It minimises the risk of selection bias .
• Non-probability sampling involves non-random selection based on convenience or other criteria, allowing you to easily collect data.

You should clearly explain how you selected your sample in the methodology section of your paper or thesis.

Table of contents

Population vs sample, probability sampling methods, non-probability sampling methods, frequently asked questions about sampling.

First, you need to understand the difference between a population and a sample , and identify the target population of your research.

• The population is the entire group that you want to draw conclusions about.
• The sample is the specific group of individuals that you will collect data from.

The population can be defined in terms of geographical location, age, income, and many other characteristics.

It is important to carefully define your target population according to the purpose and practicalities of your project.

If the population is very large, demographically mixed, and geographically dispersed, it might be difficult to gain access to a representative sample.

Sampling frame

The sampling frame is the actual list of individuals that the sample will be drawn from. Ideally, it should include the entire target population (and nobody who is not part of that population).

You are doing research on working conditions at Company X. Your population is all 1,000 employees of the company. Your sampling frame is the company’s HR database, which lists the names and contact details of every employee.

Sample size

The number of individuals you should include in your sample depends on various factors, including the size and variability of the population and your research design. There are different sample size calculators and formulas depending on what you want to achieve with statistical analysis .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Probability sampling means that every member of the population has a chance of being selected. It is mainly used in quantitative research . If you want to produce results that are representative of the whole population, probability sampling techniques are the most valid choice.

There are four main types of probability sample.

1. Simple random sampling

In a simple random sample , every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Your sampling frame should include the whole population.

To conduct this type of sampling, you can use tools like random number generators or other techniques that are based entirely on chance.

You want to select a simple random sample of 100 employees of Company X. You assign a number to every employee in the company database from 1 to 1000, and use a random number generator to select 100 numbers.

2. Systematic sampling

Systematic sampling is similar to simple random sampling, but it is usually slightly easier to conduct. Every member of the population is listed with a number, but instead of randomly generating numbers, individuals are chosen at regular intervals.

All employees of the company are listed in alphabetical order. From the first 10 numbers, you randomly select a starting point: number 6. From number 6 onwards, every 10th person on the list is selected (6, 16, 26, 36, and so on), and you end up with a sample of 100 people.

If you use this technique, it is important to make sure that there is no hidden pattern in the list that might skew the sample. For example, if the HR database groups employees by team, and team members are listed in order of seniority, there is a risk that your interval might skip over people in junior roles, resulting in a sample that is skewed towards senior employees.

3. Stratified sampling

Stratified sampling involves dividing the population into subpopulations that may differ in important ways. It allows you draw more precise conclusions by ensuring that every subgroup is properly represented in the sample.

To use this sampling method, you divide the population into subgroups (called strata) based on the relevant characteristic (e.g., gender, age range, income bracket, job role).

Based on the overall proportions of the population, you calculate how many people should be sampled from each subgroup. Then you use random or systematic sampling to select a sample from each subgroup.

The company has 800 female employees and 200 male employees. You want to ensure that the sample reflects the gender balance of the company, so you sort the population into two strata based on gender. Then you use random sampling on each group, selecting 80 women and 20 men, which gives you a representative sample of 100 people.

4. Cluster sampling

Cluster sampling also involves dividing the population into subgroups, but each subgroup should have similar characteristics to the whole sample. Instead of sampling individuals from each subgroup, you randomly select entire subgroups.

If it is practically possible, you might include every individual from each sampled cluster. If the clusters themselves are large, you can also sample individuals from within each cluster using one of the techniques above. This is called multistage sampling .

This method is good for dealing with large and dispersed populations, but there is more risk of error in the sample, as there could be substantial differences between clusters. It’s difficult to guarantee that the sampled clusters are really representative of the whole population.

The company has offices in 10 cities across the country (all with roughly the same number of employees in similar roles). You don’t have the capacity to travel to every office to collect your data, so you use random sampling to select 3 offices – these are your clusters.

In a non-probability sample , individuals are selected based on non-random criteria, and not every individual has a chance of being included.

This type of sample is easier and cheaper to access, but it has a higher risk of sampling bias . That means the inferences you can make about the population are weaker than with probability samples, and your conclusions may be more limited. If you use a non-probability sample, you should still aim to make it as representative of the population as possible.

Non-probability sampling techniques are often used in exploratory and qualitative research . In these types of research, the aim is not to test a hypothesis about a broad population, but to develop an initial understanding of a small or under-researched population.

1. Convenience sampling

A convenience sample simply includes the individuals who happen to be most accessible to the researcher.

This is an easy and inexpensive way to gather initial data, but there is no way to tell if the sample is representative of the population, so it can’t produce generalisable results.

You are researching opinions about student support services in your university, so after each of your classes, you ask your fellow students to complete a survey on the topic. This is a convenient way to gather data, but as you only surveyed students taking the same classes as you at the same level, the sample is not representative of all the students at your university.

2. Voluntary response sampling

Similar to a convenience sample, a voluntary response sample is mainly based on ease of access. Instead of the researcher choosing participants and directly contacting them, people volunteer themselves (e.g., by responding to a public online survey).

Voluntary response samples are always at least somewhat biased, as some people will inherently be more likely to volunteer than others.

You send out the survey to all students at your university and many students decide to complete it. This can certainly give you some insight into the topic, but the people who responded are more likely to be those who have strong opinions about the student support services, so you can’t be sure that their opinions are representative of all students.

3. Purposive sampling

Purposive sampling , also known as judgement sampling, involves the researcher using their expertise to select a sample that is most useful to the purposes of the research.

It is often used in qualitative research , where the researcher wants to gain detailed knowledge about a specific phenomenon rather than make statistical inferences, or where the population is very small and specific. An effective purposive sample must have clear criteria and rationale for inclusion.

You want to know more about the opinions and experiences of students with a disability at your university, so you purposely select a number of students with different support needs in order to gather a varied range of data on their experiences with student services.

4. Snowball sampling

If the population is hard to access, snowball sampling can be used to recruit participants via other participants. The number of people you have access to ‘snowballs’ as you get in contact with more people.

You are researching experiences of homelessness in your city. Since there is no list of all homeless people in the city, probability sampling isn’t possible. You meet one person who agrees to participate in the research, and she puts you in contact with other homeless people she knows in the area.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.

Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.

Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .

In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.

Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling , and quota sampling .

Sampling bias occurs when some members of a population are systematically more likely to be selected in a sample than others.

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/sampling/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition & methods, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, controlled experiments | methods & examples of control.

19+ Experimental Design Examples (Methods + Types)

Ever wondered how scientists discover new medicines, psychologists learn about behavior, or even how marketers figure out what kind of ads you like? Well, they all have something in common: they use a special plan or recipe called an "experimental design."

Imagine you're baking cookies. You can't just throw random amounts of flour, sugar, and chocolate chips into a bowl and hope for the best. You follow a recipe, right? Scientists and researchers do something similar. They follow a "recipe" called an experimental design to make sure their experiments are set up in a way that the answers they find are meaningful and reliable.

Experimental design is the roadmap researchers use to answer questions. It's a set of rules and steps that researchers follow to collect information, or "data," in a way that is fair, accurate, and makes sense.

Long ago, people didn't have detailed game plans for experiments. They often just tried things out and saw what happened. But over time, people got smarter about this. They started creating structured plans—what we now call experimental designs—to get clearer, more trustworthy answers to their questions.

In this article, we'll take you on a journey through the world of experimental designs. We'll talk about the different types, or "flavors," of experimental designs, where they're used, and even give you a peek into how they came to be.

What Is Experimental Design?

Alright, before we dive into the different types of experimental designs, let's get crystal clear on what experimental design actually is.

Imagine you're a detective trying to solve a mystery. You need clues, right? Well, in the world of research, experimental design is like the roadmap that helps you find those clues. It's like the game plan in sports or the blueprint when you're building a house. Just like you wouldn't start building without a good blueprint, researchers won't start their studies without a strong experimental design.

So, why do we need experimental design? Think about baking a cake. If you toss ingredients into a bowl without measuring, you'll end up with a mess instead of a tasty dessert.

Similarly, in research, if you don't have a solid plan, you might get confusing or incorrect results. A good experimental design helps you ask the right questions ( think critically ), decide what to measure ( come up with an idea ), and figure out how to measure it (test it). It also helps you consider things that might mess up your results, like outside influences you hadn't thought of.

For example, let's say you want to find out if listening to music helps people focus better. Your experimental design would help you decide things like: Who are you going to test? What kind of music will you use? How will you measure focus? And, importantly, how will you make sure that it's really the music affecting focus and not something else, like the time of day or whether someone had a good breakfast?

In short, experimental design is the master plan that guides researchers through the process of collecting data, so they can answer questions in the most reliable way possible. It's like the GPS for the journey of discovery!

History of Experimental Design

Around 350 BCE, people like Aristotle were trying to figure out how the world works, but they mostly just thought really hard about things. They didn't test their ideas much. So while they were super smart, their methods weren't always the best for finding out the truth.

Fast forward to the Renaissance (14th to 17th centuries), a time of big changes and lots of curiosity. People like Galileo started to experiment by actually doing tests, like rolling balls down inclined planes to study motion. Galileo's work was cool because he combined thinking with doing. He'd have an idea, test it, look at the results, and then think some more. This approach was a lot more reliable than just sitting around and thinking.

Now, let's zoom ahead to the 18th and 19th centuries. This is when people like Francis Galton, an English polymath, started to get really systematic about experimentation. Galton was obsessed with measuring things. Seriously, he even tried to measure how good-looking people were ! His work helped create the foundations for a more organized approach to experiments.

Next stop: the early 20th century. Enter Ronald A. Fisher , a brilliant British statistician. Fisher was a game-changer. He came up with ideas that are like the bread and butter of modern experimental design.

Fisher invented the concept of the " control group "—that's a group of people or things that don't get the treatment you're testing, so you can compare them to those who do. He also stressed the importance of " randomization ," which means assigning people or things to different groups by chance, like drawing names out of a hat. This makes sure the experiment is fair and the results are trustworthy.

Around the same time, American psychologists like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner were developing " behaviorism ." They focused on studying things that they could directly observe and measure, like actions and reactions.

Skinner even built boxes—called Skinner Boxes —to test how animals like pigeons and rats learn. Their work helped shape how psychologists design experiments today. Watson performed a very controversial experiment called The Little Albert experiment that helped describe behaviour through conditioning—in other words, how people learn to behave the way they do.

In the later part of the 20th century and into our time, computers have totally shaken things up. Researchers now use super powerful software to help design their experiments and crunch the numbers.

With computers, they can simulate complex experiments before they even start, which helps them predict what might happen. This is especially helpful in fields like medicine, where getting things right can be a matter of life and death.

Also, did you know that experimental designs aren't just for scientists in labs? They're used by people in all sorts of jobs, like marketing, education, and even video game design! Yes, someone probably ran an experiment to figure out what makes a game super fun to play.

So there you have it—a quick tour through the history of experimental design, from Aristotle's deep thoughts to Fisher's groundbreaking ideas, and all the way to today's computer-powered research. These designs are the recipes that help people from all walks of life find answers to their big questions.

Key Terms in Experimental Design

Before we dig into the different types of experimental designs, let's get comfy with some key terms. Understanding these terms will make it easier for us to explore the various types of experimental designs that researchers use to answer their big questions.

Independent Variable : This is what you change or control in your experiment to see what effect it has. Think of it as the "cause" in a cause-and-effect relationship. For example, if you're studying whether different types of music help people focus, the kind of music is the independent variable.

Dependent Variable : This is what you're measuring to see the effect of your independent variable. In our music and focus experiment, how well people focus is the dependent variable—it's what "depends" on the kind of music played.

Control Group : This is a group of people who don't get the special treatment or change you're testing. They help you see what happens when the independent variable is not applied. If you're testing whether a new medicine works, the control group would take a fake pill, called a placebo , instead of the real medicine.

Experimental Group : This is the group that gets the special treatment or change you're interested in. Going back to our medicine example, this group would get the actual medicine to see if it has any effect.

Randomization : This is like shaking things up in a fair way. You randomly put people into the control or experimental group so that each group is a good mix of different kinds of people. This helps make the results more reliable.

Sample : This is the group of people you're studying. They're a "sample" of a larger group that you're interested in. For instance, if you want to know how teenagers feel about a new video game, you might study a sample of 100 teenagers.

Bias : This is anything that might tilt your experiment one way or another without you realizing it. Like if you're testing a new kind of dog food and you only test it on poodles, that could create a bias because maybe poodles just really like that food and other breeds don't.

Data : This is the information you collect during the experiment. It's like the treasure you find on your journey of discovery!

Replication : This means doing the experiment more than once to make sure your findings hold up. It's like double-checking your answers on a test.

Hypothesis : This is your educated guess about what will happen in the experiment. It's like predicting the end of a movie based on the first half.

Steps of Experimental Design

Alright, let's say you're all fired up and ready to run your own experiment. Cool! But where do you start? Well, designing an experiment is a bit like planning a road trip. There are some key steps you've got to take to make sure you reach your destination. Let's break it down:

• Ask a Question : Before you hit the road, you've got to know where you're going. Same with experiments. You start with a question you want to answer, like "Does eating breakfast really make you do better in school?"
• Do Some Homework : Before you pack your bags, you look up the best places to visit, right? In science, this means reading up on what other people have already discovered about your topic.
• Form a Hypothesis : This is your educated guess about what you think will happen. It's like saying, "I bet this route will get us there faster."
• Plan the Details : Now you decide what kind of car you're driving (your experimental design), who's coming with you (your sample), and what snacks to bring (your variables).
• Randomization : Remember, this is like shuffling a deck of cards. You want to mix up who goes into your control and experimental groups to make sure it's a fair test.
• Run the Experiment : Finally, the rubber hits the road! You carry out your plan, making sure to collect your data carefully.
• Analyze the Data : Once the trip's over, you look at your photos and decide which ones are keepers. In science, this means looking at your data to see what it tells you.
• Draw Conclusions : Based on your data, did you find an answer to your question? This is like saying, "Yep, that route was faster," or "Nope, we hit a ton of traffic."
• Share Your Findings : After a great trip, you want to tell everyone about it, right? Scientists do the same by publishing their results so others can learn from them.
• Do It Again? : Sometimes one road trip just isn't enough. In the same way, scientists often repeat their experiments to make sure their findings are solid.

So there you have it! Those are the basic steps you need to follow when you're designing an experiment. Each step helps make sure that you're setting up a fair and reliable way to find answers to your big questions.

Let's get into examples of experimental designs.

1) True Experimental Design

In the world of experiments, the True Experimental Design is like the superstar quarterback everyone talks about. Born out of the early 20th-century work of statisticians like Ronald A. Fisher, this design is all about control, precision, and reliability.

Researchers carefully pick an independent variable to manipulate (remember, that's the thing they're changing on purpose) and measure the dependent variable (the effect they're studying). Then comes the magic trick—randomization. By randomly putting participants into either the control or experimental group, scientists make sure their experiment is as fair as possible.

No sneaky biases here!

True Experimental Design Pros

The pros of True Experimental Design are like the perks of a VIP ticket at a concert: you get the best and most trustworthy results. Because everything is controlled and randomized, you can feel pretty confident that the results aren't just a fluke.

True Experimental Design Cons

However, there's a catch. Sometimes, it's really tough to set up these experiments in a real-world situation. Imagine trying to control every single detail of your day, from the food you eat to the air you breathe. Not so easy, right?

True Experimental Design Uses

The fields that get the most out of True Experimental Designs are those that need super reliable results, like medical research.

When scientists were developing COVID-19 vaccines, they used this design to run clinical trials. They had control groups that received a placebo (a harmless substance with no effect) and experimental groups that got the actual vaccine. Then they measured how many people in each group got sick. By comparing the two, they could say, "Yep, this vaccine works!"

So next time you read about a groundbreaking discovery in medicine or technology, chances are a True Experimental Design was the VIP behind the scenes, making sure everything was on point. It's been the go-to for rigorous scientific inquiry for nearly a century, and it's not stepping off the stage anytime soon.

2) Quasi-Experimental Design

So, let's talk about the Quasi-Experimental Design. Think of this one as the cool cousin of True Experimental Design. It wants to be just like its famous relative, but it's a bit more laid-back and flexible. You'll find quasi-experimental designs when it's tricky to set up a full-blown True Experimental Design with all the bells and whistles.

Quasi-experiments still play with an independent variable, just like their stricter cousins. The big difference? They don't use randomization. It's like wanting to divide a bag of jelly beans equally between your friends, but you can't quite do it perfectly.

In real life, it's often not possible or ethical to randomly assign people to different groups, especially when dealing with sensitive topics like education or social issues. And that's where quasi-experiments come in.

Quasi-Experimental Design Pros

Even though they lack full randomization, quasi-experimental designs are like the Swiss Army knives of research: versatile and practical. They're especially popular in fields like education, sociology, and public policy.

For instance, when researchers wanted to figure out if the Head Start program , aimed at giving young kids a "head start" in school, was effective, they used a quasi-experimental design. They couldn't randomly assign kids to go or not go to preschool, but they could compare kids who did with kids who didn't.

Quasi-Experimental Design Cons

Of course, quasi-experiments come with their own bag of pros and cons. On the plus side, they're easier to set up and often cheaper than true experiments. But the flip side is that they're not as rock-solid in their conclusions. Because the groups aren't randomly assigned, there's always that little voice saying, "Hey, are we missing something here?"

Quasi-Experimental Design Uses

Quasi-Experimental Design gained traction in the mid-20th century. Researchers were grappling with real-world problems that didn't fit neatly into a laboratory setting. Plus, as society became more aware of ethical considerations, the need for flexible designs increased. So, the quasi-experimental approach was like a breath of fresh air for scientists wanting to study complex issues without a laundry list of restrictions.

In short, if True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback, Quasi-Experimental Design is the versatile player who can adapt and still make significant contributions to the game.

3) Pre-Experimental Design

Now, let's talk about the Pre-Experimental Design. Imagine it as the beginner's skateboard you get before you try out for all the cool tricks. It has wheels, it rolls, but it's not built for the professional skatepark.

Similarly, pre-experimental designs give researchers a starting point. They let you dip your toes in the water of scientific research without diving in head-first.

So, what's the deal with pre-experimental designs?

Pre-Experimental Designs are the basic, no-frills versions of experiments. Researchers still mess around with an independent variable and measure a dependent variable, but they skip over the whole randomization thing and often don't even have a control group.

It's like baking a cake but forgetting the frosting and sprinkles; you'll get some results, but they might not be as complete or reliable as you'd like.

Pre-Experimental Design Pros

Why use such a simple setup? Because sometimes, you just need to get the ball rolling. Pre-experimental designs are great for quick-and-dirty research when you're short on time or resources. They give you a rough idea of what's happening, which you can use to plan more detailed studies later.

A good example of this is early studies on the effects of screen time on kids. Researchers couldn't control every aspect of a child's life, but they could easily ask parents to track how much time their kids spent in front of screens and then look for trends in behavior or school performance.

Pre-Experimental Design Cons

But here's the catch: pre-experimental designs are like that first draft of an essay. It helps you get your ideas down, but you wouldn't want to turn it in for a grade. Because these designs lack the rigorous structure of true or quasi-experimental setups, they can't give you rock-solid conclusions. They're more like clues or signposts pointing you in a certain direction.

Pre-Experimental Design Uses

This type of design became popular in the early stages of various scientific fields. Researchers used them to scratch the surface of a topic, generate some initial data, and then decide if it's worth exploring further. In other words, pre-experimental designs were the stepping stones that led to more complex, thorough investigations.

So, while Pre-Experimental Design may not be the star player on the team, it's like the practice squad that helps everyone get better. It's the starting point that can lead to bigger and better things.

4) Factorial Design

Now, buckle up, because we're moving into the world of Factorial Design, the multi-tasker of the experimental universe.

Imagine juggling not just one, but multiple balls in the air—that's what researchers do in a factorial design.

In Factorial Design, researchers are not satisfied with just studying one independent variable. Nope, they want to study two or more at the same time to see how they interact.

It's like cooking with several spices to see how they blend together to create unique flavors.

Factorial Design became the talk of the town with the rise of computers. Why? Because this design produces a lot of data, and computers are the number crunchers that help make sense of it all. So, thanks to our silicon friends, researchers can study complicated questions like, "How do diet AND exercise together affect weight loss?" instead of looking at just one of those factors.

Factorial Design Pros

This design's main selling point is its ability to explore interactions between variables. For instance, maybe a new study drug works really well for young people but not so great for older adults. A factorial design could reveal that age is a crucial factor, something you might miss if you only studied the drug's effectiveness in general. It's like being a detective who looks for clues not just in one room but throughout the entire house.

Factorial Design Cons

However, factorial designs have their own bag of challenges. First off, they can be pretty complicated to set up and run. Imagine coordinating a four-way intersection with lots of cars coming from all directions—you've got to make sure everything runs smoothly, or you'll end up with a traffic jam. Similarly, researchers need to carefully plan how they'll measure and analyze all the different variables.

Factorial Design Uses

Factorial designs are widely used in psychology to untangle the web of factors that influence human behavior. They're also popular in fields like marketing, where companies want to understand how different aspects like price, packaging, and advertising influence a product's success.

And speaking of success, the factorial design has been a hit since statisticians like Ronald A. Fisher (yep, him again!) expanded on it in the early-to-mid 20th century. It offered a more nuanced way of understanding the world, proving that sometimes, to get the full picture, you've got to juggle more than one ball at a time.

So, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Quasi-Experimental Design is the versatile player, Factorial Design is the strategist who sees the entire game board and makes moves accordingly.

5) Longitudinal Design

Alright, let's take a step into the world of Longitudinal Design. Picture it as the grand storyteller, the kind who doesn't just tell you about a single event but spins an epic tale that stretches over years or even decades. This design isn't about quick snapshots; it's about capturing the whole movie of someone's life or a long-running process.

You know how you might take a photo every year on your birthday to see how you've changed? Longitudinal Design is kind of like that, but for scientific research.

With Longitudinal Design, instead of measuring something just once, researchers come back again and again, sometimes over many years, to see how things are going. This helps them understand not just what's happening, but why it's happening and how it changes over time.

This design really started to shine in the latter half of the 20th century, when researchers began to realize that some questions can't be answered in a hurry. Think about studies that look at how kids grow up, or research on how a certain medicine affects you over a long period. These aren't things you can rush.

The famous Framingham Heart Study , started in 1948, is a prime example. It's been studying heart health in a small town in Massachusetts for decades, and the findings have shaped what we know about heart disease.

Longitudinal Design Pros

So, what's to love about Longitudinal Design? First off, it's the go-to for studying change over time, whether that's how people age or how a forest recovers from a fire.

Longitudinal Design Cons

But it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Longitudinal studies take a lot of patience and resources. Plus, keeping track of participants over many years can be like herding cats—difficult and full of surprises.

Longitudinal Design Uses

Despite these challenges, longitudinal studies have been key in fields like psychology, sociology, and medicine. They provide the kind of deep, long-term insights that other designs just can't match.

So, if the True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback, and the Quasi-Experimental Design is the flexible athlete, then the Factorial Design is the strategist, and the Longitudinal Design is the wise elder who has seen it all and has stories to tell.

6) Cross-Sectional Design

Now, let's flip the script and talk about Cross-Sectional Design, the polar opposite of the Longitudinal Design. If Longitudinal is the grand storyteller, think of Cross-Sectional as the snapshot photographer. It captures a single moment in time, like a selfie that you take to remember a fun day. Researchers using this design collect all their data at one point, providing a kind of "snapshot" of whatever they're studying.

In a Cross-Sectional Design, researchers look at multiple groups all at the same time to see how they're different or similar.

This design rose to popularity in the mid-20th century, mainly because it's so quick and efficient. Imagine wanting to know how people of different ages feel about a new video game. Instead of waiting for years to see how opinions change, you could just ask people of all ages what they think right now. That's Cross-Sectional Design for you—fast and straightforward.

You'll find this type of research everywhere from marketing studies to healthcare. For instance, you might have heard about surveys asking people what they think about a new product or political issue. Those are usually cross-sectional studies, aimed at getting a quick read on public opinion.

Cross-Sectional Design Pros

So, what's the big deal with Cross-Sectional Design? Well, it's the go-to when you need answers fast and don't have the time or resources for a more complicated setup.

Cross-Sectional Design Cons

Remember, speed comes with trade-offs. While you get your results quickly, those results are stuck in time. They can't tell you how things change or why they're changing, just what's happening right now.

Cross-Sectional Design Uses

Also, because they're so quick and simple, cross-sectional studies often serve as the first step in research. They give scientists an idea of what's going on so they can decide if it's worth digging deeper. In that way, they're a bit like a movie trailer, giving you a taste of the action to see if you're interested in seeing the whole film.

So, in our lineup of experimental designs, if True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, then Cross-Sectional Design is like the speedy running back—fast, agile, but not designed for long, drawn-out plays.

7) Correlational Design

Next on our roster is the Correlational Design, the keen observer of the experimental world. Imagine this design as the person at a party who loves people-watching. They don't interfere or get involved; they just observe and take mental notes about what's going on.

In a correlational study, researchers don't change or control anything; they simply observe and measure how two variables relate to each other.

The correlational design has roots in the early days of psychology and sociology. Pioneers like Sir Francis Galton used it to study how qualities like intelligence or height could be related within families.

This design is all about asking, "Hey, when this thing happens, does that other thing usually happen too?" For example, researchers might study whether students who have more study time get better grades or whether people who exercise more have lower stress levels.

One of the most famous correlational studies you might have heard of is the link between smoking and lung cancer. Back in the mid-20th century, researchers started noticing that people who smoked a lot also seemed to get lung cancer more often. They couldn't say smoking caused cancer—that would require a true experiment—but the strong correlation was a red flag that led to more research and eventually, health warnings.

Correlational Design Pros

This design is great at proving that two (or more) things can be related. Correlational designs can help prove that more detailed research is needed on a topic. They can help us see patterns or possible causes for things that we otherwise might not have realized.

Correlational Design Cons

But here's where you need to be careful: correlational designs can be tricky. Just because two things are related doesn't mean one causes the other. That's like saying, "Every time I wear my lucky socks, my team wins." Well, it's a fun thought, but those socks aren't really controlling the game.

Correlational Design Uses

Despite this limitation, correlational designs are popular in psychology, economics, and epidemiology, to name a few fields. They're often the first step in exploring a possible relationship between variables. Once a strong correlation is found, researchers may decide to conduct more rigorous experimental studies to examine cause and effect.

So, if the True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback and the Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, the Factorial Design is the strategist, and the Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, then the Correlational Design is the clever scout, identifying interesting patterns but leaving the heavy lifting of proving cause and effect to the other types of designs.

8) Meta-Analysis

Last but not least, let's talk about Meta-Analysis, the librarian of experimental designs.

If other designs are all about creating new research, Meta-Analysis is about gathering up everyone else's research, sorting it, and figuring out what it all means when you put it together.

Imagine a jigsaw puzzle where each piece is a different study. Meta-Analysis is the process of fitting all those pieces together to see the big picture.

The concept of Meta-Analysis started to take shape in the late 20th century, when computers became powerful enough to handle massive amounts of data. It was like someone handed researchers a super-powered magnifying glass, letting them examine multiple studies at the same time to find common trends or results.

You might have heard of the Cochrane Reviews in healthcare . These are big collections of meta-analyses that help doctors and policymakers figure out what treatments work best based on all the research that's been done.

For example, if ten different studies show that a certain medicine helps lower blood pressure, a meta-analysis would pull all that information together to give a more accurate answer.

Meta-Analysis Pros

The beauty of Meta-Analysis is that it can provide really strong evidence. Instead of relying on one study, you're looking at the whole landscape of research on a topic.

Meta-Analysis Cons

However, it does have some downsides. For one, Meta-Analysis is only as good as the studies it includes. If those studies are flawed, the meta-analysis will be too. It's like baking a cake: if you use bad ingredients, it doesn't matter how good your recipe is—the cake won't turn out well.

Meta-Analysis Uses

Despite these challenges, meta-analyses are highly respected and widely used in many fields like medicine, psychology, and education. They help us make sense of a world that's bursting with information by showing us the big picture drawn from many smaller snapshots.

So, in our all-star lineup, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, the Factorial Design is the strategist, the Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, and the Correlational Design is the scout, then the Meta-Analysis is like the coach, using insights from everyone else's plays to come up with the best game plan.

9) Non-Experimental Design

Now, let's talk about a player who's a bit of an outsider on this team of experimental designs—the Non-Experimental Design. Think of this design as the commentator or the journalist who covers the game but doesn't actually play.

In a Non-Experimental Design, researchers are like reporters gathering facts, but they don't interfere or change anything. They're simply there to describe and analyze.

Non-Experimental Design Pros

So, what's the deal with Non-Experimental Design? Its strength is in description and exploration. It's really good for studying things as they are in the real world, without changing any conditions.

Non-Experimental Design Cons

Because a non-experimental design doesn't manipulate variables, it can't prove cause and effect. It's like a weather reporter: they can tell you it's raining, but they can't tell you why it's raining.

The downside? Since researchers aren't controlling variables, it's hard to rule out other explanations for what they observe. It's like hearing one side of a story—you get an idea of what happened, but it might not be the complete picture.

Non-Experimental Design Uses

Non-Experimental Design has always been a part of research, especially in fields like anthropology, sociology, and some areas of psychology.

For instance, if you've ever heard of studies that describe how people behave in different cultures or what teens like to do in their free time, that's often Non-Experimental Design at work. These studies aim to capture the essence of a situation, like painting a portrait instead of taking a snapshot.

One well-known example you might have heard about is the Kinsey Reports from the 1940s and 1950s, which described sexual behavior in men and women. Researchers interviewed thousands of people but didn't manipulate any variables like you would in a true experiment. They simply collected data to create a comprehensive picture of the subject matter.

So, in our metaphorical team of research designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, and Meta-Analysis is the coach, then Non-Experimental Design is the sports journalist—always present, capturing the game, but not part of the action itself.

10) Repeated Measures Design

Time to meet the Repeated Measures Design, the time traveler of our research team. If this design were a player in a sports game, it would be the one who keeps revisiting past plays to figure out how to improve the next one.

Repeated Measures Design is all about studying the same people or subjects multiple times to see how they change or react under different conditions.

The idea behind Repeated Measures Design isn't new; it's been around since the early days of psychology and medicine. You could say it's a cousin to the Longitudinal Design, but instead of looking at how things naturally change over time, it focuses on how the same group reacts to different things.

Imagine a study looking at how a new energy drink affects people's running speed. Instead of comparing one group that drank the energy drink to another group that didn't, a Repeated Measures Design would have the same group of people run multiple times—once with the energy drink, and once without. This way, you're really zeroing in on the effect of that energy drink, making the results more reliable.

Repeated Measures Design Pros

The strong point of Repeated Measures Design is that it's super focused. Because it uses the same subjects, you don't have to worry about differences between groups messing up your results.

Repeated Measures Design Cons

But the downside? Well, people can get tired or bored if they're tested too many times, which might affect how they respond.

Repeated Measures Design Uses

A famous example of this design is the "Little Albert" experiment, conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920. In this study, a young boy was exposed to a white rat and other stimuli several times to see how his emotional responses changed. Though the ethical standards of this experiment are often criticized today, it was groundbreaking in understanding conditioned emotional responses.

In our metaphorical lineup of research designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, and Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, then Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler—always looping back to fine-tune the game plan.

11) Crossover Design

Next up is Crossover Design, the switch-hitter of the research world. If you're familiar with baseball, you'll know a switch-hitter is someone who can bat both right-handed and left-handed.

In a similar way, Crossover Design allows subjects to experience multiple conditions, flipping them around so that everyone gets a turn in each role.

This design is like the utility player on our team—versatile, flexible, and really good at adapting.

The Crossover Design has its roots in medical research and has been popular since the mid-20th century. It's often used in clinical trials to test the effectiveness of different treatments.

Crossover Design Pros

The neat thing about this design is that it allows each participant to serve as their own control group. Imagine you're testing two new kinds of headache medicine. Instead of giving one type to one group and another type to a different group, you'd give both kinds to the same people but at different times.

Crossover Design Cons

What's the big deal with Crossover Design? Its major strength is in reducing the "noise" that comes from individual differences. Since each person experiences all conditions, it's easier to see real effects. However, there's a catch. This design assumes that there's no lasting effect from the first condition when you switch to the second one. That might not always be true. If the first treatment has a long-lasting effect, it could mess up the results when you switch to the second treatment.

Crossover Design Uses

A well-known example of Crossover Design is in studies that look at the effects of different types of diets—like low-carb vs. low-fat diets. Researchers might have participants follow a low-carb diet for a few weeks, then switch them to a low-fat diet. By doing this, they can more accurately measure how each diet affects the same group of people.

In our team of experimental designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, and Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, then Crossover Design is the versatile utility player—always ready to adapt and play multiple roles to get the most accurate results.

12) Cluster Randomized Design

Meet the Cluster Randomized Design, the team captain of group-focused research. In our imaginary lineup of experimental designs, if other designs focus on individual players, then Cluster Randomized Design is looking at how the entire team functions.

This approach is especially common in educational and community-based research, and it's been gaining traction since the late 20th century.

Here's how Cluster Randomized Design works: Instead of assigning individual people to different conditions, researchers assign entire groups, or "clusters." These could be schools, neighborhoods, or even entire towns. This helps you see how the new method works in a real-world setting.

Imagine you want to see if a new anti-bullying program really works. Instead of selecting individual students, you'd introduce the program to a whole school or maybe even several schools, and then compare the results to schools without the program.

Cluster Randomized Design Pros

Why use Cluster Randomized Design? Well, sometimes it's just not practical to assign conditions at the individual level. For example, you can't really have half a school following a new reading program while the other half sticks with the old one; that would be way too confusing! Cluster Randomization helps get around this problem by treating each "cluster" as its own mini-experiment.

Cluster Randomized Design Cons

There's a downside, too. Because entire groups are assigned to each condition, there's a risk that the groups might be different in some important way that the researchers didn't account for. That's like having one sports team that's full of veterans playing against a team of rookies; the match wouldn't be fair.

Cluster Randomized Design Uses

A famous example is the research conducted to test the effectiveness of different public health interventions, like vaccination programs. Researchers might roll out a vaccination program in one community but not in another, then compare the rates of disease in both.

In our metaphorical research team, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback, Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, and Crossover Design is the utility player, then Cluster Randomized Design is the team captain—always looking out for the group as a whole.

13) Mixed-Methods Design

Say hello to Mixed-Methods Design, the all-rounder or the "Renaissance player" of our research team.

Mixed-Methods Design uses a blend of both qualitative and quantitative methods to get a more complete picture, just like a Renaissance person who's good at lots of different things. It's like being good at both offense and defense in a sport; you've got all your bases covered!

Mixed-Methods Design is a fairly new kid on the block, becoming more popular in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as researchers began to see the value in using multiple approaches to tackle complex questions. It's the Swiss Army knife in our research toolkit, combining the best parts of other designs to be more versatile.

Here's how it could work: Imagine you're studying the effects of a new educational app on students' math skills. You might use quantitative methods like tests and grades to measure how much the students improve—that's the 'numbers part.'

But you also want to know how the students feel about math now, or why they think they got better or worse. For that, you could conduct interviews or have students fill out journals—that's the 'story part.'

Mixed-Methods Design Pros

So, what's the scoop on Mixed-Methods Design? The strength is its versatility and depth; you're not just getting numbers or stories, you're getting both, which gives a fuller picture.

Mixed-Methods Design Cons

But, it's also more challenging. Imagine trying to play two sports at the same time! You have to be skilled in different research methods and know how to combine them effectively.

Mixed-Methods Design Uses

A high-profile example of Mixed-Methods Design is research on climate change. Scientists use numbers and data to show temperature changes (quantitative), but they also interview people to understand how these changes are affecting communities (qualitative).

In our team of experimental designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback, Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, Crossover Design is the utility player, and Cluster Randomized Design is the team captain, then Mixed-Methods Design is the Renaissance player—skilled in multiple areas and able to bring them all together for a winning strategy.

14) Multivariate Design

Now, let's turn our attention to Multivariate Design, the multitasker of the research world.

If our lineup of research designs were like players on a basketball court, Multivariate Design would be the player dribbling, passing, and shooting all at once. This design doesn't just look at one or two things; it looks at several variables simultaneously to see how they interact and affect each other.

Multivariate Design is like baking a cake with many ingredients. Instead of just looking at how flour affects the cake, you also consider sugar, eggs, and milk all at once. This way, you understand how everything works together to make the cake taste good or bad.

Multivariate Design has been a go-to method in psychology, economics, and social sciences since the latter half of the 20th century. With the advent of computers and advanced statistical software, analyzing multiple variables at once became a lot easier, and Multivariate Design soared in popularity.

Multivariate Design Pros

So, what's the benefit of using Multivariate Design? Its power lies in its complexity. By studying multiple variables at the same time, you can get a really rich, detailed understanding of what's going on.

Multivariate Design Cons

But that complexity can also be a drawback. With so many variables, it can be tough to tell which ones are really making a difference and which ones are just along for the ride.

Multivariate Design Uses

Imagine you're a coach trying to figure out the best strategy to win games. You wouldn't just look at how many points your star player scores; you'd also consider assists, rebounds, turnovers, and maybe even how loud the crowd is. A Multivariate Design would help you understand how all these factors work together to determine whether you win or lose.

A well-known example of Multivariate Design is in market research. Companies often use this approach to figure out how different factors—like price, packaging, and advertising—affect sales. By studying multiple variables at once, they can find the best combination to boost profits.

In our metaphorical research team, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback, Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, Crossover Design is the utility player, Cluster Randomized Design is the team captain, and Mixed-Methods Design is the Renaissance player, then Multivariate Design is the multitasker—juggling many variables at once to get a fuller picture of what's happening.

15) Pretest-Posttest Design

Let's introduce Pretest-Posttest Design, the "Before and After" superstar of our research team. You've probably seen those before-and-after pictures in ads for weight loss programs or home renovations, right?

Well, this design is like that, but for science! Pretest-Posttest Design checks out what things are like before the experiment starts and then compares that to what things are like after the experiment ends.

This design is one of the classics, a staple in research for decades across various fields like psychology, education, and healthcare. It's so simple and straightforward that it has stayed popular for a long time.

In Pretest-Posttest Design, you measure your subject's behavior or condition before you introduce any changes—that's your "before" or "pretest." Then you do your experiment, and after it's done, you measure the same thing again—that's your "after" or "posttest."

Pretest-Posttest Design Pros

What makes Pretest-Posttest Design special? It's pretty easy to understand and doesn't require fancy statistics.

Pretest-Posttest Design Cons

But there are some pitfalls. For example, what if the kids in our math example get better at multiplication just because they're older or because they've taken the test before? That would make it hard to tell if the program is really effective or not.

Pretest-Posttest Design Uses

Let's say you're a teacher and you want to know if a new math program helps kids get better at multiplication. First, you'd give all the kids a multiplication test—that's your pretest. Then you'd teach them using the new math program. At the end, you'd give them the same test again—that's your posttest. If the kids do better on the second test, you might conclude that the program works.

One famous use of Pretest-Posttest Design is in evaluating the effectiveness of driver's education courses. Researchers will measure people's driving skills before and after the course to see if they've improved.

16) Solomon Four-Group Design

Next up is the Solomon Four-Group Design, the "chess master" of our research team. This design is all about strategy and careful planning. Named after Richard L. Solomon who introduced it in the 1940s, this method tries to correct some of the weaknesses in simpler designs, like the Pretest-Posttest Design.

Here's how it rolls: The Solomon Four-Group Design uses four different groups to test a hypothesis. Two groups get a pretest, then one of them receives the treatment or intervention, and both get a posttest. The other two groups skip the pretest, and only one of them receives the treatment before they both get a posttest.

Sound complicated? It's like playing 4D chess; you're thinking several moves ahead!

Solomon Four-Group Design Pros

What's the pro and con of the Solomon Four-Group Design? On the plus side, it provides really robust results because it accounts for so many variables.

Solomon Four-Group Design Cons

The downside? It's a lot of work and requires a lot of participants, making it more time-consuming and costly.

Solomon Four-Group Design Uses

Let's say you want to figure out if a new way of teaching history helps students remember facts better. Two classes take a history quiz (pretest), then one class uses the new teaching method while the other sticks with the old way. Both classes take another quiz afterward (posttest).

Meanwhile, two more classes skip the initial quiz, and then one uses the new method before both take the final quiz. Comparing all four groups will give you a much clearer picture of whether the new teaching method works and whether the pretest itself affects the outcome.

The Solomon Four-Group Design is less commonly used than simpler designs but is highly respected for its ability to control for more variables. It's a favorite in educational and psychological research where you really want to dig deep and figure out what's actually causing changes.

17) Adaptive Designs

Now, let's talk about Adaptive Designs, the chameleons of the experimental world.

Imagine you're a detective, and halfway through solving a case, you find a clue that changes everything. You wouldn't just stick to your old plan; you'd adapt and change your approach, right? That's exactly what Adaptive Designs allow researchers to do.

In an Adaptive Design, researchers can make changes to the study as it's happening, based on early results. In a traditional study, once you set your plan, you stick to it from start to finish.

Adaptive Design Pros

This method is particularly useful in fast-paced or high-stakes situations, like developing a new vaccine in the middle of a pandemic. The ability to adapt can save both time and resources, and more importantly, it can save lives by getting effective treatments out faster.

Adaptive Design Cons

But Adaptive Designs aren't without their drawbacks. They can be very complex to plan and carry out, and there's always a risk that the changes made during the study could introduce bias or errors.

Adaptive Design Uses

Adaptive Designs are most often seen in clinical trials, particularly in the medical and pharmaceutical fields.

For instance, if a new drug is showing really promising results, the study might be adjusted to give more participants the new treatment instead of a placebo. Or if one dose level is showing bad side effects, it might be dropped from the study.

The best part is, these changes are pre-planned. Researchers lay out in advance what changes might be made and under what conditions, which helps keep everything scientific and above board.

In terms of applications, besides their heavy usage in medical and pharmaceutical research, Adaptive Designs are also becoming increasingly popular in software testing and market research. In these fields, being able to quickly adjust to early results can give companies a significant advantage.

Adaptive Designs are like the agile startups of the research world—quick to pivot, keen to learn from ongoing results, and focused on rapid, efficient progress. However, they require a great deal of expertise and careful planning to ensure that the adaptability doesn't compromise the integrity of the research.

18) Bayesian Designs

Next, let's dive into Bayesian Designs, the data detectives of the research universe. Named after Thomas Bayes, an 18th-century statistician and minister, this design doesn't just look at what's happening now; it also takes into account what's happened before.

Imagine if you were a detective who not only looked at the evidence in front of you but also used your past cases to make better guesses about your current one. That's the essence of Bayesian Designs.

Bayesian Designs are like detective work in science. As you gather more clues (or data), you update your best guess on what's really happening. This way, your experiment gets smarter as it goes along.

In the world of research, Bayesian Designs are most notably used in areas where you have some prior knowledge that can inform your current study. For example, if earlier research shows that a certain type of medicine usually works well for a specific illness, a Bayesian Design would include that information when studying a new group of patients with the same illness.

Bayesian Design Pros

One of the major advantages of Bayesian Designs is their efficiency. Because they use existing data to inform the current experiment, often fewer resources are needed to reach a reliable conclusion.

Bayesian Design Cons

However, they can be quite complicated to set up and require a deep understanding of both statistics and the subject matter at hand.

Bayesian Design Uses

Bayesian Designs are highly valued in medical research, finance, environmental science, and even in Internet search algorithms. Their ability to continually update and refine hypotheses based on new evidence makes them particularly useful in fields where data is constantly evolving and where quick, informed decisions are crucial.

Here's a real-world example: In the development of personalized medicine, where treatments are tailored to individual patients, Bayesian Designs are invaluable. If a treatment has been effective for patients with similar genetics or symptoms in the past, a Bayesian approach can use that data to predict how well it might work for a new patient.

This type of design is also increasingly popular in machine learning and artificial intelligence. In these fields, Bayesian Designs help algorithms "learn" from past data to make better predictions or decisions in new situations. It's like teaching a computer to be a detective that gets better and better at solving puzzles the more puzzles it sees.

19) Covariate Adaptive Randomization

Now let's turn our attention to Covariate Adaptive Randomization, which you can think of as the "matchmaker" of experimental designs.

Picture a soccer coach trying to create the most balanced teams for a friendly match. They wouldn't just randomly assign players; they'd take into account each player's skills, experience, and other traits.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization is all about creating the most evenly matched groups possible for an experiment.

In traditional randomization, participants are allocated to different groups purely by chance. This is a pretty fair way to do things, but it can sometimes lead to unbalanced groups.

Imagine if all the professional-level players ended up on one soccer team and all the beginners on another; that wouldn't be a very informative match! Covariate Adaptive Randomization fixes this by using important traits or characteristics (called "covariates") to guide the randomization process.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization Pros

The benefits of this design are pretty clear: it aims for balance and fairness, making the final results more trustworthy.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization Cons

But it's not perfect. It can be complex to implement and requires a deep understanding of which characteristics are most important to balance.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization Uses

This design is particularly useful in medical trials. Let's say researchers are testing a new medication for high blood pressure. Participants might have different ages, weights, or pre-existing conditions that could affect the results.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization would make sure that each treatment group has a similar mix of these characteristics, making the results more reliable and easier to interpret.

In practical terms, this design is often seen in clinical trials for new drugs or therapies, but its principles are also applicable in fields like psychology, education, and social sciences.

For instance, in educational research, it might be used to ensure that classrooms being compared have similar distributions of students in terms of academic ability, socioeconomic status, and other factors.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization is like the wise elder of the group, ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to show their true capabilities, thereby making the collective results as reliable as possible.

20) Stepped Wedge Design

Let's now focus on the Stepped Wedge Design, a thoughtful and cautious member of the experimental design family.

Imagine you're trying out a new gardening technique, but you're not sure how well it will work. You decide to apply it to one section of your garden first, watch how it performs, and then gradually extend the technique to other sections. This way, you get to see its effects over time and across different conditions. That's basically how Stepped Wedge Design works.

In a Stepped Wedge Design, all participants or clusters start off in the control group, and then, at different times, they 'step' over to the intervention or treatment group. This creates a wedge-like pattern over time where more and more participants receive the treatment as the study progresses. It's like rolling out a new policy in phases, monitoring its impact at each stage before extending it to more people.

Stepped Wedge Design Pros

The Stepped Wedge Design offers several advantages. Firstly, it allows for the study of interventions that are expected to do more good than harm, which makes it ethically appealing.

Secondly, it's useful when resources are limited and it's not feasible to roll out a new treatment to everyone at once. Lastly, because everyone eventually receives the treatment, it can be easier to get buy-in from participants or organizations involved in the study.

Stepped Wedge Design Cons

However, this design can be complex to analyze because it has to account for both the time factor and the changing conditions in each 'step' of the wedge. And like any study where participants know they're receiving an intervention, there's the potential for the results to be influenced by the placebo effect or other biases.

Stepped Wedge Design Uses

This design is particularly useful in health and social care research. For instance, if a hospital wants to implement a new hygiene protocol, it might start in one department, assess its impact, and then roll it out to other departments over time. This allows the hospital to adjust and refine the new protocol based on real-world data before it's fully implemented.

In terms of applications, Stepped Wedge Designs are commonly used in public health initiatives, organizational changes in healthcare settings, and social policy trials. They are particularly useful in situations where an intervention is being rolled out gradually and it's important to understand its impacts at each stage.

21) Sequential Design

Next up is Sequential Design, the dynamic and flexible member of our experimental design family.

Imagine you're playing a video game where you can choose different paths. If you take one path and find a treasure chest, you might decide to continue in that direction. If you hit a dead end, you might backtrack and try a different route. Sequential Design operates in a similar fashion, allowing researchers to make decisions at different stages based on what they've learned so far.

In a Sequential Design, the experiment is broken down into smaller parts, or "sequences." After each sequence, researchers pause to look at the data they've collected. Based on those findings, they then decide whether to stop the experiment because they've got enough information, or to continue and perhaps even modify the next sequence.

Sequential Design Pros

This allows for a more efficient use of resources, as you're only continuing with the experiment if the data suggests it's worth doing so.

One of the great things about Sequential Design is its efficiency. Because you're making data-driven decisions along the way, you can often reach conclusions more quickly and with fewer resources.

Sequential Design Cons

However, it requires careful planning and expertise to ensure that these "stop or go" decisions are made correctly and without bias.

Sequential Design Uses

In terms of its applications, besides healthcare and medicine, Sequential Design is also popular in quality control in manufacturing, environmental monitoring, and financial modeling. In these areas, being able to make quick decisions based on incoming data can be a big advantage.

This design is often used in clinical trials involving new medications or treatments. For example, if early results show that a new drug has significant side effects, the trial can be stopped before more people are exposed to it.

On the flip side, if the drug is showing promising results, the trial might be expanded to include more participants or to extend the testing period.

Think of Sequential Design as the nimble athlete of experimental designs, capable of quick pivots and adjustments to reach the finish line in the most effective way possible. But just like an athlete needs a good coach, this design requires expert oversight to make sure it stays on the right track.

22) Field Experiments

Last but certainly not least, let's explore Field Experiments—the adventurers of the experimental design world.

Picture a scientist leaving the controlled environment of a lab to test a theory in the real world, like a biologist studying animals in their natural habitat or a social scientist observing people in a real community. These are Field Experiments, and they're all about getting out there and gathering data in real-world settings.

Field Experiments embrace the messiness of the real world, unlike laboratory experiments, where everything is controlled down to the smallest detail. This makes them both exciting and challenging.

Field Experiment Pros

On one hand, the results often give us a better understanding of how things work outside the lab.

While Field Experiments offer real-world relevance, they come with challenges like controlling for outside factors and the ethical considerations of intervening in people's lives without their knowledge.

Field Experiment Cons

On the other hand, the lack of control can make it harder to tell exactly what's causing what. Yet, despite these challenges, they remain a valuable tool for researchers who want to understand how theories play out in the real world.

Field Experiment Uses

Let's say a school wants to improve student performance. In a Field Experiment, they might change the school's daily schedule for one semester and keep track of how students perform compared to another school where the schedule remained the same.

Because the study is happening in a real school with real students, the results could be very useful for understanding how the change might work in other schools. But since it's the real world, lots of other factors—like changes in teachers or even the weather—could affect the results.

Field Experiments are widely used in economics, psychology, education, and public policy. For example, you might have heard of the famous "Broken Windows" experiment in the 1980s that looked at how small signs of disorder, like broken windows or graffiti, could encourage more serious crime in neighborhoods. This experiment had a big impact on how cities think about crime prevention.

From the foundational concepts of control groups and independent variables to the sophisticated layouts like Covariate Adaptive Randomization and Sequential Design, it's clear that the realm of experimental design is as varied as it is fascinating.

We've seen that each design has its own special talents, ideal for specific situations. Some designs, like the Classic Controlled Experiment, are like reliable old friends you can always count on.

Others, like Sequential Design, are flexible and adaptable, making quick changes based on what they learn. And let's not forget the adventurous Field Experiments, which take us out of the lab and into the real world to discover things we might not see otherwise.

Choosing the right experimental design is like picking the right tool for the job. The method you choose can make a big difference in how reliable your results are and how much people will trust what you've discovered. And as we've learned, there's a design to suit just about every question, every problem, and every curiosity.

So the next time you read about a new discovery in medicine, psychology, or any other field, you'll have a better understanding of the thought and planning that went into figuring things out. Experimental design is more than just a set of rules; it's a structured way to explore the unknown and answer questions that can change the world.

Related posts:

• Experimental Psychologist Career (Salary + Duties + Interviews)
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• 11+ Psychology Experiment Ideas (Goals + Methods)
• The Little Albert Experiment
• 41+ White Collar Job Examples (Salary + Path)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

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

14.1 What is experimental design and when should you use it?

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

• Describe the purpose of experimental design research
• Describe nomethetic causality and the logic of experimental design
• Identify the characteristics of a basic experiment
• Discuss the relationship between dependent and independent variables in experiments
• Identify the three major types of experimental designs

Pre-awareness check (Knowledge)

What are your thoughts on the phrase ‘experiment’ in the realm of social sciences? In an experiment, what is the independent variable?

The basics of experiments

In social work research, experimental design is used to test the effects of treatments, interventions, programs, or other conditions to which individuals, groups, organizations, or communities may be exposed to. There are a lot of experiments social work researchers can use to explore topics such as treatments for depression, impacts of school-based mental health on student outcomes, or prevention of abuse of people with disabilities. The American Psychological Association defines an experiment   as:

a series of observations conducted under controlled conditions to study a relationship with the purpose of drawing causal inferences about that relationship. An experiment involves the manipulation of an independent variable , the measurement of a dependent variable , and the exposure of various participants to one or more of the conditions being studied. Random selection of participants and their random assignment to conditions also are necessary in experiments .

In experimental design, the independent variable is the intervention, treatment, or condition that is being investigated as a potential cause of change (i.e., the experimental condition ). The effect, or outcome, of the experimental condition is the dependent variable. Trying out a new restaurant, dating a new person – we often call these things “experiments.” However, a true social science experiment would include recruitment of a large enough sample, random assignment to control and experimental groups, exposing those in the experimental group to an experimental condition, and collecting observations at the end of the experiment.

Social scientists use this level of rigor and control to maximize the internal validity of their research. Internal validity is the confidence researchers have about whether the independent variable (e.g, treatment) truly produces a change in the dependent, or outcome, variable. The logic and features of experimental design are intended to help establish causality and to reduce threats to internal validity , which we will discuss in Section 14.5 .

Experiments attempt to establish a nomothetic causal relationship between two variables—the treatment and its intended outcome.  We discussed the four criteria for establishing nomothetic causality in Section 4.3 :

• plausibility,
• covariation,
• temporality, and
• nonspuriousness.

Experiments should establish plausibility , having a plausible reason why their intervention would cause changes in the dependent variable. Usually, a theory framework or previous empirical evidence will indicate the plausibility of a causal relationship.

Covariation can be established for causal explanations by showing that the “cause” and the “effect” change together.  In experiments, the cause is an intervention, treatment, or other experimental condition. Whether or not a research participant is exposed to the experimental condition is the independent variable. The effect in an experiment is the outcome being assessed and is the dependent variable in the study. When the independent and dependent variables covary, they can have a positive association (e.g., those exposed to the intervention have increased self-esteem) or a negative association (e.g., those exposed to the intervention have reduced anxiety).

Since researcher controls when the intervention is administered, they can be assured that changes in the independent variable (the treatment) happens before changes in the dependent variable (the outcome). In this way, experiments assure temporality .

Finally, one of the most important features of experiments is that they allow researchers to eliminate spurious variables to support the criterion of nonspuriousness . True experiments are usually conducted under strictly controlled conditions. The intervention is given in the same way to each person, with a minimal number of other variables that might cause their post-test scores to change.

The logic of experimental design

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

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

As we have discussed, experimental designs can help clear up at least some of this fog by allowing researchers to isolate the effect of interventions on dependent variables by controlling extraneous variables . In true experimental design (discussed in the next section) and quasi-experimental design, researchers accomplish this w ith a control group or comparison group and the experimental group . The experimental group is sometimes called the treatment group because people in the experimental group receive the treatment or are exposed to the experimental condition (but we will call it the experimental group in this chapter.) The control/comparison group does not receive the treatment or intervention. Instead they may receive what is known as “treatment as usual” or perhaps no treatment at all.

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

Random assignment [/pb_glossary], also called randomization, entails using a random process to decide which participants are put into the control or experimental group (which participants receive an intervention and which do not). By randomly assigning participants to a group, you can reduce the effect of extraneous variables on your research because there won’t be a systematic difference between the groups.

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

Other Features of Experiments that Help Establish Causality

To control for spuriousness (as well as meeting the three other criteria for establishing causality), experiments try to control as many aspects of the research process as possible: using control groups, having large enough sample sizes, standardizing the treatment, etc. Researchers in large experiments often employ clinicians or other research staff to help them. Researchers train their staff members exhaustively, provide pre-scripted responses to common questions, and control the physical environment of the experiment so each person who participates receives the exact same treatment. Experimental researchers also document their procedures, so that others can review them and make changes in future research if they think it will improve on the ability to control for spurious variables.

An interesting example is Bruce Alexander’s (2010) Rat Park experiments. Much of the early research conducted on addictive drugs, like heroin and cocaine, was conducted on animals other than humans, usually mice or rats. The scientific consensus up until Alexander’s experiments was that cocaine and heroin were so addictive that rats, if offered the drugs, would consume them repeatedly until they perished. Researchers claimed this behavior explained how addiction worked in humans, but Alexander was not so sure. He knew rats were social animals and the experimental procedure from previous experiments did not allow them to socialize. Instead, rats were kept isolated in small cages with only food, water, and metal walls. To Alexander, social isolation was a spurious variable, causing changes in addictive behavior not due to the drug itself. Alexander created an experiment of his own, in which rats were allowed to run freely in an interesting environment, socialize and mate with other rats, and of course, drink from a solution that contained an addictive drug. In this environment, rats did not become hopelessly addicted to drugs. In fact, they had little interest in the substance. To Alexander, the results of his experiment demonstrated that social isolation was more of a causal factor for addiction than the drug itself.

One challenge with Alexander’s findings is that subsequent researchers have had mixed success replicating his findings (e.g., Petrie, 1996; Solinas, Thiriet, El Rawas, Lardeux, & Jaber, 2009). Replication involves conducting another researcher’s experiment in the same manner and seeing if it produces the same results. If the causal relationship is real, it should occur in all (or at least most) rigorous replications of the experiment.

Replicability

[INSERT A PARAGRAPH ABOUT REPLICATION/REPRODUCTION HERE. CAN USE/REFERENCE THIS   IF IT’S HELPFUL; include glossary definition as well as other general info]

To allow for easier replication, researchers should describe their experimental methods diligently. Researchers with the Open Science Collaboration (2015) [1] conducted the Reproducibility Project , which caused a significant controversy regarding the validity of psychological studies. The researchers with the project attempted to reproduce the results of 100 experiments published in major psychology journals since 2008. What they found was shocking. Although 97% of the original studies reported significant results, only 36% of the replicated studies had significant findings. The average effect size in the replication studies was half that of the original studies. The implications of the Reproducibility Project are potentially staggering, and encourage social scientists to carefully consider the validity of their reported findings and that the scientific community take steps to ensure researchers do not cherry-pick data or change their hypotheses simply to get published.

Generalizability

Let’s return to Alexander’s Rat Park study and consider the implications of his experiment for substance use professionals.  The conclusions he drew from his experiments on rats were meant to be generalized to the population. If this could be done, the experiment would have a high degree of external validity , which is the degree to which conclusions generalize to larger populations and different situations. Alexander argues his conclusions about addiction and social isolation help us understand why people living in deprived, isolated environments may become addicted to drugs more often than those in more enriching environments. Similarly, earlier rat researchers argued their results showed these drugs were instantly addictive to humans, often to the point of death.

Neither study’s results will match up perfectly with real life. There are clients in social work practice who may fit into Alexander’s social isolation model, but social isolation is complex. Clients can live in environments with other sociable humans, work jobs, and have romantic relationships; does this mean they are not socially isolated? On the other hand, clients may face structural racism, poverty, trauma, and other challenges that may contribute to their social environment. Alexander’s work helps understand clients’ experiences, but the explanation is incomplete. Human existence is more complicated than the experimental conditions in Rat Park.

Effectiveness versus Efficacy

Social workers are especially attentive to how social context shapes social life. This consideration points out a potential weakness of experiments. They can be rather artificial. When an experiment demonstrates causality under ideal, controlled circumstances, it establishes the efficacy of an intervention.

How often do real-world social interactions occur in the same way that they do in a controlled experiment? Experiments that are conducted in community settings by community practitioners are less easily controlled than those conducted in a lab or with researchers who adhere strictly to research protocols delivering the intervention. When an experiment demonstrates causality in a real-world setting that is not tightly controlled, it establishes the effectiveness of the intervention.

The distinction between efficacy and effectiveness demonstrates the tension between internal and external validity. Internal validity and external validity are conceptually linked. Internal validity refers to the degree to which the intervention causes its intended outcomes, and external validity refers to how well that relationship applies to different groups and circumstances than the experiment. However, the more researchers tightly control the environment to ensure internal validity, the more they may risk external validity for generalizing their results to different populations and circumstances. Correspondingly, researchers whose settings are just like the real world will be less able to ensure internal validity, as there are many factors that could pollute the research process. This is not to suggest that experimental research findings cannot have high levels of both internal and external validity, but that experimental researchers must always be aware of this potential weakness and clearly report limitations in their research reports.

Types of Experimental Designs

Experimental design is an umbrella term for a research method that is designed to test hypotheses related to causality under controlled conditions. Table 14.1 describes the three major types of experimental design (pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, and true experimental) and presents subtypes for each. As we will see in the coming sections, some types of experimental design are better at establishing causality than others. It’s also worth considering that true experiments, which most effectively establish causality , are often difficult and expensive to implement. Although the other experimental designs aren’t perfect, they still produce useful, valid evidence and may be more feasible to carry out.

Key Takeaways

• Experimental designs are useful for establishing causality, but some types of experimental design do this better than others.
• Experiments help researchers isolate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable by controlling for the effect of extraneous variables .
• Experiments use a control/comparison group and an experimental group to test the effects of interventions. These groups should be as similar to each other as possible in terms of demographics and other relevant factors.
• True experiments have control groups with randomly assigned participants; quasi-experimental types of experiments have comparison groups to which participants are not randomly assigned; pre-experimental designs do not have a comparison group.

TRACK 1 (IF YOU  ARE  CREATING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR THIS CLASS):

• Think about the research project you’ve been designing so far. How might you use a basic experiment to answer your question? If your question isn’t explanatory, try to formulate a new explanatory question and consider the usefulness of an experiment.
• Why is establishing a simple relationship between two variables not indicative of one causing the other?

TRACK 2 (IF YOU  AREN’T  CREATING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR THIS CLASS):

Imagine you are interested in studying child welfare practice. You are interested in learning more about community-based programs aimed to prevent child maltreatment and to prevent out-of-home placement for children.

• Think about the research project stated above. How might you use a basic experiment to look more into this research topic? Try to formulate an explanatory question and consider the usefulness of an experiment.
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 (6251), aac4716. Doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716 ↵

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

treatment, intervention, or experience that is being tested in an experiment (the independent variable) that is received by the experimental group and not by the control group.

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

circumstances or events that may affect the outcome of an experiment, resulting in changes in the research participants that are not a result of the intervention, treatment, or experimental condition being tested

causal explanations that can be universally applied to groups, such as scientific laws or universal truths

as a criteria for causal relationship, the relationship must make logical sense and seem possible

when the values of two variables change at the same time

as a criteria for causal relationship, the cause must come before the effect

an association between two variables that is NOT caused by a third variable

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

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

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

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

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

This is a synonymous term for generalizability - the ability to apply the findings of a study beyond the sample to a broader population.

performance of an intervention under ideal and controlled circumstances, such as in a lab or delivered by trained researcher-interventionists

The performance of an intervention under "real-world" conditions that are not closely controlled and ideal

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

Doctoral Research Methods in Social Work Copyright © by Mavs Open Press. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

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

Chapter 6: Experimental Research

Experimental Design

Learning Objectives

• Explain the difference between between-subjects and within-subjects experiments, list some of the pros and cons of each approach, and decide which approach to use to answer a particular research question.
• Define random assignment, distinguish it from random sampling, explain its purpose in experimental research, and use some simple strategies to implement it.
• Define what a control condition is, explain its purpose in research on treatment effectiveness, and describe some alternative types of control conditions.
• Define several types of carryover effect, give examples of each, and explain how counterbalancing helps to deal with them.

In this section, we look at some different ways to design an experiment. The primary distinction we will make is between approaches in which each participant experiences one level of the independent variable and approaches in which each participant experiences all levels of the independent variable. The former are called between-subjects experiments and the latter are called within-subjects experiments.

Between-Subjects Experiments

In a  between-subjects experiment , each participant is tested in only one condition. For example, a researcher with a sample of 100 university  students might assign half of them to write about a traumatic event and the other half write about a neutral event. Or a researcher with a sample of 60 people with severe agoraphobia (fear of open spaces) might assign 20 of them to receive each of three different treatments for that disorder. It is essential in a between-subjects experiment that the researcher assign participants to conditions so that the different groups are, on average, highly similar to each other. Those in a trauma condition and a neutral condition, for example, should include a similar proportion of men and women, and they should have similar average intelligence quotients (IQs), similar average levels of motivation, similar average numbers of health problems, and so on. This matching is a matter of controlling these extraneous participant variables across conditions so that they do not become confounding variables.

Random Assignment

The primary way that researchers accomplish this kind of control of extraneous variables across conditions is called  random assignment , which means using a random process to decide which participants are tested in which conditions. Do not confuse random assignment with random sampling. Random sampling is a method for selecting a sample from a population, and it is rarely used in psychological research. Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other fields too.

In its strictest sense, random assignment should meet two criteria. One is that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition (e.g., a 50% chance of being assigned to each of two conditions). The second is that each participant is assigned to a condition independently of other participants. Thus one way to assign participants to two conditions would be to flip a coin for each one. If the coin lands heads, the participant is assigned to Condition A, and if it lands tails, the participant is assigned to Condition B. For three conditions, one could use a computer to generate a random integer from 1 to 3 for each participant. If the integer is 1, the participant is assigned to Condition A; if it is 2, the participant is assigned to Condition B; and if it is 3, the participant is assigned to Condition C. In practice, a full sequence of conditions—one for each participant expected to be in the experiment—is usually created ahead of time, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence as he or she is tested. When the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the random assignment.

One problem with coin flipping and other strict procedures for random assignment is that they are likely to result in unequal sample sizes in the different conditions. Unequal sample sizes are generally not a serious problem, and you should never throw away data you have already collected to achieve equal sample sizes. However, for a fixed number of participants, it is statistically most efficient to divide them into equal-sized groups. It is standard practice, therefore, to use a kind of modified random assignment that keeps the number of participants in each group as similar as possible. One approach is block randomization . In block randomization, all the conditions occur once in the sequence before any of them is repeated. Then they all occur again before any of them is repeated again. Within each of these “blocks,” the conditions occur in a random order. Again, the sequence of conditions is usually generated before any participants are tested, and each new participant is assigned to the next condition in the sequence.  Table 6.2  shows such a sequence for assigning nine participants to three conditions. The Research Randomizer website will generate block randomization sequences for any number of participants and conditions. Again, when the procedure is computerized, the computer program often handles the block randomization.

Random assignment is not guaranteed to control all extraneous variables across conditions. It is always possible that just by chance, the participants in one condition might turn out to be substantially older, less tired, more motivated, or less depressed on average than the participants in another condition. However, there are some reasons that this possibility is not a major concern. One is that random assignment works better than one might expect, especially for large samples. Another is that the inferential statistics that researchers use to decide whether a difference between groups reflects a difference in the population takes the “fallibility” of random assignment into account. Yet another reason is that even if random assignment does result in a confounding variable and therefore produces misleading results, this confound is likely to be detected when the experiment is replicated. The upshot is that random assignment to conditions—although not infallible in terms of controlling extraneous variables—is always considered a strength of a research design.

Treatment and Control Conditions

Between-subjects experiments are often used to determine whether a treatment works. In psychological research, a  treatment  is any intervention meant to change people’s behaviour for the better. This  intervention  includes psychotherapies and medical treatments for psychological disorders but also interventions designed to improve learning, promote conservation, reduce prejudice, and so on. To determine whether a treatment works, participants are randomly assigned to either a  treatment condition , in which they receive the treatment, or a control condition , in which they do not receive the treatment. If participants in the treatment condition end up better off than participants in the control condition—for example, they are less depressed, learn faster, conserve more, express less prejudice—then the researcher can conclude that the treatment works. In research on the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical treatments, this type of experiment is often called a randomized clinical trial .

There are different types of control conditions. In a  no-treatment control condition , participants receive no treatment whatsoever. One problem with this approach, however, is the existence of placebo effects. A  placebo  is a simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective, and a  placebo effect  is a positive effect of such a treatment. Many folk remedies that seem to work—such as eating chicken soup for a cold or placing soap under the bedsheets to stop nighttime leg cramps—are probably nothing more than placebos. Although placebo effects are not well understood, they are probably driven primarily by people’s expectations that they will improve. Having the expectation to improve can result in reduced stress, anxiety, and depression, which can alter perceptions and even improve immune system functioning (Price, Finniss, & Benedetti, 2008) [1] .

Placebo effects are interesting in their own right (see  Note “The Powerful Placebo” ), but they also pose a serious problem for researchers who want to determine whether a treatment works.  Figure 6.2  shows some hypothetical results in which participants in a treatment condition improved more on average than participants in a no-treatment control condition. If these conditions (the two leftmost bars in  Figure 6.2 ) were the only conditions in this experiment, however, one could not conclude that the treatment worked. It could be instead that participants in the treatment group improved more because they expected to improve, while those in the no-treatment control condition did not.

Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. One is to include a placebo control condition , in which participants receive a placebo that looks much like the treatment but lacks the active ingredient or element thought to be responsible for the treatment’s effectiveness. When participants in a treatment condition take a pill, for example, then those in a placebo control condition would take an identical-looking pill that lacks the active ingredient in the treatment (a “sugar pill”). In research on psychotherapy effectiveness, the placebo might involve going to a psychotherapist and talking in an unstructured way about one’s problems. The idea is that if participants in both the treatment and the placebo control groups expect to improve, then any improvement in the treatment group over and above that in the placebo control group must have been caused by the treatment and not by participants’ expectations. This  difference  is what is shown by a comparison of the two outer bars in  Figure 6.2 .

Of course, the principle of informed consent requires that participants be told that they will be assigned to either a treatment or a placebo control condition—even though they cannot be told which until the experiment ends. In many cases the participants who had been in the control condition are then offered an opportunity to have the real treatment. An alternative approach is to use a waitlist control condition , in which participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the treatment condition have already received it. This disclosure allows researchers to compare participants who have received the treatment with participants who are not currently receiving it but who still expect to improve (eventually). A final solution to the problem of placebo effects is to leave out the control condition completely and compare any new treatment with the best available alternative treatment. For example, a new treatment for simple phobia could be compared with standard exposure therapy. Because participants in both conditions receive a treatment, their expectations about improvement should be similar. This approach also makes sense because once there is an effective treatment, the interesting question about a new treatment is not simply “Does it work?” but “Does it work better than what is already available?

The Powerful Placebo

Many people are not surprised that placebos can have a positive effect on disorders that seem fundamentally psychological, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. However, placebos can also have a positive effect on disorders that most people think of as fundamentally physiological. These include asthma, ulcers, and warts (Shapiro & Shapiro, 1999) [2] . There is even evidence that placebo surgery—also called “sham surgery”—can be as effective as actual surgery.

Medical researcher J. Bruce Moseley and his colleagues conducted a study on the effectiveness of two arthroscopic surgery procedures for osteoarthritis of the knee (Moseley et al., 2002) [3] . The control participants in this study were prepped for surgery, received a tranquilizer, and even received three small incisions in their knees. But they did not receive the actual arthroscopic surgical procedure. The surprising result was that all participants improved in terms of both knee pain and function, and the sham surgery group improved just as much as the treatment groups. According to the researchers, “This study provides strong evidence that arthroscopic lavage with or without débridement [the surgical procedures used] is not better than and appears to be equivalent to a placebo procedure in improving knee pain and self-reported function” (p. 85).

Within-Subjects Experiments

In a within-subjects experiment , each participant is tested under all conditions. Consider an experiment on the effect of a defendant’s physical attractiveness on judgments of his guilt. Again, in a between-subjects experiment, one group of participants would be shown an attractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt, and another group of participants would be shown an unattractive defendant and asked to judge his guilt. In a within-subjects experiment, however, the same group of participants would judge the guilt of both an attractive and an unattractive defendant.

The primary advantage of this approach is that it provides maximum control of extraneous participant variables. Participants in all conditions have the same mean IQ, same socioeconomic status, same number of siblings, and so on—because they are the very same people. Within-subjects experiments also make it possible to use statistical procedures that remove the effect of these extraneous participant variables on the dependent variable and therefore make the data less “noisy” and the effect of the independent variable easier to detect. We will look more closely at this idea later in the book.  However, not all experiments can use a within-subjects design nor would it be desirable to.

Carryover Effects and Counterbalancing

The primary disad vantage of within-subjects designs is that they can result in carryover effects. A  carryover effect  is an effect of being tested in one condition on participants’ behaviour in later conditions. One type of carryover effect is a  practice effect , where participants perform a task better in later conditions because they have had a chance to practice it. Another type is a fatigue effect , where participants perform a task worse in later conditions because they become tired or bored. Being tested in one condition can also change how participants perceive stimuli or interpret their task in later conditions. This  type of effect  is called a  context effect . For example, an average-looking defendant might be judged more harshly when participants have just judged an attractive defendant than when they have just judged an unattractive defendant. Within-subjects experiments also make it easier for participants to guess the hypothesis. For example, a participant who is asked to judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then is asked to judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant is likely to guess that the hypothesis is that defendant attractiveness affects judgments of guilt. This  knowledge  could lead the participant to judge the unattractive defendant more harshly because he thinks this is what he is expected to do. Or it could make participants judge the two defendants similarly in an effort to be “fair.”

Carryover effects can be interesting in their own right. (Does the attractiveness of one person depend on the attractiveness of other people that we have seen recently?) But when they are not the focus of the research, carryover effects can be problematic. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of an attractive defendant and then judge the guilt of an unattractive defendant. If they judge the unattractive defendant more harshly, this might be because of his unattractiveness. But it could be instead that they judge him more harshly because they are becoming bored or tired. In other words, the order of the conditions is a confounding variable. The attractive condition is always the first condition and the unattractive condition the second. Thus any difference between the conditions in terms of the dependent variable could be caused by the order of the conditions and not the independent variable itself.

There is a solution to the problem of order effects, however, that can be used in many situations. It is  counterbalancing , which means testing different participants in different orders. For example, some participants would be tested in the attractive defendant condition followed by the unattractive defendant condition, and others would be tested in the unattractive condition followed by the attractive condition. With three conditions, there would be six different orders (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA), so some participants would be tested in each of the six orders. With counterbalancing, participants are assigned to orders randomly, using the techniques we have already discussed. Thus random assignment plays an important role in within-subjects designs just as in between-subjects designs. Here, instead of randomly assigning to conditions, they are randomly assigned to different orders of conditions. In fact, it can safely be said that if a study does not involve random assignment in one form or another, it is not an experiment.

An efficient way of counterbalancing is through a Latin square design which randomizes through having equal rows and columns. For example, if you have four treatments, you must have four versions. Like a Sudoku puzzle, no treatment can repeat in a row or column. For four versions of four treatments, the Latin square design would look like:

There are two ways to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes. One is that it controls the order of conditions so that it is no longer a confounding variable. Instead of the attractive condition always being first and the unattractive condition always being second, the attractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Likewise, the unattractive condition comes first for some participants and second for others. Thus any overall difference in the dependent variable between the two conditions cannot have been caused by the order of conditions. A second way to think about what counterbalancing accomplishes is that if there are carryover effects, it makes it possible to detect them. One can analyze the data separately for each order to see whether it had an effect.

When 9 is “larger” than 221

Researcher Michael Birnbaum has argued that the lack of context provided by between-subjects designs is often a bigger problem than the context effects created by within-subjects designs. To demonstrate this problem, he asked participants to rate two numbers on how large they were on a scale of 1-to-10 where 1 was “very very small” and 10 was “very very large”.  One group of participants were asked to rate the number 9 and another group was asked to rate the number 221 (Birnbaum, 1999) [4] . Participants in this between-subjects design gave the number 9 a mean rating of 5.13 and the number 221 a mean rating of 3.10. In other words, they rated 9 as larger than 221! According to Birnbaum, this difference is because participants spontaneously compared 9 with other one-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively large) and compared 221 with other three-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively small) .

Simultaneous Within-Subjects Designs

So far, we have discussed an approach to within-subjects designs in which participants are tested in one condition at a time. There is another approach, however, that is often used when participants make multiple responses in each condition. Imagine, for example, that participants judge the guilt of 10 attractive defendants and 10 unattractive defendants. Instead of having people make judgments about all 10 defendants of one type followed by all 10 defendants of the other type, the researcher could present all 20 defendants in a sequence that mixed the two types. The researcher could then compute each participant’s mean rating for each type of defendant. Or imagine an experiment designed to see whether people with social anxiety disorder remember negative adjectives (e.g., “stupid,” “incompetent”) better than positive ones (e.g., “happy,” “productive”). The researcher could have participants study a single list that includes both kinds of words and then have them try to recall as many words as possible. The researcher could then count the number of each type of word that was recalled. There are many ways to determine the order in which the stimuli are presented, but one common way is to generate a different random order for each participant.

Between-Subjects or Within-Subjects?

Almost every experiment can be conducted using either a between-subjects design or a within-subjects design. This possibility means that researchers must choose between the two approaches based on their relative merits for the particular situation.

Between-subjects experiments have the advantage of being conceptually simpler and requiring less testing time per participant. They also avoid carryover effects without the need for counterbalancing. Within-subjects experiments have the advantage of controlling extraneous participant variables, which generally reduces noise in the data and makes it easier to detect a relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

A good rule of thumb, then, is that if it is possible to conduct a within-subjects experiment (with proper counterbalancing) in the time that is available per participant—and you have no serious concerns about carryover effects—this design is probably the best option. If a within-subjects design would be difficult or impossible to carry out, then you should consider a between-subjects design instead. For example, if you were testing participants in a doctor’s waiting room or shoppers in line at a grocery store, you might not have enough time to test each participant in all conditions and therefore would opt for a between-subjects design. Or imagine you were trying to reduce people’s level of prejudice by having them interact with someone of another race. A within-subjects design with counterbalancing would require testing some participants in the treatment condition first and then in a control condition. But if the treatment works and reduces people’s level of prejudice, then they would no longer be suitable for testing in the control condition. This difficulty is true for many designs that involve a treatment meant to produce long-term change in participants’ behaviour (e.g., studies testing the effectiveness of psychotherapy). Clearly, a between-subjects design would be necessary here.

Remember also that using one type of design does not preclude using the other type in a different study. There is no reason that a researcher could not use both a between-subjects design and a within-subjects design to answer the same research question. In fact, professional researchers often take exactly this type of mixed methods approach.

Key Takeaways

• Experiments can be conducted using either between-subjects or within-subjects designs. Deciding which to use in a particular situation requires careful consideration of the pros and cons of each approach.
• Random assignment to conditions in between-subjects experiments or to orders of conditions in within-subjects experiments is a fundamental element of experimental research. Its purpose is to control extraneous variables so that they do not become confounding variables.
• Experimental research on the effectiveness of a treatment requires both a treatment condition and a control condition, which can be a no-treatment control condition, a placebo control condition, or a waitlist control condition. Experimental treatments can also be compared with the best available alternative.
• You want to test the relative effectiveness of two training programs for running a marathon.
• Using photographs of people as stimuli, you want to see if smiling people are perceived as more intelligent than people who are not smiling.
• In a field experiment, you want to see if the way a panhandler is dressed (neatly vs. sloppily) affects whether or not passersby give him any money.
• You want to see if concrete nouns (e.g.,  dog ) are recalled better than abstract nouns (e.g.,  truth ).
• Discussion: Imagine that an experiment shows that participants who receive psychodynamic therapy for a dog phobia improve more than participants in a no-treatment control group. Explain a fundamental problem with this research design and at least two ways that it might be corrected.
• Price, D. D., Finniss, D. G., & Benedetti, F. (2008). A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 565–590. ↵
• Shapiro, A. K., & Shapiro, E. (1999). The powerful placebo: From ancient priest to modern physician . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ↵
• Moseley, J. B., O’Malley, K., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., … Wray, N. P. (2002). A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347 , 81–88. ↵
• Birnbaum, M.H. (1999). How to show that 9>221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 243-249. ↵

An experiment in which each participant is only tested in one condition.

A method of controlling extraneous variables across conditions by using a random process to decide which participants will be tested in the different conditions.

All the conditions of an experiment occur once in the sequence before any of them is repeated.

Any intervention meant to change people’s behaviour for the better.

A condition in a study where participants receive treatment.

A condition in a study that the other condition is compared to. This group does not receive the treatment or intervention that the other conditions do.

A type of experiment to research the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical treatments.

A type of control condition in which participants receive no treatment.

A simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective.

A positive effect of a treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element to make it effective.

Participants receive a placebo that looks like the treatment but lacks the active ingredient or element thought to be responsible for the treatment’s effectiveness.

Participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the treatment condition have already received it.

Each participant is tested under all conditions.

An effect of being tested in one condition on participants’ behaviour in later conditions.

Participants perform a task better in later conditions because they have had a chance to practice it.

Participants perform a task worse in later conditions because they become tired or bored.

Being tested in one condition can also change how participants perceive stimuli or interpret their task in later conditions.

Testing different participants in different orders.

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

Introduction to Experience Sampling Methods and Implementation

Science Training Sessions

October 16, 2024

1 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Eastern time

Experience sampling methods are a powerful method that allows researchers to examine how psychological phenomena unfold in daily life in various contexts. This workshop will introduce experience sampling methods. It will then outline issues that need to be considered when using these methods, such as types of design, signal frequency, sample size and power, survey questions, compensation, recruitment strategies, running the study, data handling, making the most of experience sampling studies, and available platforms. This workshop will focus on providing practical advice regarding how to design and implement experience sampling studies.

This program does not offer CE credit.

Sabrina Thai, PhD

More in this series

Researchers and practitioners will share perspectives and experience with regard to assessment methodological research and practice with and for Indigenous Peoples.

November 14, 2024 Live Webinar

Learn common methods of network analysis through practical examples; these include identifying central individuals, conducting community detection, and fitting social network models

March 2024 On Demand Webinar

This session covers advances in artificial intelligence, with a focus on the innovations that helped lead to generative AI, and how these innovations also improved automated scoring and the processing of text

November 2023 On Demand Webinar

Outlines advances in and adoption of wearable technology for the collection of biobehavioral data in research settings

August 2022 On Demand Webinar

Sampling Methods In Reseach: Types, Techniques, & Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Sampling methods in psychology refer to strategies used to select a subset of individuals (a sample) from a larger population, to study and draw inferences about the entire population. Common methods include random sampling, stratified sampling, cluster sampling, and convenience sampling. Proper sampling ensures representative, generalizable, and valid research results.

• Sampling : the process of selecting a representative group from the population under study.
• Target population : the total group of individuals from which the sample might be drawn.
• Sample: a subset of individuals selected from a larger population for study or investigation. Those included in the sample are termed “participants.”
• Generalizability : the ability to apply research findings from a sample to the broader target population, contingent on the sample being representative of that population.

For instance, if the advert for volunteers is published in the New York Times, this limits how much the study’s findings can be generalized to the whole population, because NYT readers may not represent the entire population in certain respects (e.g., politically, socio-economically).

The Purpose of Sampling

We are interested in learning about large groups of people with something in common in psychological research. We call the group interested in studying our “target population.”

In some types of research, the target population might be as broad as all humans. Still, in other types of research, the target population might be a smaller group, such as teenagers, preschool children, or people who misuse drugs.

Studying every person in a target population is more or less impossible. Hence, psychologists select a sample or sub-group of the population that is likely to be representative of the target population we are interested in.

This is important because we want to generalize from the sample to the target population. The more representative the sample, the more confident the researcher can be that the results can be generalized to the target population.

One of the problems that can occur when selecting a sample from a target population is sampling bias. Sampling bias refers to situations where the sample does not reflect the characteristics of the target population.

Many psychology studies have a biased sample because they have used an opportunity sample that comprises university students as their participants (e.g., Asch ).

OK, so you’ve thought up this brilliant psychological study and designed it perfectly. But who will you try it out on, and how will you select your participants?

There are various sampling methods. The one chosen will depend on a number of factors (such as time, money, etc.).

Random Sampling

Random sampling is a type of probability sampling where everyone in the entire target population has an equal chance of being selected.

This is similar to the national lottery. If the “population” is everyone who bought a lottery ticket, then everyone has an equal chance of winning the lottery (assuming they all have one ticket each).

Random samples require naming or numbering the target population and then using some raffle method to choose those to make up the sample. Random samples are the best method of selecting your sample from the population of interest.

• The advantages are that your sample should represent the target population and eliminate sampling bias.
• The disadvantage is that it is very difficult to achieve (i.e., time, effort, and money).

Stratified Sampling

During stratified sampling , the researcher identifies the different types of people that make up the target population and works out the proportions needed for the sample to be representative.

A list is made of each variable (e.g., IQ, gender, etc.) that might have an effect on the research. For example, if we are interested in the money spent on books by undergraduates, then the main subject studied may be an important variable.

For example, students studying English Literature may spend more money on books than engineering students, so if we use a large percentage of English students or engineering students, our results will not be accurate.

We have to determine the relative percentage of each group at a university, e.g., Engineering 10%, Social Sciences 15%, English 20%, Sciences 25%, Languages 10%, Law 5%, and Medicine 15%. The sample must then contain all these groups in the same proportion as the target population (university students).

• The disadvantage of stratified sampling is that gathering such a sample would be extremely time-consuming and difficult to do. This method is rarely used in Psychology.
• However, the advantage is that the sample should be highly representative of the target population, and therefore we can generalize from the results obtained.

Opportunity Sampling

Opportunity sampling is a method in which participants are chosen based on their ease of availability and proximity to the researcher, rather than using random or systematic criteria. It’s a type of convenience sampling .

An opportunity sample is obtained by asking members of the population of interest if they would participate in your research. An example would be selecting a sample of students from those coming out of the library.

• This is a quick and easy way of choosing participants (advantage)
• It may not provide a representative sample and could be biased (disadvantage).

Systematic Sampling

Systematic sampling is a method where every nth individual is selected from a list or sequence to form a sample, ensuring even and regular intervals between chosen subjects.

Participants are systematically selected (i.e., orderly/logical) from the target population, like every nth participant on a list of names.

To take a systematic sample, you list all the population members and then decide upon a sample you would like. By dividing the number of people in the population by the number of people you want in your sample, you get a number we will call n.

If you take every nth name, you will get a systematic sample of the correct size. If, for example, you wanted to sample 150 children from a school of 1,500, you would take every 10th name.

• The advantage of this method is that it should provide a representative sample.

Sample size

The sample size is a critical factor in determining the reliability and validity of a study’s findings. While increasing the sample size can enhance the generalizability of results, it’s also essential to balance practical considerations, such as resource constraints and diminishing returns from ever-larger samples.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability refers to the consistency and reproducibility of research findings across different occasions, researchers, or instruments. A small sample size may lead to inconsistent results due to increased susceptibility to random error or the influence of outliers. In contrast, a larger sample minimizes these errors, promoting more reliable results.

Validity pertains to the accuracy and truthfulness of research findings. For a study to be valid, it should accurately measure what it intends to do. A small, unrepresentative sample can compromise external validity, meaning the results don’t generalize well to the larger population. A larger sample captures more variability, ensuring that specific subgroups or anomalies don’t overly influence results.

Practical Considerations

Resource Constraints : Larger samples demand more time, money, and resources. Data collection becomes more extensive, data analysis more complex, and logistics more challenging.

Diminishing Returns : While increasing the sample size generally leads to improved accuracy and precision, there’s a point where adding more participants yields only marginal benefits. For instance, going from 50 to 500 participants might significantly boost a study’s robustness, but jumping from 10,000 to 10,500 might not offer a comparable advantage, especially considering the added costs.

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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Thomas, L. (2024, January 22). Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 5, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quasi-experimental-design/

Is this article helpful?

Lauren Thomas

Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, random assignment in experiments | introduction & examples, control variables | what are they & why do they matter, what is your plagiarism score.

This week: the arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Title: ct-sdm: a sampling diffusion model for sparse-view ct reconstruction across all sampling rates.

Abstract: Sparse views X-ray computed tomography has emerged as a contemporary technique to mitigate radiation dose. Because of the reduced number of projection views, traditional reconstruction methods can lead to severe artifacts. Recently, research studies utilizing deep learning methods has made promising progress in removing artifacts for Sparse-View Computed Tomography (SVCT). However, given the limitations on the generalization capability of deep learning models, current methods usually train models on fixed sampling rates, affecting the usability and flexibility of model deployment in real clinical settings. To address this issue, our study proposes a adaptive reconstruction method to achieve high-performance SVCT reconstruction at any sampling rate. Specifically, we design a novel imaging degradation operator in the proposed sampling diffusion model for SVCT (CT-SDM) to simulate the projection process in the sinogram domain. Thus, the CT-SDM can gradually add projection views to highly undersampled measurements to generalize the full-view sinograms. By choosing an appropriate starting point in diffusion inference, the proposed model can recover the full-view sinograms from any sampling rate with only one trained model. Experiments on several datasets have verified the effectiveness and robustness of our approach, demonstrating its superiority in reconstructing high-quality images from sparse-view CT scans across various sampling rates.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .