experimental design of a controlled experiment

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Experimental Design: Definition and Types

By Jim Frost 3 Comments

What is Experimental Design?

An experimental design is a detailed plan for collecting and using data to identify causal relationships. Through careful planning, the design of experiments allows your data collection efforts to have a reasonable chance of detecting effects and testing hypotheses that answer your research questions.

An experiment is a data collection procedure that occurs in controlled conditions to identify and understand causal relationships between variables. Researchers can use many potential designs. The ultimate choice depends on their research question, resources, goals, and constraints. In some fields of study, researchers refer to experimental design as the design of experiments (DOE). Both terms are synonymous.

Ultimately, the design of experiments helps ensure that your procedures and data will evaluate your research question effectively. Without an experimental design, you might waste your efforts in a process that, for many potential reasons, can’t answer your research question. In short, it helps you trust your results.

Learn more about Independent and Dependent Variables .

Design of Experiments: Goals & Settings

Experiments occur in many settings, ranging from psychology, social sciences, medicine, physics, engineering, and industrial and service sectors. Typically, experimental goals are to discover a previously unknown effect , confirm a known effect, or test a hypothesis.

Effects represent causal relationships between variables. For example, in a medical experiment, does the new medicine cause an improvement in health outcomes? If so, the medicine has a causal effect on the outcome.

An experimental design’s focus depends on the subject area and can include the following goals:

• Understanding the relationships between variables.
• Identifying the variables that have the largest impact on the outcomes.
• Finding the input variable settings that produce an optimal result.

For example, psychologists have conducted experiments to understand how conformity affects decision-making. Sociologists have performed experiments to determine whether ethnicity affects the public reaction to staged bike thefts. These experiments map out the causal relationships between variables, and their primary goal is to understand the role of various factors.

Conversely, in a manufacturing environment, the researchers might use an experimental design to find the factors that most effectively improve their product’s strength, identify the optimal manufacturing settings, and do all that while accounting for various constraints. In short, a manufacturer’s goal is often to use experiments to improve their products cost-effectively.

In a medical experiment, the goal might be to quantify the medicine’s effect and find the optimum dosage.

Developing an Experimental Design

Developing an experimental design involves planning that maximizes the potential to collect data that is both trustworthy and able to detect causal relationships. Specifically, these studies aim to see effects when they exist in the population the researchers are studying, preferentially favor causal effects, isolate each factor’s true effect from potential confounders, and produce conclusions that you can generalize to the real world.

To accomplish these goals, experimental designs carefully manage data validity and reliability , and internal and external experimental validity. When your experiment is valid and reliable, you can expect your procedures and data to produce trustworthy results.

An excellent experimental design involves the following:

• Lots of preplanning.
• Developing experimental treatments.
• Determining how to assign subjects to treatment groups.

The remainder of this article focuses on how experimental designs incorporate these essential items to accomplish their research goals.

Learn more about Data Reliability vs. Validity and Internal and External Experimental Validity .

Preplanning, Defining, and Operationalizing for Design of Experiments

This phase of the design of experiments helps you identify critical variables, know how to measure them while ensuring reliability and validity, and understand the relationships between them. The review can also help you find ways to reduce sources of variability, which increases your ability to detect treatment effects. Notably, the literature review allows you to learn how similar studies designed their experiments and the challenges they faced.

Operationalizing a study involves taking your research question, using the background information you gathered, and formulating an actionable plan.

This process should produce a specific and testable hypothesis using data that you can reasonably collect given the resources available to the experiment.

• Null hypothesis : The jumping exercise intervention does not affect bone density.
• Alternative hypothesis : The jumping exercise intervention affects bone density.

To learn more about this early phase, read Five Steps for Conducting Scientific Studies with Statistical Analyses .

Formulating Treatments in Experimental Designs

In an experimental design, treatments are variables that the researchers control. They are the primary independent variables of interest. Researchers administer the treatment to the subjects or items in the experiment and want to know whether it causes changes in the outcome.

As the name implies, a treatment can be medical in nature, such as a new medicine or vaccine. But it’s a general term that applies to other things such as training programs, manufacturing settings, teaching methods, and types of fertilizers. I helped run an experiment where the treatment was a jumping exercise intervention that we hoped would increase bone density. All these treatment examples are things that potentially influence a measurable outcome.

Even when you know your treatment generally, you must carefully consider the amount. How large of a dose? If you’re comparing three different temperatures in a manufacturing process, how far apart are they? For my bone mineral density study, we had to determine how frequently the exercise sessions would occur and how long each lasted.

How you define the treatments in the design of experiments can affect your findings and the generalizability of your results.

Assigning Subjects to Experimental Groups

A crucial decision for all experimental designs is determining how researchers assign subjects to the experimental conditions—the treatment and control groups. The control group is often, but not always, the lack of a treatment. It serves as a basis for comparison by showing outcomes for subjects who don’t receive a treatment. Learn more about Control Groups .

How your experimental design assigns subjects to the groups affects how confident you can be that the findings represent true causal effects rather than mere correlation caused by confounders. Indeed, the assignment method influences how you control for confounding variables. This is the difference between correlation and causation .

Imagine a study finds that vitamin consumption correlates with better health outcomes. As a researcher, you want to be able to say that vitamin consumption causes the improvements. However, with the wrong experimental design, you might only be able to say there is an association. A confounder, and not the vitamins, might actually cause the health benefits.

Let’s explore some of the ways to assign subjects in design of experiments.

Completely Randomized Designs

A completely randomized experimental design randomly assigns all subjects to the treatment and control groups. You simply take each participant and use a random process to determine their group assignment. You can flip coins, roll a die, or use a computer. Randomized experiments must be prospective studies because they need to be able to control group assignment.

Random assignment in the design of experiments helps ensure that the groups are roughly equivalent at the beginning of the study. This equivalence at the start increases your confidence that any differences you see at the end were caused by the treatments. The randomization tends to equalize confounders between the experimental groups and, thereby, cancels out their effects, leaving only the treatment effects.

For example, in a vitamin study, the researchers can randomly assign participants to either the control or vitamin group. Because the groups are approximately equal when the experiment starts, if the health outcomes are different at the end of the study, the researchers can be confident that the vitamins caused those improvements.

Statisticians consider randomized experimental designs to be the best for identifying causal relationships.

If you can’t randomly assign subjects but want to draw causal conclusions about an intervention, consider using a quasi-experimental design .

Learn more about Randomized Controlled Trials and Random Assignment in Experiments .

Randomized Block Designs

Nuisance factors are variables that can affect the outcome, but they are not the researcher’s primary interest. Unfortunately, they can hide or distort the treatment results. When experimenters know about specific nuisance factors, they can use a randomized block design to minimize their impact.

This experimental design takes subjects with a shared “nuisance” characteristic and groups them into blocks. The participants in each block are then randomly assigned to the experimental groups. This process allows the experiment to control for known nuisance factors.

Blocking in the design of experiments reduces the impact of nuisance factors on experimental error. The analysis assesses the effects of the treatment within each block, which removes the variability between blocks. The result is that blocked experimental designs can reduce the impact of nuisance variables, increasing the ability to detect treatment effects accurately.

Suppose you’re testing various teaching methods. Because grade level likely affects educational outcomes, you might use grade level as a blocking factor. To use a randomized block design for this scenario, divide the participants by grade level and then randomly assign the members of each grade level to the experimental groups.

A standard guideline for an experimental design is to “Block what you can, randomize what you cannot.” Use blocking for a few primary nuisance factors. Then use random assignment to distribute the unblocked nuisance factors equally between the experimental conditions.

You can also use covariates to control nuisance factors. Learn about Covariates: Definition and Uses .

Observational Studies

In some experimental designs, randomly assigning subjects to the experimental conditions is impossible or unethical. The researchers simply can’t assign participants to the experimental groups. However, they can observe them in their natural groupings, measure the essential variables, and look for correlations. These observational studies are also known as quasi-experimental designs. Retrospective studies must be observational in nature because they look back at past events.

Imagine you’re studying the effects of depression on an activity. Clearly, you can’t randomly assign participants to the depression and control groups. But you can observe participants with and without depression and see how their task performance differs.

Observational studies let you perform research when you can’t control the treatment. However, quasi-experimental designs increase the problem of confounding variables. For this design of experiments, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While special procedures can help control confounders in an observational study, you’re ultimately less confident that the results represent causal findings.

Learn more about Observational Studies .

For a good comparison, learn about the differences and tradeoffs between Observational Studies and Randomized Experiments .

Between-Subjects vs. Within-Subjects Experimental Designs

When you think of the design of experiments, you probably picture a treatment and control group. Researchers assign participants to only one of these groups, so each group contains entirely different subjects than the other groups. Analysts compare the groups at the end of the experiment. Statisticians refer to this method as a between-subjects, or independent measures, experimental design.

In a between-subjects design , you can have more than one treatment group, but each subject is exposed to only one condition, the control group or one of the treatment groups.

A potential downside to this approach is that differences between groups at the beginning can affect the results at the end. As you’ve read earlier, random assignment can reduce those differences, but it is imperfect. There will always be some variability between the groups.

In a  within-subjects experimental design , also known as repeated measures, subjects experience all treatment conditions and are measured for each. Each subject acts as their own control, which reduces variability and increases the statistical power to detect effects.

In this experimental design, you minimize pre-existing differences between the experimental conditions because they all contain the same subjects. However, the order of treatments can affect the results. Beware of practice and fatigue effects. Learn more about Repeated Measures Designs .

Design of Experiments Examples

For example, a bone density study has three experimental groups—a control group, a stretching exercise group, and a jumping exercise group.

In a between-subjects experimental design, scientists randomly assign each participant to one of the three groups.

In a within-subjects design, all subjects experience the three conditions sequentially while the researchers measure bone density repeatedly. The procedure can switch the order of treatments for the participants to help reduce order effects.

Matched Pairs Experimental Design

A matched pairs experimental design is a between-subjects study that uses pairs of similar subjects. Researchers use this approach to reduce pre-existing differences between experimental groups. It’s yet another design of experiments method for reducing sources of variability.

Researchers identify variables likely to affect the outcome, such as demographics. When they pick a subject with a set of characteristics, they try to locate another participant with similar attributes to create a matched pair. Scientists randomly assign one member of a pair to the treatment group and the other to the control group.

On the plus side, this process creates two similar groups, and it doesn’t create treatment order effects. While matched pairs do not produce the perfectly matched groups of a within-subjects design (which uses the same subjects in all conditions), it aims to reduce variability between groups relative to a between-subjects study.

On the downside, finding matched pairs is very time-consuming. Additionally, if one member of a matched pair drops out, the other subject must leave the study too.

Learn more about Matched Pairs Design: Uses & Examples .

Another consideration is whether you’ll use a cross-sectional design (one point in time) or use a longitudinal study to track changes over time .

A case study is a research method that often serves as a precursor to a more rigorous experimental design by identifying research questions, variables, and hypotheses to test. Learn more about What is a Case Study? Definition & Examples .

In conclusion, the design of experiments is extremely sensitive to subject area concerns and the time and resources available to the researchers. Developing a suitable experimental design requires balancing a multitude of considerations. A successful design is necessary to obtain trustworthy answers to your research question and to have a reasonable chance of detecting treatment effects when they exist.

Share this:

Reader Interactions

March 23, 2024 at 2:35 pm

Dear Jim You wrote a superb document, I will use it in my Buistatistics course, along with your three books. Thank you very much! Miguel

March 23, 2024 at 5:43 pm

Thanks so much, Miguel! Glad this post was helpful and I trust the books will be as well.

April 10, 2023 at 4:36 am

What are the purpose and uses of experimental research design?

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Controlled Experiments | Methods & Examples of Control

Controlled Experiments | Methods & Examples of Control

Published on 19 April 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 10 October 2022.

In experiments , researchers manipulate independent variables to test their effects on dependent variables. In a controlled experiment , all variables other than the independent variable are controlled or held constant so they don’t influence the dependent variable.

Controlling variables can involve:

• Holding variables at a constant or restricted level (e.g., keeping room temperature fixed)
• Measuring variables to statistically control for them in your analyses
• Balancing variables across your experiment through randomisation (e.g., using a random order of tasks)

Table of contents

Why does control matter in experiments, methods of control, problems with controlled experiments, frequently asked questions about controlled experiments.

Control in experiments is critical for internal validity , which allows you to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between variables.

• Your independent variable is the colour used in advertising.
• Your dependent variable is the price that participants are willing to pay for a standard fast food meal.

Extraneous variables are factors that you’re not interested in studying, but that can still influence the dependent variable. For strong internal validity, you need to remove their effects from your experiment.

• Design and description of the meal
• Study environment (e.g., temperature or lighting)
• Participant’s frequency of buying fast food
• Participant’s familiarity with the specific fast food brand
• Participant’s socioeconomic status

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

You can control some variables by standardising your data collection procedures. All participants should be tested in the same environment with identical materials. Only the independent variable (e.g., advert colour) should be systematically changed between groups.

Other extraneous variables can be controlled through your sampling procedures . Ideally, you’ll select a sample that’s representative of your target population by using relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., including participants from a specific income bracket, and not including participants with colour blindness).

By measuring extraneous participant variables (e.g., age or gender) that may affect your experimental results, you can also include them in later analyses.

After gathering your participants, you’ll need to place them into groups to test different independent variable treatments. The types of groups and method of assigning participants to groups will help you implement control in your experiment.

Control groups

Controlled experiments require control groups . Control groups allow you to test a comparable treatment, no treatment, or a fake treatment, and compare the outcome with your experimental treatment.

You can assess whether it’s your treatment specifically that caused the outcomes, or whether time or any other treatment might have resulted in the same effects.

• A control group that’s presented with red advertisements for a fast food meal
• An experimental group that’s presented with green advertisements for the same fast food meal

Random assignment

To avoid systematic differences between the participants in your control and treatment groups, you should use random assignment .

This helps ensure that any extraneous participant variables are evenly distributed, allowing for a valid comparison between groups .

Random assignment is a hallmark of a ‘true experiment’ – it differentiates true experiments from quasi-experiments .

Masking (blinding)

Masking in experiments means hiding condition assignment from participants or researchers – or, in a double-blind study , from both. It’s often used in clinical studies that test new treatments or drugs.

Sometimes, researchers may unintentionally encourage participants to behave in ways that support their hypotheses. In other cases, cues in the study environment may signal the goal of the experiment to participants and influence their responses.

Using masking means that participants don’t know whether they’re in the control group or the experimental group. This helps you control biases from participants or researchers that could influence your study results.

Although controlled experiments are the strongest way to test causal relationships, they also involve some challenges.

Difficult to control all variables

Especially in research with human participants, it’s impossible to hold all extraneous variables constant, because every individual has different experiences that may influence their perception, attitudes, or behaviors.

But measuring or restricting extraneous variables allows you to limit their influence or statistically control for them in your study.

Risk of low external validity

Controlled experiments have disadvantages when it comes to external validity – the extent to which your results can be generalised to broad populations and settings.

The more controlled your experiment is, the less it resembles real world contexts. That makes it harder to apply your findings outside of a controlled setting.

There’s always a tradeoff between internal and external validity . It’s important to consider your research aims when deciding whether to prioritise control or generalisability in your experiment.

Experimental designs are a set of procedures that you plan in order to examine the relationship between variables that interest you.

To design a successful experiment, first identify:

• A testable hypothesis
• One or more independent variables that you will manipulate
• One or more dependent variables that you will measure

When designing the experiment, first decide:

• How your variable(s) will be manipulated
• How you will control for any potential confounding or lurking variables
• How many subjects you will include
• How you will assign treatments to your subjects

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.

Bhandari, P. (2022, October 10). Controlled Experiments | Methods & Examples of Control. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/controlled-experiments/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Control Groups and Treatment Groups | Uses & Examples

Control Groups and Treatment Groups | Uses & Examples

Published on July 3, 2020 by Lauren Thomas . Revised on June 22, 2023.

In a scientific study, a control group is used to establish causality by isolating the effect of an independent variable .

Here, researchers change the independent variable in the treatment group and keep it constant in the control group. Then they compare the results of these groups.

Using a control group means that any change in the dependent variable can be attributed to the independent variable. This helps avoid extraneous variables or confounding variables from impacting your work, as well as a few types of research bias , like omitted variable bias .

Table of contents

Control groups in experiments, control groups in non-experimental research, importance of control groups, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about control groups.

Control groups are essential to experimental design . When researchers are interested in the impact of a new treatment, they randomly divide their study participants into at least two groups:

• The treatment group (also called the experimental group ) receives the treatment whose effect the researcher is interested in.
• The control group receives either no treatment, a standard treatment whose effect is already known, or a placebo (a fake treatment to control for placebo effect ).

The treatment is any independent variable manipulated by the experimenters, and its exact form depends on the type of research being performed. In a medical trial, it might be a new drug or therapy. In public policy studies, it could be a new social policy that some receive and not others.

In a well-designed experiment, all variables apart from the treatment should be kept constant between the two groups. This means researchers can correctly measure the entire effect of the treatment without interference from confounding variables .

• You pay the students in the treatment group for achieving high grades.
• Students in the control group do not receive any money.

Studies can also include more than one treatment or control group. Researchers might want to examine the impact of multiple treatments at once, or compare a new treatment to several alternatives currently available.

• The treatment group gets the new pill.
• Control group 1 gets an identical-looking sugar pill (a placebo)
• Control group 2 gets a pill already approved to treat high blood pressure

Since the only variable that differs between the three groups is the type of pill, any differences in average blood pressure between the three groups can be credited to the type of pill they received.

• The difference between the treatment group and control group 1 demonstrates the effectiveness of the pill as compared to no treatment.
• The difference between the treatment group and control group 2 shows whether the new pill improves on treatments already available on the market.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Although control groups are more common in experimental research, they can be used in other types of research too. Researchers generally rely on non-experimental control groups in two cases: quasi-experimental or matching design.

Control groups in quasi-experimental design

While true experiments rely on random assignment to the treatment or control groups, quasi-experimental design uses some criterion other than randomization to assign people.

Often, these assignments are not controlled by researchers, but are pre-existing groups that have received different treatments. For example, researchers could study the effects of a new teaching method that was applied in some classes in a school but not others, or study the impact of a new policy that is implemented in one state but not in the neighboring state.

In these cases, the classes that did not use the new teaching method, or the state that did not implement the new policy, is the control group.

Control groups in matching design

In correlational research , matching represents a potential alternate option when you cannot use either true or quasi-experimental designs.

In matching designs, the researcher matches individuals who received the “treatment”, or independent variable under study, to others who did not–the control group.

Each member of the treatment group thus has a counterpart in the control group identical in every way possible outside of the treatment. This ensures that the treatment is the only source of potential differences in outcomes between the two groups.

Control groups help ensure the internal validity of your research. You might see a difference over time in your dependent variable in your treatment group. However, without a control group, it is difficult to know whether the change has arisen from the treatment. It is possible that the change is due to some other variables.

If you use a control group that is identical in every other way to the treatment group, you know that the treatment–the only difference between the two groups–must be what has caused the change.

For example, people often recover from illnesses or injuries over time regardless of whether they’ve received effective treatment or not. Thus, without a control group, it’s difficult to determine whether improvements in medical conditions come from a treatment or just the natural progression of time.

Risks from invalid control groups

If your control group differs from the treatment group in ways that you haven’t accounted for, your results may reflect the interference of confounding variables instead of your independent variable.

Minimizing this risk

A few methods can aid you in minimizing the risk from invalid control groups.

• Ensure that all potential confounding variables are accounted for , preferably through an experimental design if possible, since it is difficult to control for all the possible confounders outside of an experimental environment.
• Use double-blinding . This will prevent the members of each group from modifying their behavior based on whether they were placed in the treatment or control group, which could then lead to biased outcomes.
• Randomly assign your subjects into control and treatment groups. This method will allow you to not only minimize the differences between the two groups on confounding variables that you can directly observe, but also those you cannot.

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.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.

A true experiment (a.k.a. a controlled experiment) always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment.

However, some experiments use a within-subjects design to test treatments without a control group. In these designs, you usually compare one group’s outcomes before and after a treatment (instead of comparing outcomes between different groups).

For strong internal validity , it’s usually best to include a control group if possible. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

Experimental design means planning a set of procedures to investigate a relationship between variables . To design a controlled experiment, you need:

• A testable hypothesis
• At least one independent variable that can be precisely manipulated
• At least one dependent variable that can be precisely measured

When designing the experiment, you decide:

• How you will manipulate the variable(s)
• How you will control for any potential confounding variables
• How many subjects or samples will be included in the study
• How subjects will be assigned to treatment levels

Experimental design is essential to the internal and external validity of your experiment.

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. (2023, June 22). Control Groups and Treatment Groups | Uses & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/control-group/

Is this article helpful?

Lauren Thomas

Other students also liked, what is a controlled experiment | definitions & examples, random assignment in experiments | introduction & examples, single, double, & triple blind study | definition & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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.

• Activities, Experiments, Online Games, Visual Aids
• Activities, Experiments, and Investigations
• Experimental Design and the Scientific Method

Experimental Design - Independent, Dependent, and Controlled Variables

To view these resources with no ads, please login or subscribe to help support our content development. school subscriptions can access more than 175 downloadable unit bundles in our store for free (a value of $1,500). district subscriptions provide huge group discounts for their schools. email for a quote: [email protected] ..

Scientific experiments are meant to show cause and effect of a phenomena (relationships in nature).  The “ variables ” are any factor, trait, or condition that can be changed in the experiment and that can have an effect on the outcome of the experiment.

An experiment can have three kinds of variables: i ndependent, dependent, and controlled .

• The independent variable is one single factor that is changed by the scientist followed by observation to watch for changes. It is important that there is just one independent variable, so that results are not confusing.
• The dependent variable is the factor that changes as a result of the change to the independent variable.
• The controlled variables (or constant variables) are factors that the scientist wants to remain constant if the experiment is to show accurate results. To be able to measure results, each of the variables must be able to be measured.

For example, let’s design an experiment with two plants sitting in the sun side by side. The controlled variables (or constants) are that at the beginning of the experiment, the plants are the same size, get the same amount of sunlight, experience the same ambient temperature and are in the same amount and consistency of soil (the weight of the soil and container should be measured before the plants are added). The independent variable is that one plant is getting watered (1 cup of water) every day and one plant is getting watered (1 cup of water) once a week. The dependent variables are the changes in the two plants that the scientist observes over time.

Can you describe the dependent variable that may result from this experiment? After four weeks, the dependent variable may be that one plant is taller, heavier and more developed than the other. These results can be recorded and graphed by measuring and comparing both plants’ height, weight (removing the weight of the soil and container recorded beforehand) and a comparison of observable foliage.

Using What You Learned: Design another experiment using the two plants, but change the independent variable. Can you describe the dependent variable that may result from this new experiment?

Think of another simple experiment and name the independent, dependent, and controlled variables. Use the graphic organizer included in the PDF below to organize your experiment's variables.

Please Login or Subscribe to access downloadable content.

Citing Research References

When you research information you must cite the reference. Citing for websites is different from citing from books, magazines and periodicals. The style of citing shown here is from the MLA Style Citations (Modern Language Association).

When citing a WEBSITE the general format is as follows. Author Last Name, First Name(s). "Title: Subtitle of Part of Web Page, if appropriate." Title: Subtitle: Section of Page if appropriate. Sponsoring/Publishing Agency, If Given. Additional significant descriptive information. Date of Electronic Publication or other Date, such as Last Updated. Day Month Year of access < URL >.

Here is an example of citing this page:

Amsel, Sheri. "Experimental Design - Independent, Dependent, and Controlled Variables" Exploring Nature Educational Resource ©2005-2024. March 25, 2024 < http://www.exploringnature.org/db/view/Experimental-Design-Independent-Dependent-and-Controlled-Variables >

Exploringnature.org has more than 2,000 illustrated animals. Read about them, color them, label them, learn to draw them.

The Scholarly Kitchen

What’s Hot and Cooking In Scholarly Publishing

Understanding Experimental Controls

• Experimentation

Much of the training that scientists receive in graduate school is experiential, you learn how to do an experiment by working in a laboratory and performing experiments. In my opinion, not enough time and effort is devoted to understanding the philosophy and methods of experimental design.

An experiment without the proper controls is meaningless. Controls allow the experimenter to minimize the effects of factors other than the one being tested. It’s how we know an experiment is testing the thing it claims to be testing.

This goes beyond science — controls are necessary for any sort of experimental testing, no matter the subject area. This is often why so many bibliometric studies of the research literature are so problematic. Inadequate controls are often performed which fail to eliminate the effects of confounding factors, leaving the causality of any effect seen to be undetermined.

Novartis’ David Glass has put together the videos below, showing some of the basics of experimental validation and controls (Full disclosure: I was an editor on the first edition of David’s book on experimental design). These short videos offer quick lessons in positive and negative controls, as well as how to validate your experimental system.

These are great starting points, and I highly recommend Glass’ book, now in its second edition , if you want to dig deeper and understand the nuances of the different types of negative and positive controls, not to mention method and reagent controls, subject controls, assumption controls and experimentalist controls.

David Crotty

David Crotty is a Senior Consultant at Clarke & Esposito, a boutique management consulting firm focused on strategic issues related to professional and academic publishing and information services. Previously, David was the Editorial Director, Journals Policy for Oxford University Press. He oversaw journal policy across OUP’s journals program, drove technological innovation, and served as an information officer. David acquired and managed a suite of research society-owned journals with OUP, and before that was the Executive Editor for Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, where he created and edited new science books and journals, along with serving as a journal Editor-in-Chief. He has served on the Board of Directors for the STM Association, the Society for Scholarly Publishing and CHOR, Inc., as well as The AAP-PSP Executive Council. David received his PhD in Genetics from Columbia University and did developmental neuroscience research at Caltech before moving from the bench to publishing.

7 Thoughts on "Understanding Experimental Controls"

We could add one more necessary control in this experiment–controlling for variability in individual response.

In the three videos, the experimenter may only detect differences between groups (or average differences). He is unable to detect changes in individuals. Some participants may be more sensitive to caffeine than others, some may show negative changes, and some may show no changes at all. If we take the blood pressure of participants before they drink coffee, we have a baseline measurement for all individuals. We also have a check on whether the experimenter was able to randomly assign participants to each treatment group.

In effect, each individual is their own control, with a before and after measurement. The experimenter is looking at the change in response of the individual rather than the average effect of the group. It is a much more sensitive way to structure and analyze experiments like this.

• By Phil Davis
• Nov 2, 2018, 8:57 AM

Agreed, these videos only skim the surface (his book goes into much greater detail about a much wider range of controls).

• By David Crotty
• Nov 2, 2018, 9:05 AM

Most experimenters who use random assignment to control and treatment groups have found that post-test only design works as well as pre-/post-test design.

• Nov 2, 2018, 10:01 AM

I don’t see how. By controlling for a potentially large source of variability—the individual participant—statistical tests become much more sensitive to changes than averaging all of that variability by group in a simple post-test design. Second, it is a check to see whether the randomization of participants into groups was successful. In many RTCs in the clinical sciences, there is recruitment bias, allowing for the sicker patients to be placed in the treatment group, for example.

• Nov 2, 2018, 12:55 PM

No mention of Institutional Review Board?! The IRB will raise Dr. Johnson’s own blood pressure.

And then there’s the issue of Dr. Johnson’s White Coat — that might trigger considerable individual variation. (My own blood pressure readings change markedly in the course of a visit to the doctor. )

• Nov 2, 2018, 4:59 PM

I believe that IRB approval is discussed in the video on system validation.

• Nov 2, 2018, 5:02 PM

Late to the debate, but I think those are wonderful. Maybe next Control Kitty will ask just how he assembled all those volunteers for his test to be representative and blinding to minimize bias. Were they self-selected? A bunch of caffeine habituated javaheads who responded to an ad in the coffee shop? I could see another video on randomization and sampling frames. I’m sure David Glass’s book goes into all that, but well, I have a shelf full of related books and I’m unlikely to benefit from and want to buy another. Unless maybe he hooks with another clever video or two. Go Kitty! Except, ~900 views! That’s sad. I might have sneak in citations to them. (I tend to get chastised by reviewers/editors for citing non-scholarly sources.) Something like this might slip under the editor’s radar: Glass, D. 2018. Experimental Design for Biologists: 1. System Validation. Video (4:06 minutes). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9fXYDs–8 [Accessed November 11, 2018].

• By Chris Mebane
• Nov 12, 2018, 12:17 AM

Comments are closed.

Related Articles:

Next Article:

• Privacy Policy

Home » Experimental Design – Types, Methods, Guide

Experimental Design – Types, Methods, Guide

Table of Contents

Experimental Design

Experimental design is a process of planning and conducting scientific experiments to investigate a hypothesis or research question. It involves carefully designing an experiment that can test the hypothesis, and controlling for other variables that may influence the results.

Experimental design typically includes identifying the variables that will be manipulated or measured, defining the sample or population to be studied, selecting an appropriate method of sampling, choosing a method for data collection and analysis, and determining the appropriate statistical tests to use.

Types of Experimental Design

Here are the different types of experimental design:

Completely Randomized Design

In this design, participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more groups, and each group is exposed to a different treatment or condition.

Randomized Block Design

This design involves dividing participants into blocks based on a specific characteristic, such as age or gender, and then randomly assigning participants within each block to one of two or more treatment groups.

Factorial Design

In a factorial design, participants are randomly assigned to one of several groups, each of which receives a different combination of two or more independent variables.

Repeated Measures Design

In this design, each participant is exposed to all of the different treatments or conditions, either in a random order or in a predetermined order.

Crossover Design

This design involves randomly assigning participants to one of two or more treatment groups, with each group receiving one treatment during the first phase of the study and then switching to a different treatment during the second phase.

Split-plot Design

In this design, the researcher manipulates one or more variables at different levels and uses a randomized block design to control for other variables.

Nested Design

This design involves grouping participants within larger units, such as schools or households, and then randomly assigning these units to different treatment groups.

Laboratory Experiment

Laboratory experiments are conducted under controlled conditions, which allows for greater precision and accuracy. However, because laboratory conditions are not always representative of real-world conditions, the results of these experiments may not be generalizable to the population at large.

Field Experiment

Field experiments are conducted in naturalistic settings and allow for more realistic observations. However, because field experiments are not as controlled as laboratory experiments, they may be subject to more sources of error.

Experimental Design Methods

Experimental design methods refer to the techniques and procedures used to design and conduct experiments in scientific research. Here are some common experimental design methods:

Randomization

This involves randomly assigning participants to different groups or treatments to ensure that any observed differences between groups are due to the treatment and not to other factors.

Control Group

The use of a control group is an important experimental design method that involves having a group of participants that do not receive the treatment or intervention being studied. The control group is used as a baseline to compare the effects of the treatment group.

Blinding involves keeping participants, researchers, or both unaware of which treatment group participants are in, in order to reduce the risk of bias in the results.

Counterbalancing

This involves systematically varying the order in which participants receive treatments or interventions in order to control for order effects.

Replication

Replication involves conducting the same experiment with different samples or under different conditions to increase the reliability and validity of the results.

This experimental design method involves manipulating multiple independent variables simultaneously to investigate their combined effects on the dependent variable.

This involves dividing participants into subgroups or blocks based on specific characteristics, such as age or gender, in order to reduce the risk of confounding variables.

Data Collection Method

Experimental design data collection methods are techniques and procedures used to collect data in experimental research. Here are some common experimental design data collection methods:

Direct Observation

This method involves observing and recording the behavior or phenomenon of interest in real time. It may involve the use of structured or unstructured observation, and may be conducted in a laboratory or naturalistic setting.

Self-report Measures

Self-report measures involve asking participants to report their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors using questionnaires, surveys, or interviews. These measures may be administered in person or online.

Behavioral Measures

Behavioral measures involve measuring participants’ behavior directly, such as through reaction time tasks or performance tests. These measures may be administered using specialized equipment or software.

Physiological Measures

Physiological measures involve measuring participants’ physiological responses, such as heart rate, blood pressure, or brain activity, using specialized equipment. These measures may be invasive or non-invasive, and may be administered in a laboratory or clinical setting.

Archival Data

Archival data involves using existing records or data, such as medical records, administrative records, or historical documents, as a source of information. These data may be collected from public or private sources.

Computerized Measures

Computerized measures involve using software or computer programs to collect data on participants’ behavior or responses. These measures may include reaction time tasks, cognitive tests, or other types of computer-based assessments.

Video Recording

Video recording involves recording participants’ behavior or interactions using cameras or other recording equipment. This method can be used to capture detailed information about participants’ behavior or to analyze social interactions.

Data Analysis Method

Experimental design data analysis methods refer to the statistical techniques and procedures used to analyze data collected in experimental research. Here are some common experimental design data analysis methods:

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are used to summarize and describe the data collected in the study. This includes measures such as mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation.

Inferential Statistics

Inferential statistics are used to make inferences or generalizations about a larger population based on the data collected in the study. This includes hypothesis testing and estimation.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

ANOVA is a statistical technique used to compare means across two or more groups in order to determine whether there are significant differences between the groups. There are several types of ANOVA, including one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, and repeated measures ANOVA.

Regression Analysis

Regression analysis is used to model the relationship between two or more variables in order to determine the strength and direction of the relationship. There are several types of regression analysis, including linear regression, logistic regression, and multiple regression.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis is used to identify underlying factors or dimensions in a set of variables. This can be used to reduce the complexity of the data and identify patterns in the data.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

SEM is a statistical technique used to model complex relationships between variables. It can be used to test complex theories and models of causality.

Cluster Analysis

Cluster analysis is used to group similar cases or observations together based on similarities or differences in their characteristics.

Time Series Analysis

Time series analysis is used to analyze data collected over time in order to identify trends, patterns, or changes in the data.

Multilevel Modeling

Multilevel modeling is used to analyze data that is nested within multiple levels, such as students nested within schools or employees nested within companies.

Applications of Experimental Design 

Experimental design is a versatile research methodology that can be applied in many fields. Here are some applications of experimental design:

• Medical Research: Experimental design is commonly used to test new treatments or medications for various medical conditions. This includes clinical trials to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of new drugs or medical devices.
• Agriculture : Experimental design is used to test new crop varieties, fertilizers, and other agricultural practices. This includes randomized field trials to evaluate the effects of different treatments on crop yield, quality, and pest resistance.
• Environmental science: Experimental design is used to study the effects of environmental factors, such as pollution or climate change, on ecosystems and wildlife. This includes controlled experiments to study the effects of pollutants on plant growth or animal behavior.
• Psychology : Experimental design is used to study human behavior and cognitive processes. This includes experiments to test the effects of different interventions, such as therapy or medication, on mental health outcomes.
• Engineering : Experimental design is used to test new materials, designs, and manufacturing processes in engineering applications. This includes laboratory experiments to test the strength and durability of new materials, or field experiments to test the performance of new technologies.
• Education : Experimental design is used to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching methods, educational interventions, and programs. This includes randomized controlled trials to compare different teaching methods or evaluate the impact of educational programs on student outcomes.
• Marketing : Experimental design is used to test the effectiveness of marketing campaigns, pricing strategies, and product designs. This includes experiments to test the impact of different marketing messages or pricing schemes on consumer behavior.

Examples of Experimental Design 

Here are some examples of experimental design in different fields:

• Example in Medical research : A study that investigates the effectiveness of a new drug treatment for a particular condition. Patients are randomly assigned to either a treatment group or a control group, with the treatment group receiving the new drug and the control group receiving a placebo. The outcomes, such as improvement in symptoms or side effects, are measured and compared between the two groups.
• Example in Education research: A study that examines the impact of a new teaching method on student learning outcomes. Students are randomly assigned to either a group that receives the new teaching method or a group that receives the traditional teaching method. Student achievement is measured before and after the intervention, and the results are compared between the two groups.
• Example in Environmental science: A study that tests the effectiveness of a new method for reducing pollution in a river. Two sections of the river are selected, with one section treated with the new method and the other section left untreated. The water quality is measured before and after the intervention, and the results are compared between the two sections.
• Example in Marketing research: A study that investigates the impact of a new advertising campaign on consumer behavior. Participants are randomly assigned to either a group that is exposed to the new campaign or a group that is not. Their behavior, such as purchasing or product awareness, is measured and compared between the two groups.
• Example in Social psychology: A study that examines the effect of a new social intervention on reducing prejudice towards a marginalized group. Participants are randomly assigned to either a group that receives the intervention or a control group that does not. Their attitudes and behavior towards the marginalized group are measured before and after the intervention, and the results are compared between the two groups.

When to use Experimental Research Design 

Experimental research design should be used when a researcher wants to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. It is particularly useful when studying the impact of an intervention or treatment on a particular outcome.

Here are some situations where experimental research design may be appropriate:

• When studying the effects of a new drug or medical treatment: Experimental research design is commonly used in medical research to test the effectiveness and safety of new drugs or medical treatments. By randomly assigning patients to treatment and control groups, researchers can determine whether the treatment is effective in improving health outcomes.
• When evaluating the effectiveness of an educational intervention: An experimental research design can be used to evaluate the impact of a new teaching method or educational program on student learning outcomes. By randomly assigning students to treatment and control groups, researchers can determine whether the intervention is effective in improving academic performance.
• When testing the effectiveness of a marketing campaign: An experimental research design can be used to test the effectiveness of different marketing messages or strategies. By randomly assigning participants to treatment and control groups, researchers can determine whether the marketing campaign is effective in changing consumer behavior.
• When studying the effects of an environmental intervention: Experimental research design can be used to study the impact of environmental interventions, such as pollution reduction programs or conservation efforts. By randomly assigning locations or areas to treatment and control groups, researchers can determine whether the intervention is effective in improving environmental outcomes.
• When testing the effects of a new technology: An experimental research design can be used to test the effectiveness and safety of new technologies or engineering designs. By randomly assigning participants or locations to treatment and control groups, researchers can determine whether the new technology is effective in achieving its intended purpose.

How to Conduct Experimental Research

Here are the steps to conduct Experimental Research:

• Identify a Research Question : Start by identifying a research question that you want to answer through the experiment. The question should be clear, specific, and testable.
• Develop a Hypothesis: Based on your research question, develop a hypothesis that predicts the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The hypothesis should be clear and testable.
• Design the Experiment : Determine the type of experimental design you will use, such as a between-subjects design or a within-subjects design. Also, decide on the experimental conditions, such as the number of independent variables, the levels of the independent variable, and the dependent variable to be measured.
• Select Participants: Select the participants who will take part in the experiment. They should be representative of the population you are interested in studying.
• Randomly Assign Participants to Groups: If you are using a between-subjects design, randomly assign participants to groups to control for individual differences.
• Conduct the Experiment : Conduct the experiment by manipulating the independent variable(s) and measuring the dependent variable(s) across the different conditions.
• Analyze the Data: Analyze the data using appropriate statistical methods to determine if there is a significant effect of the independent variable(s) on the dependent variable(s).
• Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions about the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. If the results support the hypothesis, then it is accepted. If the results do not support the hypothesis, then it is rejected.
• Communicate the Results: Finally, communicate the results of the experiment through a research report or presentation. Include the purpose of the study, the methods used, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn.

Purpose of Experimental Design 

The purpose of experimental design is to control and manipulate one or more independent variables to determine their effect on a dependent variable. Experimental design allows researchers to systematically investigate causal relationships between variables, and to establish cause-and-effect relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Through experimental design, researchers can test hypotheses and make inferences about the population from which the sample was drawn.

Experimental design provides a structured approach to designing and conducting experiments, ensuring that the results are reliable and valid. By carefully controlling for extraneous variables that may affect the outcome of the study, experimental design allows researchers to isolate the effect of the independent variable(s) on the dependent variable(s), and to minimize the influence of other factors that may confound the results.

Experimental design also allows researchers to generalize their findings to the larger population from which the sample was drawn. By randomly selecting participants and using statistical techniques to analyze the data, researchers can make inferences about the larger population with a high degree of confidence.

Overall, the purpose of experimental design is to provide a rigorous, systematic, and scientific method for testing hypotheses and establishing cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Experimental design is a powerful tool for advancing scientific knowledge and informing evidence-based practice in various fields, including psychology, biology, medicine, engineering, and social sciences.

Advantages of Experimental Design 

Experimental design offers several advantages in research. Here are some of the main advantages:

• Control over extraneous variables: Experimental design allows researchers to control for extraneous variables that may affect the outcome of the study. By manipulating the independent variable and holding all other variables constant, researchers can isolate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
• Establishing causality: Experimental design allows researchers to establish causality by manipulating the independent variable and observing its effect on the dependent variable. This allows researchers to determine whether changes in the independent variable cause changes in the dependent variable.
• Replication : Experimental design allows researchers to replicate their experiments to ensure that the findings are consistent and reliable. Replication is important for establishing the validity and generalizability of the findings.
• Random assignment: Experimental design often involves randomly assigning participants to conditions. This helps to ensure that individual differences between participants are evenly distributed across conditions, which increases the internal validity of the study.
• Precision : Experimental design allows researchers to measure variables with precision, which can increase the accuracy and reliability of the data.
• Generalizability : If the study is well-designed, experimental design can increase the generalizability of the findings. By controlling for extraneous variables and using random assignment, researchers can increase the likelihood that the findings will apply to other populations and contexts.

Limitations of Experimental Design

Experimental design has some limitations that researchers should be aware of. Here are some of the main limitations:

• Artificiality : Experimental design often involves creating artificial situations that may not reflect real-world situations. This can limit the external validity of the findings, or the extent to which the findings can be generalized to real-world settings.
• Ethical concerns: Some experimental designs may raise ethical concerns, particularly if they involve manipulating variables that could cause harm to participants or if they involve deception.
• Participant bias : Participants in experimental studies may modify their behavior in response to the experiment, which can lead to participant bias.
• Limited generalizability: The conditions of the experiment may not reflect the complexities of real-world situations. As a result, the findings may not be applicable to all populations and contexts.
• Cost and time : Experimental design can be expensive and time-consuming, particularly if the experiment requires specialized equipment or if the sample size is large.
• Researcher bias : Researchers may unintentionally bias the results of the experiment if they have expectations or preferences for certain outcomes.
• Lack of feasibility : Experimental design may not be feasible in some cases, particularly if the research question involves variables that cannot be manipulated or controlled.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Correlational Research – Methods, Types and...

One-to-One Interview – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Focus Groups – Steps, Examples and Guide

• COVID-19 Tracker
• Biochemistry
• Anatomy & Physiology
• Microbiology
• Neuroscience
• Animal Kingdom
• NGSS High School
• Latest News
• Editors’ Picks
• Weekly Digest
• Quotes about Biology

Controlled Experiment

Reviewed by: BD Editors

Controlled Experiment Definition

A controlled experiment is a scientific test that is directly manipulated by a scientist, in order to test a single variable at a time. The variable being tested is the independent variable , and is adjusted to see the effects on the system being studied. The controlled variables are held constant to minimize or stabilize their effects on the subject. In biology, a controlled experiment often includes restricting the environment of the organism being studied. This is necessary to minimize the random effects of the environment and the many variables that exist in the wild.

In a controlled experiment, the study population is often divided into two groups. One group receives a change in a certain variable, while the other group receives a standard environment and conditions. This group is referred to as the control group , and allows for comparison with the other group, known as the experimental group . Many types of controls exist in various experiments, which are designed to ensure that the experiment worked, and to have a basis for comparison. In science, results are only accepted if it can be shown that they are statistically significant . Statisticians can use the difference between the control group and experimental group and the expected difference to determine if the experiment supports the hypothesis , or if the data was simply created by chance.

Examples of Controlled Experiment

Music preference in dogs.

Do dogs have a taste in music? You might have considered this, and science has too. Believe it or not, researchers have actually tested dog’s reactions to various music genres. To set up a controlled experiment like this, scientists had to consider the many variables that affect each dog during testing. The environment the dog is in when listening to music, the volume of the music, the presence of humans, and even the temperature were all variables that the researches had to consider.

In this case, the genre of the music was the independent variable. In other words, to see if dog’s change their behavior in response to different kinds of music, a controlled experiment had to limit the interaction of the other variables on the dogs. Usually, an experiment like this is carried out in the same location, with the same lighting, furniture, and conditions every time. This ensures that the dogs are not changing their behavior in response to the room. To make sure the dogs don’t react to humans or simply the noise of the music, no one else can be in the room and the music must be played at the same volume for each genre. Scientist will develop protocols for their experiment, which will ensure that many other variables are controlled.

This experiment could also split the dogs into two groups, only testing music on one group. The control group would be used to set a baseline behavior, and see how dogs behaved without music. The other group could then be observed and the differences in the group’s behavior could be analyzed. By rating behaviors on a quantitative scale, statistics can be used to analyze the difference in behavior, and see if it was large enough to be considered significant. This basic experiment was carried out on a large number of dogs, analyzing their behavior with a variety of different music genres. It was found that dogs do show more relaxed and calm behaviors when a specific type of music plays. Come to find out, dogs enjoy reggae the most.

Scurvy in Sailors

In the early 1700s, the world was a rapidly expanding place. Ships were being built and sent all over the world, carrying thousands and thousands of sailors. These sailors were mostly fed the cheapest diets possible, not only because it decreased the costs of goods, but also because fresh food is very hard to keep at sea. Today, we understand that lack of essential vitamins and nutrients can lead to severe deficiencies that manifest as disease. One of these diseases is scurvy.

Scurvy is caused by a simple vitamin C deficiency, but the effects can be brutal. Although early symptoms just include general feeling of weakness, the continued lack of vitamin C will lead to a breakdown of the blood cells and vessels that carry the blood. This results in blood leaking from the vessels. Eventually, people bleed to death internally and die. Before controlled experiments were commonplace, a simple physician decided to tackle the problem of scurvy. James Lind, of the Royal Navy, came up with a simple controlled experiment to find the best cure for scurvy.

He separated sailors with scurvy into various groups. He subjected them to the same controlled condition and gave them the same diet, except one item. Each group was subjected to a different treatment or remedy, taken with their food. Some of these remedies included barley water, cider and a regiment of oranges and lemons. This created the first clinical trial , or test of the effectiveness of certain treatments in a controlled experiment. Lind found that the oranges and lemons helped the sailors recover fast, and within a few years the Royal Navy had developed protocols for growing small leafy greens that contained high amounts of vitamin C to feed their sailors.

Related Biology Terms

• Field Experiment – An experiment conducted in nature, outside the bounds of total control.
• Independent Variable – The thing in an experiment being changed or manipulated by the experimenter to see effects on the subject.
• Controlled Variable – A thing that is normalized or standardized across an experiment, to remove it from having an effect on the subject being studied.
• Control Group – A group of subjects in an experiment that receive no independent variable, or a normalized amount, to provide comparison.

Cite This Article

Subscribe to our newsletter, privacy policy, terms of service, scholarship, latest posts, white blood cell, t cell immunity, satellite cells, embryonic stem cells, popular topics, endocrine system, hydrochloric acid, horticulture, amino acids, adenosine triphosphate (atp).

Experimental Method In Psychology

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:

The experimental method involves the manipulation of variables to establish cause-and-effect relationships. The key features are controlled methods and the random allocation of participants into controlled and experimental groups .

What is an Experiment?

An experiment is an investigation in which a hypothesis is scientifically tested. An independent variable (the cause) is manipulated in an experiment, and the dependent variable (the effect) is measured; any extraneous variables are controlled.

An advantage is that experiments should be objective. The researcher’s views and opinions should not affect a study’s results. This is good as it makes the data more valid  and less biased.

There are three types of experiments you need to know:

1. Lab Experiment

A laboratory experiment in psychology is a research method in which the experimenter manipulates one or more independent variables and measures the effects on the dependent variable under controlled conditions.

A laboratory experiment is conducted under highly controlled conditions (not necessarily a laboratory) where accurate measurements are possible.

The researcher uses a standardized procedure to determine where the experiment will take place, at what time, with which participants, and in what circumstances.

Participants are randomly allocated to each independent variable group.

Examples are Milgram’s experiment on obedience and  Loftus and Palmer’s car crash study .

• Strength : It is easier to replicate (i.e., copy) a laboratory experiment. This is because a standardized procedure is used.
• Strength : They allow for precise control of extraneous and independent variables. This allows a cause-and-effect relationship to be established.
• Limitation : The artificiality of the setting may produce unnatural behavior that does not reflect real life, i.e., low ecological validity. This means it would not be possible to generalize the findings to a real-life setting.
• Limitation : Demand characteristics or experimenter effects may bias the results and become confounding variables .

2. Field Experiment

A field experiment is a research method in psychology that takes place in a natural, real-world setting. It is similar to a laboratory experiment in that the experimenter manipulates one or more independent variables and measures the effects on the dependent variable.

However, in a field experiment, the participants are unaware they are being studied, and the experimenter has less control over the extraneous variables .

Field experiments are often used to study social phenomena, such as altruism, obedience, and persuasion. They are also used to test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world settings, such as educational programs and public health campaigns.

An example is Holfing’s hospital study on obedience .

• Strength : behavior in a field experiment is more likely to reflect real life because of its natural setting, i.e., higher ecological validity than a lab experiment.
• Strength : Demand characteristics are less likely to affect the results, as participants may not know they are being studied. This occurs when the study is covert.
• Limitation : There is less control over extraneous variables that might bias the results. This makes it difficult for another researcher to replicate the study in exactly the same way.

3. Natural Experiment

A natural experiment in psychology is a research method in which the experimenter observes the effects of a naturally occurring event or situation on the dependent variable without manipulating any variables.

Natural experiments are conducted in the day (i.e., real life) environment of the participants, but here, the experimenter has no control over the independent variable as it occurs naturally in real life.

Natural experiments are often used to study psychological phenomena that would be difficult or unethical to study in a laboratory setting, such as the effects of natural disasters, policy changes, or social movements.

For example, Hodges and Tizard’s attachment research (1989) compared the long-term development of children who have been adopted, fostered, or returned to their mothers with a control group of children who had spent all their lives in their biological families.

Here is a fictional example of a natural experiment in psychology:

Researchers might compare academic achievement rates among students born before and after a major policy change that increased funding for education.

In this case, the independent variable is the timing of the policy change, and the dependent variable is academic achievement. The researchers would not be able to manipulate the independent variable, but they could observe its effects on the dependent variable.

• Strength : behavior in a natural experiment is more likely to reflect real life because of its natural setting, i.e., very high ecological validity.
• Strength : Demand characteristics are less likely to affect the results, as participants may not know they are being studied.
• Strength : It can be used in situations in which it would be ethically unacceptable to manipulate the independent variable, e.g., researching stress .
• Limitation : They may be more expensive and time-consuming than lab experiments.
• Limitation : There is no control over extraneous variables that might bias the results. This makes it difficult for another researcher to replicate the study in exactly the same way.

Key Terminology

Ecological validity.

The degree to which an investigation represents real-life experiences.

Experimenter effects

These are the ways that the experimenter can accidentally influence the participant through their appearance or behavior.

Demand characteristics

The clues in an experiment lead the participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for (e.g., the experimenter’s body language).

Independent variable (IV)

The variable the experimenter manipulates (i.e., changes) is assumed to have a direct effect on the dependent variable.

Dependent variable (DV)

Variable the experimenter measures. This is the outcome (i.e., the result) of a study.

Extraneous variables (EV)

All variables which are not independent variables but could affect the results (DV) of the experiment. EVs should be controlled where possible.

Confounding variables

Variable(s) that have affected the results (DV), apart from the IV. A confounding variable could be an extraneous variable that has not been controlled.

Random Allocation

Randomly allocating participants to independent variable conditions means that all participants should have an equal chance of participating in each condition.

The principle of random allocation is to avoid bias in how the experiment is carried out and limit the effects of participant variables.

Order effects

Changes in participants’ performance due to their repeating the same or similar test more than once. Examples of order effects include:

(i) practice effect: an improvement in performance on a task due to repetition, for example, because of familiarity with the task;

(ii) fatigue effect: a decrease in performance of a task due to repetition, for example, because of boredom or tiredness.

What Is a Controlled Experiment?

Definition and Example

• Scientific Method
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A controlled experiment is one in which everything is held constant except for one variable . Usually, a set of data is taken to be a control group , which is commonly the normal or usual state, and one or more other groups are examined where all conditions are identical to the control group and to each other except for one variable.

Sometimes it's necessary to change more than one variable, but all of the other experimental conditions will be controlled so that only the variables being examined change. And what is measured is the variables' amount or the way in which they change.

Controlled Experiment

• A controlled experiment is simply an experiment in which all factors are held constant except for one: the independent variable.
• A common type of controlled experiment compares a control group against an experimental group. All variables are identical between the two groups except for the factor being tested.
• The advantage of a controlled experiment is that it is easier to eliminate uncertainty about the significance of the results.

Example of a Controlled Experiment

Let's say you want to know if the type of soil affects how long it takes a seed to germinate, and you decide to set up a controlled experiment to answer the question. You might take five identical pots, fill each with a different type of soil, plant identical bean seeds in each pot, place the pots in a sunny window, water them equally, and measure how long it takes for the seeds in each pot to sprout.

This is a controlled experiment because your goal is to keep every variable constant except the type of soil you use. You control these features.

Why Controlled Experiments Are Important

The big advantage of a controlled experiment is that you can eliminate much of the uncertainty about your results. If you couldn't control each variable, you might end up with a confusing outcome.

For example, if you planted different types of seeds in each of the pots, trying to determine if soil type affected germination, you might find some types of seeds germinate faster than others. You wouldn't be able to say, with any degree of certainty, that the rate of germination was due to the type of soil. It might as well have been due to the type of seeds.

Or, if you had placed some pots in a sunny window and some in the shade or watered some pots more than others, you could get mixed results. The value of a controlled experiment is that it yields a high degree of confidence in the outcome. You know which variable caused or did not cause a change.

Are All Experiments Controlled?

No, they are not. It's still possible to obtain useful data from uncontrolled experiments, but it's harder to draw conclusions based on the data.

An example of an area where controlled experiments are difficult is human testing. Say you want to know if a new diet pill helps with weight loss. You can collect a sample of people, give each of them the pill, and measure their weight. You can try to control as many variables as possible, such as how much exercise they get or how many calories they eat.

However, you will have several uncontrolled variables, which may include age, gender, genetic predisposition toward a high or low metabolism, how overweight they were before starting the test, whether they inadvertently eat something that interacts with the drug, etc.

Scientists try to record as much data as possible when conducting uncontrolled experiments, so they can see additional factors that may be affecting their results. Although it is harder to draw conclusions from uncontrolled experiments, new patterns often emerge that would not have been observable in a controlled experiment.

For example, you may notice the diet drug seems to work for female subjects, but not for male subjects, and this may lead to further experimentation and a possible breakthrough. If you had only been able to perform a controlled experiment, perhaps on male clones alone, you would have missed this connection.

• Box, George E. P., et al.  Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery . Wiley-Interscience, a John Wiley & Soncs, Inc., Publication, 2005. 
• Creswell, John W.  Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research . Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, 2008.
• Pronzato, L. "Optimal experimental design and some related control problems". Automatica . 2008.
• Robbins, H. "Some Aspects of the Sequential Design of Experiments". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society . 1952.
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• What Is the Difference Between a Control Variable and Control Group?
• The Role of a Controlled Variable in an Experiment
• Scientific Variable
• DRY MIX Experiment Variables Acronym
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• What Is an Experimental Constant?
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• What Is a Testable Hypothesis?
• Random Error vs. Systematic Error

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
• v.20(10); 2019 Oct 4

Why control an experiment?

John s torday.

1 Department of Pediatrics, Harbor‐UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA

František Baluška

2 IZMB, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Empirical research is based on observation and experimentation. Yet, experimental controls are essential for overcoming our sensory limits and generating reliable, unbiased and objective results.

We made a deliberate decision to become scientists and not philosophers, because science offers the opportunity to test ideas using the scientific method. And once we began our formal training as scientists, the greatest challenge beyond formulating a testable or refutable hypothesis was designing appropriate controls for an experiment. In theory, this seems trivial, but in practice, it is often difficult. But where and when did this concept of controlling an experiment start? It is largely attributed to Roger Bacon, who emphasized the use of artificial experiments to provide additional evidence for observations in his Novum Organum Scientiarum in 1620. Other philosophers took up the concept of empirical research: in 1877, Charles Peirce redefined the scientific method in The Fixation of Belief as the most efficient and reliable way to prove a hypothesis. In the 1930s, Karl Popper emphasized the necessity of refuting hypotheses in The Logic of Scientific Discoveries . While these influential works do not explicitly discuss controls as an integral part of experiments, their importance for generating solid and reliable results is nonetheless implicit.

… once we began our formal training as scientists, the greatest challenge beyond formulating a testable or refutable hypothesis was designing appropriate controls for an experiment.

But the scientific method based on experimentation and observation has come under criticism of late in light of the ever more complex problems faced in physics and biology. Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired Magazine, proposed that we should turn to statistical analysis, machine learning, and pattern recognition instead of creating and testing hypotheses, based on the Informatics credo that if you cannot answer the question, you need more data. However, this attitude subsumes that we already have enough data and that we just cannot make sense of it. This assumption is in direct conflict with David Bohm's thesis that there are two “Orders”, the Explicate and Implicate 1 . The Explicate Order is the way in which our subjective sensory systems perceive the world 2 . In contrast, Bohm's Implicate Order would represent the objective reality beyond our perception. This view—that we have only a subjective understanding of reality—dates back to Galileo Galilei who, in 1623, criticized the Aristotelian concept of absolute and objective qualities of our sensory perceptions 3 and to Plato's cave allegory that reality is only what our senses allow us to see.

The only way for systematically overcoming the limits of our sensory apparatus and to get a glimpse of the Implicate Order is through the scientific method, through hypothesis‐testing, controlled experimentation. Beyond the methodology, controlling an experiment is critically important to ensure that the observed results are not just random events; they help scientists to distinguish between the “signal” and the background “noise” that are inherent in natural and living systems. For example, the detection method for the recent discovery of gravitational waves used four‐dimensional reference points to factor out the background noise of the Cosmos. Controls also help to account for errors and variability in the experimental setup and measuring tools: The negative control of an enzyme assay, for instance, tests for any unrelated background signals from the assay or measurement. In short, controls are essential for the unbiased, objective observation and measurement of the dependent variable in response to the experimental setup.

The only way for systematically overcoming the limits of our sensory apparatus […] is through the Scientific Method, through hypothesis‐testing, controlled experimentation.

Nominally, both positive and negative controls are material and procedural; that is, they control for variability of the experimental materials and the procedure itself. But beyond the practical issues to avoid procedural and material artifacts, there is an underlying philosophical question. The need for experimental controls is a subliminal recognition of the relative and subjective nature of the Explicate Order. It requires controls as “reference points” in order to transcend it, and to approximate the Implicate Order.

This is similar to Peter Rowlands’ 4 dictum that everything in the Universe adds up to zero, the universal attractor in mathematics. Prior to the introduction of zero, mathematics lacked an absolute reference point similar to a negative or positive control in an experiment. The same is true of biology, where the cell is the reference point owing to its negative entropy: It appears as an attractor for the energy of its environment. Hence, there is a need for careful controls in biology: The homeostatic balance that is inherent to life varies during the course of an experiment and therefore must be precisely controlled to distinguish noise from signal and approximate the Implicate Order of life.

P  < 0.05 tacitly acknowledges the explicate order

Another example of the “subjectivity” of our perception is the level of accuracy we accept for differences between groups. For example, when we use statistical methods to determine if an observed difference between control and experimental groups is a random occurrence or a specific effect, we conventionally consider a p value of less than or equal to 5% as statistically significant; that is, there is a less than 0.05 probability that the effect is random. The efficacy of this arbitrary convention has been debated for decades; suffice to say that despite questioning the validity of that convention, a P value of < 0.05 reflects our acceptance of the subjectivity of our perception of reality.

… controls are essential for the unbiased, objective observation and measurement of the dependent variable in response to the experimental setup.

Thus, if we do away with hypothesis‐testing science in favor of informatics based on data and statistics—referring to Anderson's suggestion—it reflects our acceptance of the noise in the system. However, mere data analysis without any underlying hypothesis is tantamount to “garbage in‐garbage out”, in contrast to well‐controlled imaginative experiments to separate the wheat from the chaff. Albert Einstein was quoted as saying that imagination was more important than knowledge.

The ultimate purpose of the scientific method is to understand ourselves and our place in Nature. Conventionally, we subscribe to the Anthropic Principle, that we are “in” this Universe, whereas the Endosymbiosis Theory, advocated by Lynn Margulis, stipulates that we are “of” this Universe as a result of the assimilation of the physical environment. According to this theory, the organism endogenizes external factors to make them physiologically “useful”, such as iron as the core of the hemoglobin molecule, or ancient bacteria as mitochondria.

… there is a fundamental difference between knowing via believing and knowing based on empirical research.

By applying the developmental mechanism of cell–cell communication to phylogeny, we have revealed the interrelationships between cells and explained evolution from its origin as the unicellular state to multicellularity via cell–cell communication. The ultimate outcome of this research is that consciousness is the product of cellular processes and cell–cell communication in order to react to the environment and better anticipate future events 5 , 6 . Consciousness is an essential prerequisite for transcending the Explicate Order toward the Implicate Order via cellular sensory and cognitive systems that feed an ever‐expanding organismal knowledge about both the environment and itself.

It is here where the empirical approach to understanding nature comes in with its emphasis that knowledge comes only from sensual experience rather than innate ideas or traditions. In the context of the cell or higher systems, knowledge about the environment can only be gained by sensing and analyzing the environment. Empiricism is similar to an equation in which the variables and terms form a product, or a chemical reaction, or a biological process where the substrates, aka sensory data, form products, that is, knowledge. However, it requires another step—imagination, according to Albert Einstein—to transcend the Explicate Order in order to gain insight into the Implicate Order. Take for instance, Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements: his brilliant insight was not just to use Atomic Number to organize it, but also to consider the chemical reactivities of the Elements by sorting them into columns. By introducing chemical reactivity to the Periodic Table, Mendeleev provided something like the “fourth wall” in Drama, which gives the audience an omniscient, god‐like perspective on what is happening on stage.

The capacity to transcend the subjective Explicate Order to approximate the objective Implicate Order is not unlike Eastern philosophies like Buddhism or Taoism, which were practiced long before the scientific method. An Indian philosopher once pointed out that the Hindus have known for 30,000 years that the Earth revolves around the sun, while the Europeans only realized this a few hundred years ago based on the work of Copernicus, Brahe, and Galileo. However, there is a fundamental difference between knowing via believing and knowing based on empirical research. A similar example is Aristotle's refusal to test whether a large stone would fall faster than a small one, as he knew the answer already 7 . Galileo eventually performed the experiment from the Leaning Tower in Pisa to demonstrate that the fall time of two objects is independent of their mass—which disproved Aristotle's theory of gravity that stipulated that objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass. Again, it demonstrates the power of empiricism and experimentation as formulated by Francis Bacon, John Locke, and others, over intuition and rationalizing.

Even if our scientific instruments provide us with objective data, we still need to apply our consciousness to evaluate and interpret such data.

Following the evolution from the unicellular state to multicellular organisms—and reverse‐engineering it to a minimal‐cell state—reveals that biologic diversity is an artifact of the Explicate Order. Indeed, the unicell seems to be the primary level of selection in the Implicate Order, as it remains proximate to the First Principles of Physiology, namely negative entropy (negentropy), chemiosmosis, and homeostasis. The first two principles are necessary for growth and proliferation, whereas the last reflects Newton's Third Law of Motion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction so as to maintain homeostasis.

All organisms interact with their surroundings and assimilate their experience as epigenetic marks. Such marks extend to the DNA of germ cells and thus change the phenotypic expression of the offspring. The offspring, in turn, interacts with the environment in response to such epigenetic modifications, giving rise to the concept of the phenotype as an agent that actively and purposefully interacts with its environment in order to adapt and survive. This concept of phenotype based on agency linked to the Explicate Order fundamentally differs from its conventional description as a mere set of biologic characteristics. Organisms’ capacities to anticipate future stress situations from past memories are obvious in simple animals such as nematodes, as well as in plants and bacteria 8 , suggesting that the subjective Explicate Order controls both organismal behavior and trans‐generational evolution.

That perspective offers insight to the nature of consciousness: not as a “mind” that is separate from a “body”, but as an endogenization of physical matter, which complies with the Laws of Nature. In other words, consciousness is the physiologic manifestation of endogenized physical surroundings, compartmentalized, and made essential for all organisms by forming the basis for their physiology. Endocytosis and endocytic/synaptic vesicles contribute to endogenization of cellular surroundings, allowing eukaryotic organisms to gain knowledge about the environment. This is true not only for neurons in brains, but also for all eukaryotic cells 5 .

Such a view of consciousness offers insight to our awareness of our physical surroundings as the basis for self‐referential self‐organization. But this is predicated on our capacity to “experiment” with our environment. The burgeoning idea that we are entering the Anthropocene, a man‐made world founded on subjective senses instead of Natural Laws, is a dangerous step away from our innate evolutionary arc. Relying on just our senses and emotions, without experimentation and controls to understand the Implicate Order behind reality, is not just an abandonment of the principles of the Enlightenment, but also endangers the planet and its diversity of life.

Further reading

Anderson C (2008) The End of Theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired (December 23, 2008)

Bacon F (1620, 2011) Novum Organum Scientiarum. Nabu Press

Baluška F, Gagliano M, Witzany G (2018) Memory and Learning in Plants. Springer Nature

Charlesworth AG, Seroussi U, Claycomb JM (2019) Next‐Gen learning: the C. elegans approach. Cell 177: 1674–1676

Eliezer Y, Deshe N, Hoch L, Iwanir S, Pritz CO, Zaslaver A (2019) A memory circuit for coping with impending adversity. Curr Biol 29: 1573–1583

Gagliano M, Renton M, Depczynski M, Mancuso S (2014) Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters. Oecologia 175: 63–72

Gagliano M, Vyazovskiy VV, Borbély AA, Grimonprez M, Depczynski M (2016) Learning by association in plants. Sci Rep 6: 38427

Katz M, Shaham S (2019) Learning and memory: mind over matter in C. elegans . Curr Biol 29: R365‐R367

Kováč L (2007) Information and knowledge in biology – time for reappraisal. Plant Signal Behav 2: 65–73

Kováč L (2008) Bioenergetics – a key to brain and mind. Commun Integr Biol 1: 114–122

Koshland DE Jr (1980) Bacterial chemotaxis in relation to neurobiology. Annu Rev Neurosci 3: 43–75

Lyon P (2015) The cognitive cell: bacterial behavior reconsidered. Front Microbiol 6: 264

Margulis L (2001) The conscious cell. Ann NY Acad Sci 929: 55–70

Maximillian N (2018) The Metaphysics of Science and Aim‐Oriented Empiricism. Springer: New York

Mazzocchi F (2015) Could Big Data be the end of theory in science? EMBO Rep 16: 1250–1255

Moore RS, Kaletsky R, Murphy CT (2019) Piwi/PRG‐1 argonaute and TGF‐β mediate transgenerational learned pathogenic avoidance. Cell 177: 1827–1841

Peirce CS (1877) The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly 12: 1–15

Pigliucci M (2009) The end of theory in science? EMBO Rep 10: 534

Popper K (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge: London

Posner R, Toker IA, Antonova O, Star E, Anava S, Azmon E, Hendricks M, Bracha S, Gingold H, Rechavi O (2019) Neuronal small RNAs control behavior transgenerationally. Cell 177: 1814–1826

Russell B (1912) The Problems of Philosophy. Henry Holt and Company: New York

Scerri E (2006) The Periodic Table: It's Story and Significance. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Shapiro JA (2007) Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio‐bacteriology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 38: 807–818

Torday JS, Miller WB Jr (2016) Biologic relativity: who is the observer and what is observed? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 121: 29–34

Torday JS, Rehan VK (2017) Evolution, the Logic of Biology. Wiley: Hoboken

Torday JS, Miller WB Jr (2016) Phenotype as agent for epigenetic inheritance. Biology (Basel) 5: 30

Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA's statement on p‐values: context, process and purpose. Am Statist 70: 129–133

Yamada T, Yang Y, Valnegri P, Juric I, Abnousi A, Markwalter KH, Guthrie AN, Godec A, Oldenborg A, Hu M, Holy TE, Bonni A (2019) Sensory experience remodels genome architecture in neural circuit to drive motor learning. Nature 569: 708–713

Ladislav Kováč discussed the advantages and drawbacks of the inductive method for science and the logic of scientific discoveries 9 . Obviously, technological advances have enabled scientists to expand the borders of knowledge, and informatics allows us to objectively analyze ever larger data‐sets. It was the telescope that enabled Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei to make accurate observations and infer the motion of the planets. The microscope provided Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur insights into the microbial world and determines the nature of infectious diseases. Particle colliders now give us a glimpse into the birth of the Universe, while DNA sequencing and bioinformatics have enormously advanced biology's goal to understand the molecular basis of life.

However, Kováč also reminds us that Bayesian inferences and reasoning have serious drawbacks, as documented in the instructive example of Bertrand Russell's “inductivist turkey”, which collected large amounts of reproducible data each morning about feeding time. Based on these observations, the turkey correctly predicted the feeding time for the next morning—until Christmas Eve when the turkey's throat was cut 9 . In order to avoid the fate of the “inductivist turkey”, mankind should also rely on Popperian deductive science, namely formulating theories, concepts, and hypotheses, which are either confirmed or refuted via stringent experimentation and proper controls. Even if our scientific instruments provide us with objective data, we still need to apply our consciousness to evaluate and interpret such data. Moreover, before we start using our scientific instruments, we need to pose scientific questions. Therefore, as suggested by Albert Szent‐Györgyi, we need both Dionysian and Apollonian types of scientists 10 . Unfortunately, as was the case in Szent‐Györgyi's times, the Dionysians are still struggling to get proper support.

There have been pleas for reconciling philosophy and science, which parted ways owing to the rise of empiricism. This essay recognizes the centrality experiments and their controls for the advancement of scientific thought, and the attendant advance in philosophy needed to cope with many extant and emerging issues in science and society. We need a common “will” to do so. The rationale is provided herein, if only.

Acknowledgements

John Torday has been a recipient of NIH Grant HL055268. František Baluška is thankful to numerous colleagues for very stimulating discussions on topics analyzed in this article.

EMBO Reports (2019) 20 : e49110 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Contributor Information

John S Torday, Email: ude.alcu@yadrotj .

František Baluška, Email: ed.nnob-inu@aksulab .

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Research Support
• Research Ethics
• School of Technology Research Ethics guidance

School of Technology

• Vision and mission overview
• Governance overview
• Risk Management
• Council of the School
• School Committees
• Meeting Dates
• The Office of the School
• Contact us overview
• New Appointments
• Research Activities Overview
• Research Themes
• Research Initiatives and Networks
• Decarbonisation overview
• Decarbonisation Activities
• Research Excellence Framework (REF)
• Education in the School of Technology
• Postgraduate overview
• Postgraduate Education Committee
• Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs)
• Fieldwork Fund
• W.D Armstrong Trust Fund
• Researcher Development
• Apple & Google PhD Fellowships overview
• Good Research Practice overview
• Research Ethics overview
• School of Technology Research Ethics guidance overview
• Action-based Management Research
• Ageing and Disability Inclusion
• Collaborative and Participatory Design
• Controlled Experiments
• Data Research
• Diary and Probe Studies
• Ethnographic and Field Study Techniques
• Instrumented Software
• Survey Methods
• NHS Research Ethics Service
• Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Checks
• Research Policies
• Export Control
• Application Support overview
• Proposal Support Resources
• University Application Support
• Applying for Funding overview
• Restricted Calls
• Letters of Support overview
• School Seed Fund overview
• School HR Strategy overview
• Wellbeing overview
• If you need support
• Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
• Policies and Procedures
• Recruitment overview
• Academic Recruitment Guide

This page is intended for use by students and researchers in the University of Cambridge Schools of Technology and Physical Sciences whose research involves recruiting people from outside your own research team to take part in experiments. It is part of a larger set of  research guidance   pages on work with human participants.

Issues to note for ethical review

This page gives general guidance relating to conduct of experiments. The following issues are particularly relevant with regard to ethical review:

• Recruitment​
• Treatment of Participants
• Informed Consent

Data Retention

• Incentives and Compensation

Definitions

A  controlled experiment  is an experimental setup designed to test  hypotheses .

A controlled experiment has one or more  conditions  (independent variables) and  measures  (dependent variables).

A  randomised controlled trial  is an experiment in which participants are assigned at random to different conditions, in order to test in an objective way which of several alternatives is superior.

A  pilot study  is a trial run of an experimental procedure, not expected to produce valid research data.

Controlled experiments may or may not require human participants. This page is only about controlled experiments involving human participants.

Introduction - Controlled experiments

Controlled experiments are difficult to design and analyse. Students in experimental psychology take practical classes in experiment design before they attempt to conduct their own original research. However, all experiments with human participants conducted by students in Technology and Physical Sciences have the character of original research, from a psychology perspective. It is therefore a common experience for technology researchers to find that their first experiment produces meaningless or null results, often after a great deal of effort. This is wasteful of time and resources, both for the researchers and participants, so should be avoided. For this reason controlled experiments should only be carried out by researchers who are trained in experimental design and analysis, or under direct supervision of researchers with suitable training. If you have little experience you should consult senior researchers.

Some important considerations include design for:

• Reliability (Would you get the same measurement again?)
• Validity (Are you measuring what you claim to be measuring?)
• Internal validity is the relationship between your measurement and what you think it tells you about the experimental task.
• External validity is the relationship between what you measure in the lab, and the phenomenon in the outside world.

A well-known reference book is:

Krik, R.E. Experimental Design: Procedures for Behavioral Sciences.

Practicalities - Controlled experiments

Preparation, experimental design.

It is easy to make serious errors when you first attempt to design a controlled experiment. There are many textbooks and online guides - make use of them. Ask an expert to review your experimental design , and try it out in advance with several  pilot studies .

There are a number of critical factors that could cause the experimental results to be invalid, and it is important to anticipate these and avoid them. One way to do so is to plan, in advance, how you propose to write up the results of the experiment. Think about the conclusions that you would draw if the result of the experiment is consistent with your hypothesis. How would you present your results in a way that convinces the reader that conclusion is justified? What would the results of data analysis have to be to support this kind of presentation? What experimental method will produce data that can be analysed in this way? What is the best way to express an hypothesis compatible with that method? If you can explain your reasoning in this way, before you start the experiment, you will have a much better chance of avoiding the invalid and/or inconclusive results that are so often obtained by inexperienced experiment designers.

Pilot studies

It is very hard to get an experimental procedure right the first time. Every experiment should therefore include at least one pilot session, with a participant whose results you expect to discard from the final data analysis. For this reason, it is common to use a pilot subject whose results you would not expect to be valuable - for example, because they are aware of the experimental hypothesis, have specialist expertise, or similar. Family members and (fellow) students can be useful.

Where an experimental paradigm is unconventional, or there is substantial uncertainty about either the measures or the hypotheses, you should consider a pilot study involving several participants, in which each of the experimental conditions is used, and a preliminary data analysis can be conducted.

Recruitment

In order for research to have good external validity, the recruited participants should be representative of the population about which you want to make research conclusions. However, in practice, undergraduate and graduate students are often recruited because this is easier. If you plan to do this, it is a good idea to think in advance how you will justify it to reviewers or assessors of your work.

Where children are involved in research, recruitment is likely to be via schools or parents. Some experiments with children, or with vulnerable adults, may also require that members of the research team undergo a  Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check .

Where participants have been recruited on the basis of a medical condition, it is likely that your research will require approval via the  NHS Research Ethics Service .

It is increasingly common to recruit experimental participants via platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk or Figure Eight (formerly CrowdFlower). There are many distinct ethical implications of experiments conducted using these tools that are rather different to those arising in the conduct of experiments in a laboratory. For further guidance, see the page on  Crowd sourcing experiments

Conducting the experiment

Treatment of participants.

In most experiments, participants are asked to carry out an experimental task while being observed, or while their responses are being measured. It is of paramount importance that participants are treated with dignity and respect. Remember that you are in a position of power from the participants' perspective. You need to inform yourself about participants' rights and then disclose these rights to the participants. Among those rights:

• The right to stop participating in the experiment, possibly without giving a reason.
• The right to obtain further information about the purpose and the outcomes of the experiment.
• The right to have their data anonymised.

This list is not exhaustive.

It is often the case that people being asked to use new technologies while under observation find the experience stressful. It is very important to reassure participants that your objective is to identify possible faults in the technology, and  not  to test the participants' own ability or intelligence. If they have trouble completing an experimental task, you should reassure them further, emphasising that they have had this experience because the technology is inadequate, and that it is not a reflection on their own ability. Experimenters should never offer any comment with regard to participants' intelligence, aptitude, or other factors that might give people the impression that a scientific judgment of their ability has been performed. This is especially the case if standard psychometric tests are being employed as one of the experimental measures. An experimental situation in technology or physical sciences is not a proper psychometric assessment, and psychometric test results should not be directly communicated to participants.

Informed consent

It is very important for participants to understand that their participation in the experiment is completely voluntary. In order to ensure that they understand this, experimenters should prepare a 'consent form', stating the nature of the experiment and the rights of the participant. Before the start of the experiment, participants should be asked to read this form, and sign it to indicate that they have read and understood their rights. An example consent form can be found on the University Research Ethics pages .

You may wish to assure participants that no personal data is collected, or if it is collected, that it will not be published, and will be destroyed. These things can be mentioned in a consent form.

If a participant appears to be experiencing any stress (for example due to task difficulty, or perhaps through factors unrelated to the experiment), it is important to remind them that they are free to withdraw at any time.

If a participant is experiencing physical pain (e.g. because of extensive use of the mouse for the task) then abort the experiment  immediately  and consult a senior colleague or the appropriate university ethics committee for advice on whether to proceed with the experimental procedure.

In the case of children (in the UK, under the age of 18), consent must be given by a parent. The experimenter may also be subject to a  Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)  check.

Participant briefing

For the purposes of experimental control, every participant should be given the same instructions before they commence the experimental task. Briefing instructions are normally written out in full, in order to ensure that this is done. The instructions can either be read from a script by the experimenter, or given to the participant to read, after which they are asked if they have understood everything, and are ready to start.

If an experimenter script is used, it is a good idea for this to include all instructions and actions that the experimenter must carry out throughout the experimental session. This script should be tested during the experimental pilot, and helps gain maximum value from the pilot as a 'debugging' session for the main experimental procedure.

At the end of an experimental session, participants should normally be debriefed. Debriefing involves a short interview, often semi-structured, with some prepared questions that you ask every participant, and follow-up questions in the event that interesting points are raised.

This provides a valuable data collection opportunity, especially as participants' subjective experience of the experiment could be of value in interpreting either their individual performance, or behaviour observed more broadly across the sample group. It may be useful to discuss your experimental hypothesis with participants, because they might well be able to warn you of potential problems with task validity, from their perception of the task.

Whether or not you expect to gain useful information for research purposes, debriefing also provides an opportunity for the participant to reflect on the experience they have had. It is a good idea to complete the debriefing interview by asking whether there is anything else the participant would like to tell you.

Incentives and compensation

It is recommended to compensate participants for their time,  although compensation need not be financial . People may be very willing to participate in experiments from which they gain interesting feedback, or experiments that are intrinsically enjoyable (for example games). A token gift (chocolates, a book or report, software, or a memento such as copies of a scan) may be sufficient reward. Nevertheless, many departments in Cambridge routinely recruit experimental participants, and payment may be expected after a formal experiment. If the participant has incurred direct costs such as travel these should be reimbursed.

If a participant chooses to withdraw, or not to complete the experiment, they should still be compensated. Experiments in which incentive payments are varied according to task performance are considered to be unethical. A standard procedure where incentive is a central hypothesis (for example experiments in economic judgment) is to offer participants variable payment at the outset, but then to pay all participants the same (usually maximum) amount at the close of the session.

The university has issued rules on procedure to be used, and how much compensation should be given to participants. Finance division policy on payments to research volunteers is described here.

If the data collected does not include any personal data, then the data may be retained. If they do contain personal data, then they fall within the terms of the Data Protection Act. Personal data should be kept secure. Data that would allow a participant to be identified should be kept in a separate place throughout the research project, with an anonymised code used during analysis work and at publication time. It is good practice to destroy any personal data after a stated period of time. In most cases, experimental data is used only by the person conducting the experiment. If this is not the case, see the page on  academic research involving personal data .

Significant ethical issues

This page is intended to address relatively routine research in the schools of Technology and Physical Sciences. If your experiment involves any of the following activities, then more serious questions must be addressed, and you will need to consult the relevant university ethics committee:

• Experiments involving animals are subject to the  animals scientific procedures act
• Medical and other invasive experiments on human participants must be reviewed by the  NHS research ethics service .
• Psychological manipulation of human participants (deception, emotional manipulation, etc.).

This list is not exhaustive. When in doubt consult senior colleagues and relevant university ethics committees.

Some popular books are:

• Kirk, R.E. Experimental Design: Procedures for Behavioral Sciences.
• Robson, C. Experiment, Design and Statistics in Psychology

Future information: to include references to appropriate Cambridge courses on research and experimental design in Social Psychology, Experimental Psychology etc.

The initial version of this page was drafted by Per Ola Kristensson. 

All comments and feedback are welcome. Please send any feedback to  [email protected]

Contact Us 

Telephone:   01223 766 853

Email:    [email protected]

17 Mill Lane

University Policy and Guidelines

Privacy Policy

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Deciphering the drivers of plant-soil feedbacks and their context-dependence: A meta-analysis

• Research Article
• Published: 31 August 2024

Cite this article

• Cai Cheng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7979-7790 1 ,
• Michael J. Gundale   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2447-609X 2 ,
• Bo Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0439-5666 3 &
• Jihua Wu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8623-8519 1 , 4  

Background and aims

Plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs) play an important role in mediating plant species coexistence, community dynamics and ecosystem functioning. Soil biota (e.g. mutualists, pathogens), nutrient availability and secondary chemicals can drive the strength and direction of PSFs, but the variations and context-dependence of their effects remain unclear.

We used a phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis of 57 PSF studies across 166 plant species to explore whether and how these drivers affect individual PSFs (the performance of a species on conspecific versus heterospecific soils) and pairwise PSFs (indicating whether feedbacks promote stable or unstable species coexistence) under various intrinsic, environmental and experimental contexts.

Mutualists led to stronger positive individual and pairwise PSFs across various intrinsic and external contexts. However, PSFs became more negative when whole biota was present, with stronger negative effects on native species compared to exotic species and the most negative effects on plants experiencing interspecific competition. Manipulations of pathogens, nutrient availability and secondary chemicals had overall minimal influence on both types of PSFs, but the effect of nutrient availability on pairwise PSFs increased with increasing phylogenetic distance between species.

Our study suggests that soil biota is an important driver of PSFs and that plant origin and competitive context should be considered when predicting the role of soil biota in driving PSFs. Finally, we propose several directions for the next generation of PSF experiments towards a better understanding of the relative importance and interactions of different PSF drivers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Heterospecific plant–soil feedback and its relationship to plant traits, species relatedness, and co-occurrence in natural communities.

Plant-soil feedback: incorporating untested influential drivers and reconciling terminology

Impact of species identity and phylogenetic relatedness on biologically-mediated plant-soil feedbacks in a low and a high intensity agroecosystem, data availability.

Data are archived in Figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21184747 .

Bardgett RD, Wardle DA (2003) Herbivore-mediated linkages between aboveground and belowground communities. Ecology 84:2258–2268

Article   Google Scholar  

Bennett JA, Klironomos J (2019) Mechanisms of plant-soil feedback: interactions among biotic and abiotic drivers. New Phytol 222:91–96

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bennett JA, Maherali H, Reinhart KO, Lekberg Y, Hart MM, Klironomos J (2017) Plant-soil feedbacks and mycorrhizal type influence temperate forest population dynamics. Science 355:181–184

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bever JD (1994) Feedback between plants and their soil communities in an old field community. Ecology 75:1965–1977

Bever JD, Westover KM, Antonovics J (1997) Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. J Ecol 85:561–573

Bever JD, Platt TG, Morton ER (2012) Microbial population and community dynamics on plant roots and their feedbacks on plant communities. Annu Rev Microbiol 66:265–283

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bever JD, Mangan SA, Alexander HM (2015) Maintenance of plant species diversity by pathogens. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:305–325

Bezemer TM, van der Putten WH, Martens H, van de Voorde TFJ, Mulder PPJ, Kostenko O (2013) Above- and below-ground herbivory effects on below-ground plant-fungus interactions and plant-soil feedback responses. J Ecol 101:325–333

Bickford WA, Goldberg DE, Zak DR, Snow DS, Kowalski KP (2022) Plant effects on and response to soil microbes in native and non-native Phragmites australis . Ecol Appl 32:e2565

Bishop J, Nakagawa S (2021) Quantifying crop pollinator dependence and its heterogeneity using multi-level meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 58:1030–1042

Borda V, Longo S, Marro N, Urcelay C (2021) The global invader Ligustrum lucidum accumulates beneficial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a novel range. Plant Ecol 222:397–408

Brian JI, Catford JA (2023) A mechanistic framework of enemy release. Ecol Lett 26:2147–2166

Calcagno V, de Mazancourt C (2010) glmulti: An R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J Stat Softw 34:1–29

Cheng C, Liu ZK, Song W, Chen X, Zhang ZJ, Li B, van Kleunen M, Wu JH (2024a) Biodiversity increases resistance of grasslands against plant invasions under multiple environmental changes. Nat Commun 15:4506

Cheng C, Liu ZK, Zhang Q, Tian X, Ju RT, Li B, van Kleunen M, Chase JM, Wu JH (2024b) Genotype diversity enhances invasion resistance of native plants via soil biotic feedbacks. Ecol Lett 27:e14384

Crawford KM, Bauer JT, Comita LS et al (2019) When and where plant-soil feedback may promote plant coexistence: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 22:1274–1284

Delavaux CS, Angst JK, Espinosa H et al (2024) Fungal community dissimilarity predicts plant-soil feedback strength in a lowland tropical forest. Ecology 105:e4200

Domínguez-Begines J, Ávila JM, García LV, Gómez-Aparicio L (2021) Disentangling the role of oomycete soil pathogens as drivers of plant–soil feedbacks. Ecology 102:e03430

Dostálek T, Münzbergová Z, Kladivová A, Macel M (2016) Plant-soil feedback in native vs. invasive populations of a range expanding plant. Plant Soil 399:209–220

Ehrenfeld JG, Ravit B, Elgersma K (2005) Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:75–115

Forero LE, Grenzerl J, Heinze J, Schittko C, Kulmatiski A (2019) Greenhouse- and field-measured plant-soil feedbacks are not correlated. Front Environ Sci 7:184

Forero LE, Kulmatiski A, Grenzer J, Norton JM (2021) Plant-soil feedbacks help explain biodiversity-productivity relationships. Communications Biology 4:789

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Forero LE, Kulmatiski A, Grenzer J, Norton JM (2022) Plant–soil feedbacks help explain plant community productivity. Ecology 103:e3736

Gómez-Aparicio L, Domínguez-Begines J, Kardol P, Avila JM, Ibánez B, García LV (2017) Plant-soil feedbacks in declining forests: implications for species coexistence. Ecology 98:1908–1921

Gundale MJ, Kardol P (2021) Multi-dimensionality as a path forward in plant-soil feedback research. J Ecol 109:3446–3465

Gundale MJ, Kardol P, Nilsson MC, Nilsson U, Lucas RW, Wardle DA (2014) Interactions with soil biota shift from negative to positive when a tree species is moved outside its native range. New Phytol 202:415–421

Hamilton EW, Frank DA, Hinchey PM, Murray TR (2008) Defoliation induces root exudation and triggers positive rhizospheric feedbacks in a temperate grassland. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2865–2873

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Harrison KA, Bardgett RD (2010) Influence of plant species and soil conditions on plant-soil feedback in mixed grassland communities. J Ecol 98:384–395

Heinze J, Sitte M, Schindhelm A, Wright J, Joshi J (2016) Plant-soil feedbacks: a comparative study on the relative importance of soil feedbacks in the greenhouse versus the field. Oecologia 181:559–569

Heinze J, Wacker A, Kulmatiski A (2020) Plant-soil feedback effects altered by aboveground herbivory explain plant species abundance in the landscape. Ecology 101:e03023

Hijmans RJ, van Etten J, Sumner M et al (2023) raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.6–20. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.raster

Hoeksema JD, Chaudhary VB, Gehring CA et al (2010) A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. Ecol Lett 13:394–407

Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363

Jiang F, Bennett JA, Crawford KM, Heinze J, Pu X, Luo A, Wang Z (2024) Global patterns and drivers of plant–soil microbe interactions. Ecol Lett 27:e14364

Jin Y, Qian H (2019) VPhyloMaker: an R package that can generate very large phylogenies for vascular plants. Ecography 42:1353–1359

Kattge J, Bönisch G, Díaz S et al (2020) TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access. Glob Change Biol 26:119–188

Ke PJ, Miki T, Ding TS (2015) The soil microbial community predicts the importance of plant traits in plant-soil feedback. New Phytol 206:329–341

Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR, Cobbold SM (2008) Plant-soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol Lett 11:980–992

Lajeunesse MJ (2011) On the meta-analysis of response ratios for studies with correlated and multi-group designs. Ecology 92:2049–2055

Lekberg Y, Bever JD, Bunn RA et al (2018) Relative importance of competition and plant-soil feedback, their synergy, context dependency and implications for coexistence. Ecol Lett 21:1268–1281

Mazzoleni S, Bonanomi G, Incerti G et al (2015) Inhibitory and toxic effects of extracellular self-DNA in litter: a mechanism for negative plant-soil feedbacks? New Phytol 205:1195–1210

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097

Nijjer S, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2007) Negative plant-soil feedbacks may limit persistence of an invasive tree due to rapid accumulation of soil pathogens. Proc Royal Soci B-Biol Sci 274:2621–2627

Google Scholar  

Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290

Perkins LB, Hatfield G (2016) Can commercial soil microbial treatments remediate plant-soil feedbacks to improve restoration seedling performance? Restor Ecol 24:194–201

Petermann JS, Fergus AJF, Turnbull LA, Schmid B (2008) Janzen-Connell effects are widespread and strong enough to maintain diversity in grasslands. Ecology 89:2399–2406

Pugnaire FI, Morillo JA, Peñuelas J, Reich PB, Bardgett RD, Gaxiola A, Wardle DA, van der Putten WH (2019) Climate change effects on plant-soil feedbacks and consequences for biodiversity and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Sci Adv 5:eaaz1834

R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

Rekret P, Maherali H (2019) Local adaptation to mycorrhizal fungi in geographically close Lobelia siphilitica populations. Oecologia 190:127–138

Rutten G, Allan E (2023) Using root economics traits to predict biotic plant soil-feedbacks. Plant Soil 485:71–89

Sedio BE, Ostling AM (2013) How specialised must natural enemies be to facilitate coexistence among plants? Ecol Lett 16:995–1003

Segnitz RM, Russo SE, Davies SJ, Peay KG (2020) Ectomycorrhizal fungi drive positive phylogenetic plant-soil feedbacks in a regionally dominant tropical plant family. Ecology 101:e03083

Semchenko M, Barry KE, de Vries FT, Mommer L, Moora M, Maciá-Vicente JG (2022) Deciphering the role of specialist and generalist plant-microbial interactions as drivers of plant-soil feedback. New Phytol 234:1929–1944

Smith-Ramesh LM, Reynolds HL (2017) The next frontier of plant-soil feedback research: unraveling context dependence across biotic and abiotic gradients. J Veg Sci 28:484–494

Spear ER, Broders KD (2021) Host-generalist fungal pathogens of seedlings may maintain forest diversity via host-specific impacts and differential susceptibility among tree species. New Phytol 231:460–474

Stein C, Mangan SA (2020) Soil biota increase the likelihood for coexistence among competing plant species. Ecology 101:e03147

Suding KN, Stanley Harpole W, Fukami T, Kulmatiski A, MacDougall AS, Stein C, van der Putten WH (2013) Consequences of plant–soil feedbacks in invasion. J Ecol 101:298–308

Sveen TR, Netherway T, Juhanson J et al (2021) Plant-microbe interactions in response to grassland herbivory and nitrogen eutrophication. Soil Biol Biochem 156:108208

Teste FP, Kardol P, Turner BL, Wardle DA, Zemunik G, Renton M, Laliberté E (2017) Plant-soil feedback and the maintenance of diversity in Mediterranean-climate shrublands. Science 355:173–176

van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD et al (2013) Plant-soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101:265–276

van der Putten WH, Bradford MA, Brinkman EP, van de Voorde TFJ, Veen GF (2016) Where, when and how plant-soil feedback matters in a changing world. Funct Ecol 30:1109–1121

Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48

Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 1:112–125

Wang ZH, Jiang Y, Deane DC, He FL, Shu WS, Liu Y (2019) Effects of host phylogeny, habitat and spatial proximity on host specificity and diversity of pathogenic and mycorrhizal fungi in a subtropical forest. New Phytol 223:462–474

Wilschut RA, Geisen S (2021) Nematodes as drivers of plant performance in natural systems. Trends Plant Sci 26:237–247

Xi N, Adler PB, Chen D, Wu H, Catford JA, van Bodegom PM, Bahn M, Crawford KM, Chu C (2021) Relationships between plant–soil feedbacks and functional traits. J Ecol 109:3411–3423

Xue W, Bezemer TM, Berendse F (2018) Density-dependency and plant-soil feedback: former plant abundance influences competitive interactions between two grassland plant species through plant-soil feedbacks. Plant Soil 428:441–452

Zhang ZJ, Liu YJ, Yuan L, Weber E, van Kleunen M (2021) Effect of allelopathy on plant performance: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 24:348–362

Zhou J, Ju R, Li B, Wu J (2017) Responses of soil biota and nitrogen availability to an invasive plant under aboveground herbivory. Plant Soil 415:479–491

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Shujuan Wei for statistical assistance and the authors who generously shared their data. The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC2601100) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32030067).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, National Observations and Research Station of Wetland Ecosystems of the Yangtze Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science and Institute of Eco-Chongming, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China

Cai Cheng & Jihua Wu

Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, 90183, Sweden

Michael J. Gundale

Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Transboundary Ecosecurity of Southwest China, Yunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecology and Centre for Invasion Biology, Institute of Biodiversity, School of Ecology and Environmental Science, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650504, China

State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JW conceived the study. CC collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CC, MJG, BL and JW contributed substantially to revisions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jihua Wu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Emilia Hannula.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 4965 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cheng, C., Gundale, M.J., Li, B. et al. Deciphering the drivers of plant-soil feedbacks and their context-dependence: A meta-analysis. Plant Soil (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06922-1

Download citation

Received : 08 July 2024

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 31 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06922-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Plant-soil feedbacks
• Secondary chemicals
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Effect of a plc-based drinkers for fattening pigs on reducing drinking water consumption, wastage and pollution.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. intelligent drinking water controller based on plc, 2.1.1. drinking bowl module.

• The drinker is composed of a water level detection module, pig water-drinking behavior identification module, water consumption detection module, water pressure regulation module and drainage module.
• Water level detection module:
• Pig water-drinking behavior identification module:
• Water consumption detection module:
• Water pressure regulation module and drainage module:

2.1.2. PLC System

2.2. experimental arrangement, 2.2.1. experimental condition, 2.2.2. experimental object, 2.3. experimental evaluation index, 2.3.1. drinker performance.

• Water consumption:
• Water waste:
• Water utilization rate:
• Water quality:

2.3.2. Drinking Behavior and Weight Change

• Frequency and duration of water-drinking:
• Weight change:

3.1. Performance Analysis of Drinker

3.1.1. water consumption, 3.1.2. water waste, 3.1.3. water utilization analysis, 3.1.4. water quality analysis, 3.2. analysis of water-drinking behavior and weight change, 3.2.1. analysis of weight change, 3.2.2. analysis of drinking frequency and drinking duration, 4. discussion.

• Water consumption and waste:
• Drinking water quality:
• Pig health status:
• Intelligent monitoring of the pigs’ drinking frequency and duration:

5. Conclusions

• Improvement and intellectualization of control accuracy: Although there are Intelligent drinking water controllers that can meet the drinking water needs of different pigs to a certain extent, there is still room for improvement. Future research could focus on improving camera functions to accurately capture and predict the drinking habits of individual pigs, and flexibly adjust the drinking regimen according to their health status, growth stage, and environmental factors (such as temperature and humidity) [ 40 ]. For example, machine learning techniques can be applied to analyze drinking data from pigs to optimize their drinking plans.
• Reduce the pollution of feces in drinking water: pig feed and feces will inevitably enter drinking water bowls and pollute the water quality. In the future, we will consider taking protective measures, such as adding baffles or shielding curtains in combination with the automatic cleaning module of the Intelligent drinking water controllers, to reduce water pollution.
• During the experiment, we found that drinking bowls became damaged. After careful investigation, one of the reasons is that pigs play with drinking bowls. Therefore, we decided to update the housing of the drinker to a metal material for increased durability. At the same time, this discovery also indicated that pigs have a certain need for toys. In the future, to improve breeding management practice and improve the welfare of pigs, we will consider introducing appropriate welfare toys into the breeding environment [ 41 ].

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

Click here to enlarge figure

• Yang, L.; Wang, H.; Chen, R.; Xiao, D. Research progress and prospect of intelligent pig factory. J. South China Agric. Univ. 2023 , 44 , 13–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feng, C.; Zhao, Z.; Zhou, G.; Hong, S. Thinking on the prevention and control of swine disease under the normal condition of African Swine fever. Today’s Anim. Husb. Vet. Med. 2022 , 38 , 27–28. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, N.; He, X.; Zhou, Y. Comparison of ammonia emission reduction policies and technologies in Animal husbandry in China and foreign countries. China Anim. Husb. 2024 , 2 , 41–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jia, Z.; Zhai, H.; Su, H.; Cui, J.; Wang, W.; Li, A.; Zhou, H.; Li, W.; Teng, X. Comparison of pig breeding management and biosafety operation in China and the United States. China Anim. Quar. 2021 , 38 , 37–42. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamphues, J.; Flachowsky, G.; Rieger, H.; Meyer, U. Für und Wider eine Verabreichung von Futtermittelzusatzstoffen über das Tränkwasser. Übersichten zur Tierernährung 2019 , 43 , 205–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingram, D.L. Evaporative Cooling in the Pig. Nature 1965 , 207 , 415–416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jessen, C. Wärmebilanz und Thermoregulation. In Physiologie der Haustiere ; Engelhardt, W.V., Breves, G., Eds.; Enke in HippokratesVerlag GmbH: Stuttgart, Germany, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• TierSchNutztV. Verordnung zum Schutz Landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere und Anderer zur Erzeugung Tierischer Produkte Gehaltener Tiere bei Ihrer Haltung (Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung—TierSchNutztV). 2021. Available online: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschnutztv/TierSchNutztV.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2021).
• Schiavon, S.; Emmans, G.C. A model to predict water intake of a pig growing in a known environment on a known diet. Br. J. Nutr. 2000 , 84 , 873–883. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gill, B.P. Water Use by Pigs Managed under Various Conditions of Housing, Feeding, and Nutrition. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou, Z.; Shao, W.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, X. Challenges and countermeasures on the water use in the process of urbanization and industrialization of China. China Water Resour. 2015 , 1 , 7–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, M.; Xue, X.; Liu, J.; Wang, W.; Han, M.; Yi, L.; Wu, Z. Effect of different allocations of wet-dry feeders and drinkers on production performance and water saving of finishing pigs. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2018 , 34 , 66–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tavares, J.M.R.; Filho, P.B.; Coldebella, A.; Oliveira, P.D. The water disappearance and manure production at commercial growing-finishing pig farms. Livest. Sci. 2014 , 169 , 146–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.; Zhao, W.; Wu, Z.; Liu, J.; Chen, Z.; Lü, N. Comparison experiment of total water consumption and water leakage of different types of drinker for nursery pig. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2017 , 33 , 242–247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, M.; Yi, L.; Liu, J.; Zhao, W.; Wu, Z. Water consumption and wastage of nursery pig with different drinkers at different water pressures in summer. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2017 , 33 , 161–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, J.; Johnson, D. Development of a PLC-based Smart Watering System for Efficient Irrigation Management. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2021 , 147 , 04021019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez, D.; Garcia, P.; Benitez, A. A PLC-driven Precision Irrigation System Using Wireless Sensor Networks. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023 , 198 , 106434. [ Google Scholar ]
• Misra, S.; van Middelaar, C.E.; O’Driscoll, K.; Quinn, A.J.; de Boer, I.J.; Upton, J. The water footprint of pig farms in Ireland based on commercial farm data. Clean. Water 2024 , 2 , 100023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alarcón, L.V.; Allepuz, A.; Mateu, E. Biosecurity in pig farms: A review. Porc. Health Manag. 2021 , 7 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, H.; He, J.; Li, H.; Wang, C.; Li, H.; Tan, L. Design and Experiment of Automatic Variable speed Straw crushing and Returning Device Driven by Equal diameter CAM based on PLC Control. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2024 , 55 , 96–110. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, C.; Wang, Z.; Fu, J.; Zong, Z.; Yang, J.; Hou, Q.; Liu, G. Design of drinking water control system for sheep in northern winter based on PLC. Heilongjiang Anim. Husb. Vet. Sci. 2021 , 7 , 52–54+59+155. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenshi, T.; Rajaganapathy, V.; Mandal, P.K.; Ganesan, R.; Venugopal, S.; Raghy, R.; Sreekumar, D. Pig feeding practices of backyard pig farmers in Imphal, Manipur. Indian Vet. J. 2024 , 101 , 58–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baxter, S.H. Designing the Pig Pen. In Manipulating Pig Production II ; Barnett, J.L., Hennessy, D.P., Eds.; Australasian Pig Science Association: Werribee, Australia, 1989; pp. 191–206. Available online: https://www.apsa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/1989-Manipulating-Pig-Production-II.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2021).
• Tan, L.; Gu, X.H. Study on water flow rate, installation height and quantity of pig teat drinking water dispenser. J. Anim. Sci. Vet. Med. 2009 , 41 , 47–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo, Y.; Xia, J.; Lu, H.; Luo, H.; Lv, E.; Zeng, Z.; Li, B.; Meng, F.; Yang, A. Automatic Recognition and Quantification Feeding Behaviors of Nursery Pigs Using Improved YOLOV5 and Feeding Functional Area Proposals. Animals 2024 , 14 , 569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Godyń, D.; Nowicki, J.; Herbut, P. Effects of environmental enrichment on pig welfare—A review. Animals 2019 , 9 , 383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, X.; Xiong, X.; Wu, X.; Liu, G.; Zhou, K.; Yin, Y. Effects of stocking density on growth performance, blood parameters and immunity of growing pigs. Anim. Nutr. 2020 , 6 , 529–534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edwards, L. Drinking Water Quality and Its Impact on the Health and Performance of Pigs ; Innovation Project 2A-118; Co-Operative Research Centre for High Integrity Australian Pork: Willaston, Australia, 2018; Available online: https://porkcrc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2A-118-Drinking-Water-Quality-Final-Report.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2021).
• Yazici-Karabulut, B.; Kocer, Y.; Yesilnacar, M.I. Bottled water quality assessment through entropy-weighted water quality index (EWQI) and pollution index of groundwater (PIG): A case study in a fast-growing metropolitan area in Türkiye. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2024 , 34 , 61–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Ye, H.; Wang, L.; Lu, S.; Li, L. Novel tracking method for the drinking behavior trajectory of pigs. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2024 , 16 , 67–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faverjon, C.; Bernstein, A.; Grütter, R.; Nathues, C.; Nathues, H.; Sarasua, C.; Sterchi, M.; Vargas, M.E.; Berezowski, J. A transdisciplinary approach supporting the implementation of a big data project in livestock production: An example from the Swiss pig production industry. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019 , 6 , 215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dohmen, R.; Catal, C.; Liu, Q. Computer vision-based weight estimation of livestock: A systematic literature review. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2022 , 65 , 227–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Broom, D.M.; Fraser, A.F. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare , 5th ed.; CABI Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren, Q.; Chen, D.; Cao, S.; Li, X.; Wang, M.; Teng, J.; Du, X.; Huang, Y.; Gao, X.; Liu, C.; et al. The Microbiota Dynamics in Water Distribution System of Pig Farm. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4760755 (accessed on 27 June 2021).
• Sefeedpari, P.; Pishgar-Komleh, S.H.; Aarnink, A.J. Model Adaptation and Validation for Estimating Methane and Ammonia Emissions from Fattening Pig Houses: Effect of Manure Management System. Animals 2024 , 14 , 964. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanad, H.; Mouhir, L.; Zouahri, A.; Moussadek, R.; El Azhari, H.; Yachou, H.; Ghanimi, A.; Oueld Lhaj, M.; Dakak, H. Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using the Pollution Index of Groundwater (PIG), Nitrate Pollution Index (NPI), Water Quality Index (WQI), Multivariate Statistical Analysis (MSA), and GIS Approaches: A Case Study of the Mnasra Region, Gharb Plain, Morocco. Water 2024 , 16 , 1263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beilage, E.G. Literaturübersicht zur Unterbringung von Sauen währned Geburtsvorbereitung, Geburt und Säugezeit (Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz). 2020. Available online: https://tierschutz.hessen.de/sites/tierschutz.hessen.de/files/2022-11/literaturuebersicht_unterbringung_sauen_0.pdf#:~:text=Die%20Unterbringung%20von%20Sauen%20w%C3%A4hrend%20der%20Geburtsvorbereitung,#:~:text=Die%20Unterbringung%20von%20Sauen%20w%C3%A4hrend%20der%20Geburtsvorbereitung (accessed on 27 June 2021).
• Faucitano, L.; Conte, S.; Pomar, C.; Paiano, D.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, P.; Drouin, G.; Rina, S.; Guay, F.; Devillers, N. Application of extended feed withdrawal time preslaughter and its effects on animal welfare and carcass and meat quality of enriched-housed pigs. Meat Sci. 2020 , 167 , 108163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borell, E.V.; Bonneau, M.; Holinger, M.; Prunier, A.; Stefanski, V.; Zöls, S.; Weiler, U. Welfare aspects of raising entire male pigs and Immunocastrates. Animals 2020 , 10 , 2140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Khullar, V.; Singh, H.P.; Miro, Y.; Anand, D.; Mohamed, H.G.; Gupta, D.; Kumar, N.; Goyal, N. IoT Fog-Enabled Multi-Node Centralized Ecosystem for Real Time Screening and Monitoring of Health Information. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 9845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Huang, S.; Liu, Z.; Wang, H. Effects of stocking density and toy provision on production performance, behavior and physiological indexes of finishing pigs. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2021 , 37 , 191–198. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Liu, J.; Wang, H.; Pan, X.; Yu, Z.; Tang, M.; Zeng, Y.; Qi, R.; Liu, Z. Effect of A PLC-Based Drinkers for Fattening Pigs on Reducing Drinking Water Consumption, Wastage and Pollution. Agriculture 2024 , 14 , 1525. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091525

Liu J, Wang H, Pan X, Yu Z, Tang M, Zeng Y, Qi R, Liu Z. Effect of A PLC-Based Drinkers for Fattening Pigs on Reducing Drinking Water Consumption, Wastage and Pollution. Agriculture . 2024; 14(9):1525. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091525

Liu, Jiayao, Hao Wang, Xuemin Pan, Zhou Yu, Mingfeng Tang, Yaqiong Zeng, Renli Qi, and Zuohua Liu. 2024. "Effect of A PLC-Based Drinkers for Fattening Pigs on Reducing Drinking Water Consumption, Wastage and Pollution" Agriculture 14, no. 9: 1525. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091525

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2024

Effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes in West Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

• Ellen Barnie Peprah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7623-2030 1 ,
• Yasmin Jahan 2 ,
• Anthony Danso-Appiah 3 ,
• Abdul-Basit Abdul-Samed 1 ,
• Tolib Mirzoev 2 ,
• Edward Antwi 4 ,
• Dina Balabanova 2 &
• Irene Agyepong 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  226 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Lifestyle interventions are key to the control of diabetes and the prevention of complications, especially when used with pharmacological interventions. This protocol aims to review the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in relation to nutrition and physical activity within the West African region. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to understand which interventions for lifestyle modification are implemented for the control of diabetes in West Africa at the individual and community level, what evidence is available on their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control and why these interventions were effective.

We will review randomised control trials and quasi-experimental designs on interventions relating to physical activity and nutrition in West Africa. Language will be restricted to English and French as these are the most widely spoken languages in the region. No other filters will be applied. Searching will involve four electronic databases — PubMed, Scopus, Africa Journals Online and Cairn.info using natural-language phrases plus reference/citation checking.

Two reviewers will independently screen results according to titles and abstracts against the inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. Upon full-text review, all selected studies will be assessed using Cochrane’s Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias of a study and the ROBINS-I tool before data extraction. Evidence will be synthesised narratively and statistically where appropriate. We will conduct a meta-analysis when the interventions and contexts are similar enough for pooling and compare the treatment effects of the interventions in rural to urban settings and short term to long term wherever possible.

We anticipate finding a number of studies missed by previous reviews and providing evidence of the effectiveness of different nutrition and physical activity interventions within the context of West Africa. This knowledge will support practitioners and policymakers in the design of interventions that are fit for context and purpose within the West African region.

Systematic review registration

This systematic review has been registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews — PROSPERO, with registration number CRD42023435116. All amendments to this protocol during the process of the review will be explained accordingly.

Peer Review reports

Diabetes is a chronic disease estimated to affect 537 million adults worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, 1.5 million deaths are directly attributable to diabetes annually, and this disproportionately affects populations in developing countries. This same population is often at higher risk of late diagnosis, poor clinical management and its associated microvascular and/or cardiovascular complications [ 1 ].

The West African region — home to 16 developing economies — is still reeling from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapidly changing sociocultural environment, demographics and economic conditions further threaten to worsen the burden of noncommunicable diseases such as diabetes within the region [ 2 , 3 ]. With less than 7 years to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.4 target of reducing by a third premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases, greater investment in interventions that bridge the gaps in service delivery, programme design and policy implementation will be required.

The 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) names, among many others, physical activity and medical nutrition therapy as interventions to facilitate positive health behaviours to improve outcomes for diabetes [ 4 ]. Physical activity includes all movements that increase energy expenditure such as walking, housework, gardening, swimming, dancing, yoga, aerobic activities and resistance training. Exercise, on the other hand, is structured and tailored towards improving physical fitness. Interventions for physical activity and exercise are both recommended for better glycaemic control [ 5 ]. ADA recommends at least 150 min or more of moderate to vigorous exercise a week and encourages an increase in non-sedentary physical activity among people living with type 2 diabetes. The goal of interventions for nutrition therapy is to manage weight, achieve individual glycaemic control targets and prevent complications. ADA recommends that nutrition therapy and counselling, under the guidance of a registered dietician, is administered to patients with type 2 diabetes with emphasis on managing energy balance, dietary protein, carbohydrate and fat intake and alcohol consumption [ 4 ].

There is evidence available supporting the effectiveness of physical activity and nutrition interventions to achieve glycaemic control and improve overall cardiometabolic health in other populations [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. However, there is not much evidence of its effectiveness in the West African population. Those that are documented in literature exist in fragmented, regional spaces, and the West African context could be easily lost in larger studies such as Sagastume et al. [ 9 ]. O’Donoghue and colleagues [ 10 ] reviewed randomised control trials on lifestyle interventions from low- and middle-income countries. However, the sheer geographical breadth of studies represented within the review, the diversity of populations, differences in health system structures and priorities [ 11 ] and cultural and socio-economic contexts included in the review pose a challenge to generalisation of study findings to the West African population. Also, controversies remain on what type of nutrition therapy or meal plans work best for people with diabetes [ 12 ], whether structured self-management education yields greater benefit for patients [ 13 ] and whether exercise, its duration or intensity has varying effect on glycaemic control in patients with diabetes [ 14 , 15 ]. The aforementioned present the need to assemble existing studies and synthesise what is known about their effectiveness. Knowledge of what exists would shape future interventions for diabetes control in West Africa.

This review will seek to address the following questions:

Which individual-level interventions for lifestyle modification are available for the control of type 2 diabetes in adults West Africa?

What is the effectiveness of the available individual level interventions for lifestyle modification in glycaemic control?

Which community-level interventions for lifestyle modification are implemented for the control of diabetes in West Africa?

What is the effectiveness of community level interventions for lifestyle modification in improving glycaemic control?

Which factors influence the effectiveness of glycaemic control interventions at the individual and community level?

Criteria for considering studies for this review

The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Studies (PICOS) framework will be used in determining inclusion for the study.

Adults aged 18 years and older living in West Africa with previously or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. We will not consider type 1 diabetes and paediatric and gestational diabetes mellitus.

Intervention

All lifestyle interventions relating to physical activity and nutrition will be considered. Physical activity will include low, moderate and high intensity exercises. Non-sedentary everyday movement such as walking, gardening and housework will be considered so long as it is delivered in a regimen and has been measured. Interventions for nutrition will include vegetarian, low carbohydrate diet, low fat or plant-based diet. For the purpose of this review, interventions for alcohol reduction will be considered as a part of nutrition. The duration of intervention could be short-term interventions which we define as 3 months or less or long-term intervention which we define as greater than 3 months. We define individual-level interventions as those targeted at the individual patient, such as one-on-one counselling or structured education programmes delivered to an individual. Community-level interventions are those implemented at the broader community or population level, such as public awareness campaigns and community-based physical activity programmes. In all situations, interventions could be provider-led, and group-based or individually based activities will be considered in the review.

The control will be usual care or no intervention.

The primary outcome of interest to this review is glycaemic control as indicated by glycated haemoglobin (HBA1c) values. Despite objections to the preference of HBA1c for diagnosing diabetes by some researchers based on the cost and biological variation [ 16 ], it is generally regarded as a reliable metric for glycaemic improvement in clinical trials [ 17 ]. We will say an intervention improves glycaemic control when there is a clinically significant reduction of HbA1c of greater 5 mmol/mol or 0.5% of HbA1c from pre-intervention baseline [ 18 ]. If there is a non-clinically significant reduction in HbA1c of less than 5 mmol/mol or 0.5% of HbA1c, no reduction or an increase in HbA1c from pre-intervention baseline, we will say that intervention does not improve glucose control.

Eligible study designs will be limited to randomised control trials and quasi-experimental studies such as pretest and posttest study designs, nonequivalent control group designs and controlled observational studies that attempt to establish causal relationships between the intervention and the outcomes.

We will search four online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Africa Journals Online and Cairn.info) for articles published from 2000 to 31st August 2024 We will also search websites of relevant government agencies and non-governmental organisations such as PATH and Sante Diabete for programme reports, evaluations and relevant publications and clinical trial registries for ongoing or recently completed trials (summarised in Additional File 1, PRISMA_2020_Search flowchart.docx attached). In order not to miss any relevant study, we will also search through the reference list and bibliographies of included studies.

Search strategy

Search terms we will use include “diabetes”, “lifestyle modification”, “physical activity”, “nutrition” and their synonyms, and MESH terms. (Additional File 2, Search strategy.docx) detail the full search strategy and a sample search for PubMed. Language will be restricted to English and French as these are the most widely used for scholarly publications and reports within the region. No other filters will be applied. A search alert will be created to update on any new studies, while the search and screening process is ongoing.

Study selection and management

Two reviewers will independently screen search results according to titles and abstracts against the inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify eligible studies (see Additional file 3, Algorithm for Screening.docx). Duplicates and irrelevant titles and abstracts will be removed. A third reviewer will settle discrepancies through a consensus. A full-text review of all selected studies will then be conducted against the inclusion criteria to identify studies to be included for analysis. Search results will be managed using the Rayyan software platform to facilitate the screening process.

Study risk-of-bias assessment

All selected studies will be assessed using Cochrane’s Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias of a study. For the risk-of-bias assessment of non-randomised studies, we will use the ROBINS-I tool. Judging from quotes from the authors, two independent reviewers will rate studies as either low risk, high risk or unclear, and a third reviewer will settle discrepancies if there are any. A sensitivity analysis will be conducted to evaluate the impact of high-risk studies on the overall analysis before a decision to exclude studies will be done.

Data extraction and management

For each of the studies selected, the following data will be extracted independently on a data collection form in Microsoft Excel by two reviewers: (1) first author’s last name; (2) year of publication; (3) country; (4) study setting; (5) characteristics of participants, sample size and mean age; (6) type of intervention, frequency and duration; (7) characteristics of control group; (8) pre-intervention baseline HbA1c; (9) post-intervention HbA1c; (10) any other outcomes if reported; and (11) author’s conclusions. We will contact authors for missing data or to clarify data. We will first attempt to contact the corresponding authors of the included studies via email, providing a clear timeline for their response. If the authors do not respond within 4 weeks, we will send a follow-up email. If the authors do not respond, we will proceed with the data synthesis and clearly report the missing information and its potential impact on the overall findings in the limitations section of the review.

Strategy for data synthesis

We will estimate the effect of the intervention using the relative risk for the number achieving glycaemic control as our primary outcome. If other effect estimates are provided, we will convert between estimates where possible. Measures of precision will be at 95% confidence intervals which will be computed using the participants per treatment group rather than the number of intervention attempts. Study authors will be contacted if there is the need for further information or clarification about methods used in analysing results. If the author of selected articles cannot be reached for clarification, we will not report confidence intervals or p -values for which clarification is needed. When both pre-intervention baseline and endpoint measures are reported, endpoint measures and their standardised deviation will be used.

We will conduct a meta-analysis when the interventions and contexts are similar enough for pooling. Since heterogeneity is expected a priori due to age, sex and study setting, i.e. whether urban or rural, we will estimate the pooled treatment effect estimates and its 95% confidence interval controlling for these variables. Forest plots will be used to visualise the data and extent of heterogeneity among studies. We will conduct a sensitivity analysis to explore the influence of various factors on the effect size of only the primary outcome, that is glycaemic control. Any post hoc sensitivity analyses that may arise during the review process will be explained in the final report.

We will use a cluster-based analysis when analysing interventions at the community level. When both individual- and cluster-level factors are reported, we will use cluster-level data for our analysis taking into consideration their design effect. We intend to perform a thematic, qualitative analysis in determining the factors that influence the effectiveness of identified interventions at the community level.

We anticipate retrieving data about the West African context on the effectiveness of physical activity and nutrition interventions on improving glycaemic control in patients living with an established type 2 diabetes. This information will guide practitioners and policymakers to design interventions that are fit for context and purpose within West Africa and Africa, by extension.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

American Diabetes Association

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Studies

Glycated haemoglobin

Glazier RH, Bajcar J, Kennie NR, Willson K. A systematic review of interventions to improve diabetes care in socially disadvantaged populations. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(7):1675–88.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Atun R, Davies JI, Gale EAM, Bärnighausen T, Beran D, Kengne AP, et al. Diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa: from clinical care to health policy. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(8):622–67.

Gordon Patti K, Kohli P. COVID’s impact on non-communicable diseases: what we do not know may hurt us. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2022;24(7):829–37.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 5. Facilitating positive health behaviors and well-being to improve health outcomes: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Supplement_1):S68-96.

Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep Wash DC 1974. 1985;100(2):126–31.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2006;174(6):801–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Greaves CJ, Sheppard KE, Abraham C, Hardeman W, Roden M, Evans PH, et al. Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:119.

Hamasaki H. Daily physical activity and type 2 diabetes: a review. World J Diabetes. 2016;7(12):243.

Sagastume D, Siero I, Mertens E, Cottam J, Colizzi C, Peñalvo JL. The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes incidence and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. eClinicalMedicine. 2022;53:101650.

O’Donoghue G, O’Sullivan C, Corridan I, Daly J, Finn R, Melvin K, et al. Lifestyle interventions to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes living in low-and-middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12):6273.

Mounier-Jack S, Mayhew SH, Mays N. Integrated care: learning between high-income, and low- and middle-income country health systems. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32(Suppl 4):iv6-12.

5. Facilitating positive health behaviors and well-being to improve health outcomes: standards of care in diabetes—2023 | Diabetes Care | American Diabetes Association. Available from: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/46/Supplement_1/S68/148055/5-Facilitating-Positive-Health-Behaviors-and-Well . [cited 2023 May 8].

Lamptey R, Amoakoh-Coleman M, Barker MM, Iddi S, Hadjiconstantinou M, Davies M, et al. Change in glycaemic control with structured diabetes self-management education in urban low-resource settings: multicentre randomised trial of effectiveness. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):199.

Çolak TK, Acar G, Dereli EE, Özgül B, Demirbüken İ, Alkaç Ç, et al. Association between the physical activity level and the quality of life of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(1):142–7.

Munan M, Dyck RA, Houlder S, Yardley JE, Prado CM, Snydmiller G, et al. Does exercise timing affect 24-hour glucose concentrations in adults with type 2 diabetes? A follow up to the exercise-physical activity and diabetes glucose monitoring study. Can J Diabetes. 2020;44(8):711-718.e1.

Higgins T. HbA1c for screening and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Endocrine. 2013;43(2):266–73.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

American Diabetes Association. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2020;44(Supplement_1):S73-84.

Lenters-Westra E, Schindhelm RK, Bilo HJG, Groenier KH, Slingerland RJ. Differences in interpretation of haemoglobin A1c values among diabetes care professionals. Neth J Med. 2014;72(9):462–6.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the NIHR Global Health Research Centre for Non-Communicable Disease Control in West Africa using UK aid from the UK government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK government.

This review is funded by the National Institution for Health and Care Research (NIHR) with grant number NIHR203246. The funding body played no role in the development of this protocol.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ghana College of Physicians and Surgeons, Accra, Ghana

Ellen Barnie Peprah, Abdul-Basit Abdul-Samed & Irene Agyepong

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Yasmin Jahan, Tolib Mirzoev & Dina Balabanova

University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana

Anthony Danso-Appiah

Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana

Edward Antwi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

EBP prepared the initial draft of the manuscript; all authors reviewed, provided feedback and approved this version of the protocol. EBP will be the guarantor of the review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Barnie Peprah .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This review is in connection with executing the protocol titled: “Strengthening Capacity for NCD Control in West Africa: Phase 1 Study – Deepening Understanding of Contextual Influences and Effective Pathways to Prevention, Diagnosis and Primary Care Management and Referral of NCD”. The protocol has received ethical clearance from the Ghana Health Service Ethics Review Committee (ERC) (Protocol ID No: GHS-ERC 013/02/23).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

13643_2024_2555_moesm1_esm.docx.

Additional file 1: Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources.

Additional file 2. Describes search concepts, includes a sample search for PubMed. Table 1. PubMed search strategy.

Additional file 3: figure 2. decision-making flowchart for screening., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Peprah, E.B., Jahan, Y., Danso-Appiah, A. et al. Effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes in West Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Syst Rev 13 , 226 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02555-8

Download citation

Received : 28 October 2023

Accepted : 03 May 2024

Published : 03 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02555-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Type 2 diabetes
• Physical activity
• Diet modification
• West Africa
• Glycaemic control

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]