true experiment difference

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Experiments and quasi-experiments.

This page includes an explanation of the types, key components, validity, ethics, and advantages and disadvantages of experimental design.

An experiment is a study in which the researcher manipulates the level of some independent variable and then measures the outcome. Experiments are powerful techniques for evaluating cause-and-effect relationships. Many researchers consider experiments the "gold standard" against which all other research designs should be judged. Experiments are conducted both in the laboratory and in real life situations.

Types of Experimental Design

There are two basic types of research design:

• True experiments
• Quasi-experiments

The purpose of both is to examine the cause of certain phenomena.

True experiments, in which all the important factors that might affect the phenomena of interest are completely controlled, are the preferred design. Often, however, it is not possible or practical to control all the key factors, so it becomes necessary to implement a quasi-experimental research design.

Similarities between true and quasi-experiments:

• Study participants are subjected to some type of treatment or condition
• Some outcome of interest is measured
• The researchers test whether differences in this outcome are related to the treatment

Differences between true experiments and quasi-experiments:

• In a true experiment, participants are randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control group, whereas they are not assigned randomly in a quasi-experiment
• In a quasi-experiment, the control and treatment groups differ not only in terms of the experimental treatment they receive, but also in other, often unknown or unknowable, ways. Thus, the researcher must try to statistically control for as many of these differences as possible
• Because control is lacking in quasi-experiments, there may be several "rival hypotheses" competing with the experimental manipulation as explanations for observed results

Key Components of Experimental Research Design

The manipulation of predictor variables.

In an experiment, the researcher manipulates the factor that is hypothesized to affect the outcome of interest. The factor that is being manipulated is typically referred to as the treatment or intervention. The researcher may manipulate whether research subjects receive a treatment (e.g., antidepressant medicine: yes or no) and the level of treatment (e.g., 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 125 mg).

Suppose, for example, a group of researchers was interested in the causes of maternal employment. They might hypothesize that the provision of government-subsidized child care would promote such employment. They could then design an experiment in which some subjects would be provided the option of government-funded child care subsidies and others would not. The researchers might also manipulate the value of the child care subsidies in order to determine if higher subsidy values might result in different levels of maternal employment.

Random Assignment

• Study participants are randomly assigned to different treatment groups
• All participants have the same chance of being in a given condition
• Participants are assigned to either the group that receives the treatment, known as the "experimental group" or "treatment group," or to the group which does not receive the treatment, referred to as the "control group"
• Random assignment neutralizes factors other than the independent and dependent variables, making it possible to directly infer cause and effect

Random Sampling

Traditionally, experimental researchers have used convenience sampling to select study participants. However, as research methods have become more rigorous, and the problems with generalizing from a convenience sample to the larger population have become more apparent, experimental researchers are increasingly turning to random sampling. In experimental policy research studies, participants are often randomly selected from program administrative databases and randomly assigned to the control or treatment groups.

Validity of Results

The two types of validity of experiments are internal and external. It is often difficult to achieve both in social science research experiments.

Internal Validity

• When an experiment is internally valid, we are certain that the independent variable (e.g., child care subsidies) caused the outcome of the study (e.g., maternal employment)
• When subjects are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, we can assume that the independent variable caused the observed outcomes because the two groups should not have differed from one another at the start of the experiment
• For example, take the child care subsidy example above. Since research subjects were randomly assigned to the treatment (child care subsidies available) and control (no child care subsidies available) groups, the two groups should not have differed at the outset of the study. If, after the intervention, mothers in the treatment group were more likely to be working, we can assume that the availability of child care subsidies promoted maternal employment

One potential threat to internal validity in experiments occurs when participants either drop out of the study or refuse to participate in the study. If particular types of individuals drop out or refuse to participate more often than individuals with other characteristics, this is called differential attrition. For example, suppose an experiment was conducted to assess the effects of a new reading curriculum. If the new curriculum was so tough that many of the slowest readers dropped out of school, the school with the new curriculum would experience an increase in the average reading scores. The reason they experienced an increase in reading scores, however, is because the worst readers left the school, not because the new curriculum improved students' reading skills.

External Validity

• External validity is also of particular concern in social science experiments
• It can be very difficult to generalize experimental results to groups that were not included in the study
• Studies that randomly select participants from the most diverse and representative populations are more likely to have external validity
• The use of random sampling techniques makes it easier to generalize the results of studies to other groups

For example, a research study shows that a new curriculum improved reading comprehension of third-grade children in Iowa. To assess the study's external validity, you would ask whether this new curriculum would also be effective with third graders in New York or with children in other elementary grades.

Glossary terms related to validity:

• internal validity
• external validity
• differential attrition

It is particularly important in experimental research to follow ethical guidelines. Protecting the health and safety of research subjects is imperative. In order to assure subject safety, all researchers should have their project reviewed by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBS). The  National Institutes of Health  supplies strict guidelines for project approval. Many of these guidelines are based on the  Belmont Report  (pdf).

The basic ethical principles:

• Respect for persons  -- requires that research subjects are not coerced into participating in a study and requires the protection of research subjects who have diminished autonomy
• Beneficence  -- requires that experiments do not harm research subjects, and that researchers minimize the risks for subjects while maximizing the benefits for them
• Justice  -- requires that all forms of differential treatment among research subjects be justified

Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Design

The environment in which the research takes place can often be carefully controlled. Consequently, it is easier to estimate the true effect of the variable of interest on the outcome of interest.

Disadvantages

It is often difficult to assure the external validity of the experiment, due to the frequently nonrandom selection processes and the artificial nature of the experimental context.

• Voxco Online
• Voxco Panel Management
• Voxco Panel Portal
• Voxco Audience
• Voxco Mobile Offline
• Voxco Dialer Cloud
• Voxco Dialer On-premise
• Voxco TCPA Connect
• Voxco Analytics
• Voxco Text & Sentiment Analysis

• 40+ question types
• Drag-and-drop interface
• Skip logic and branching
• Multi-lingual survey
• Text piping
• Question library
• CSS customization
• White-label surveys
• Customizable ‘Thank You’ page
• Customizable survey theme
• Reminder send-outs
• Survey rewards
• Social media
• Website surveys
• Correlation analysis
• Cross-tabulation analysis
• Trend analysis
• Real-time dashboard
• Customizable report
• Email address validation
• Recaptcha validation
• SSL security

Take a peek at our powerful survey features to design surveys that scale discoveries.

Download feature sheet.

• Hospitality
• Academic Research
• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Product Experience
• Market Research
• Social Research
• Data Analysis

Explore Voxco 

Need to map Voxco’s features & offerings? We can help!

Watch a Demo 

Download Brochures 

Get a Quote

• NPS Calculator
• CES Calculator
• A/B Testing Calculator
• Margin of Error Calculator
• Sample Size Calculator
• CX Strategy & Management Hub
• Market Research Hub
• Patient Experience Hub
• Employee Experience Hub
• NPS Knowledge Hub
• Market Research Guide
• Customer Experience Guide
• Survey Research Guides
• Survey Template Library
• Webinars and Events
• Feature Sheets
• Try a sample survey
• Professional Services

Get exclusive insights into research trends and best practices from top experts! Access Voxco’s ‘State of Research Report 2024 edition’ .

We’ve been avid users of the Voxco platform now for over 20 years. It gives us the flexibility to routinely enhance our survey toolkit and provides our clients with a more robust dataset and story to tell their clients.

VP Innovation & Strategic Partnerships, The Logit Group

• Client Stories
• Voxco Reviews
• Why Voxco Research?
• Careers at Voxco
• Vulnerabilities and Ethical Hacking

Explore Regional Offices

• Survey Software The world’s leading omnichannel survey software
• Online Survey Tools Create sophisticated surveys with ease.
• Mobile Offline Conduct efficient field surveys.
• Text Analysis
• Close The Loop
• Automated Translations
• NPS Dashboard
• CATI Manage high volume phone surveys efficiently
• Cloud/On-premise Dialer TCPA compliant Cloud on-premise dialer
• IVR Survey Software Boost productivity with automated call workflows.
• Analytics Analyze survey data with visual dashboards
• Panel Manager Nurture a loyal community of respondents.
• Survey Portal Best-in-class user friendly survey portal.
• Voxco Audience Conduct targeted sample research in hours.
• Predictive Analytics
• Customer 360
• Customer Loyalty
• Fraud & Risk Management
• AI/ML Enablement Services
• Credit Underwriting

Find the best survey software for you! (Along with a checklist to compare platforms)

Get Buyer’s Guide

• 100+ question types
• SMS surveys
• Financial Services
• Banking & Financial Services
• Retail Solution
• Risk Management
• Customer Lifecycle Solutions
• Net Promoter Score
• Customer Behaviour Analytics
• Customer Segmentation
• Data Unification

Explore Voxco 

Watch a Demo 

Download Brochures 

• CX Strategy & Management Hub
• The Voxco Guide to Customer Experience
• Professional services
• Blogs & White papers
• Case Studies

Find the best customer experience platform

Uncover customer pain points, analyze feedback and run successful CX programs with the best CX platform for your team.

Get the Guide Now

VP Innovation & Strategic Partnerships, The Logit Group

• Why Voxco Intelligence?
• Our clients
• Client stories
• Featuresheets

True Experimental Design - Types & How to Conduct

SHARE THE ARTICLE ON

True-experimental research is often considered the most accurate research. A researcher has complete control over the process which helps reduce any error in the result. This also increases the confidence level of the research outcome. 

In this blog, we will explore in detail what it is, its various types, and how to conduct it in 7 steps.

What is a true experimental design?

True experimental design is a statistical approach to establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. This research method is the most accurate forms which provides substantial backing to support the existence of relationships.

There are three elements in this study that you need to fulfill in order to perform this type of research:

1. The existence of a control group:  The sample of participants is subdivided into 2 groups – one that is subjected to the experiment and so, undergoes changes and the other that does not. 

2. The presence of an independent variable:  Independent variables that influence the working of other variables must be there for the researcher to control and observe changes.

3.   Random assignment:  Participants must be randomly distributed within the groups.

Read how Voxco helped Brain Research improve research productivity by 60%.

“The platform extends our ability to productively manage our busy intercept survey projects, and the confidence to support major new clients.”

Laura Ruvalcaba, President & CEO, Brain Research

An example of true experimental design

A study to observe the effects of physical exercise on productivity levels can be conducted using a true experimental design.

Suppose a group of 300 people volunteer for a study involving office workers in their 20s. These 300 participants are randomly distributed into 3 groups. 

• 1st Group:  A control group that does not participate in exercising and has to carry on with their everyday schedule. 
• 2nd Group:  Asked to indulge in home workouts for 30-45 minutes every day for one month. 
• 3rd Group:  Has to work out 2 hours every day for a month. Both groups have to take one rest day per week.

In this research, the  level of physical exercise acts  as an  independent variable  while the  performance at the workplace  is a  dependent variable  that varies with the change in exercise levels.

Before initiating the true experimental research, each participant’s current performance at the workplace is evaluated and documented. As the study goes on, a progress report is generated for each of the 300 participants to monitor how their physical activity has impacted their workplace functioning.

At the end of two weeks, participants from the 2nd and 3rd groups that are able to endure their current level of workout, are asked to increase their daily exercise time by half an hour. While those that aren’t able to endure, are suggested to either continue with the same timing or fix the timing to a level that is half an hour lower. 

So, in this true experimental design a participant who at the end of two weeks is not able to put up with 2 hours of workout, will now workout for 1 hour and 30 minutes for the remaining tenure of two weeks while someone who can endure the 2 hours, will now push themselves towards 2 hours and 30 minutes.

In this manner, the researcher notes the timings of each member from the two active groups for the first two weeks and the remaining two weeks after the change in timings and also monitors their corresponding performance levels at work.

The above example can be categorized as true experiment research since now we have:

• Control group:  Group 1 carries on with their schedule without being conditioned to exercise.
• Independent variable : The duration of exercise each day.
• Random assignment:  300 participants are randomly distributed into 3 groups and as such, there are no criteria for the assignment.

What is the purpose of conducting true experimental research?

Both the primary usage and purpose of a true experimental design lie in establishing meaningful relationships based on quantitative surveillance. 

True experiments focus on connecting the dots between two or more variables by displaying how the change in one variable brings about a change in another variable. It can be as small a change as having enough sleep improves retention or as large scale as geographical differences affect consumer behavior. 

The main idea is to ensure the presence of different sets of variables to study with some shared commonality.

Beyond this, the research is used when the three criteria of random distribution, a control group, and an independent variable to be manipulated by the researcher, are met.

Voxco’s omnichannel survey software helps you collect insights from multiple channels using a single platform

See the true power of using an integrated survey platform to conduct online, offline, and phone surveys along with a built-in analytical suite.

What are the advantages of true experimental design?

Let’s take a look at some advantages that make this research design conclusive and accurate research.

Concrete method of research:

The statistical nature of the experimental design makes it highly credible and accurate. The data collected from the research is subjected to statistical tools. 

This makes the results easy to understand, objective and actionable. This makes it a better alternative to observation-based studies that are subjective and difficult to make inferences from.

Easy to understand and replicate:

Since the research provides hard figures and a precise representation of the entire process, the results presented become easily comprehensible for any stakeholder. 

Further, it becomes easier for future researchers conducting studies around the same subject to get a grasp of prior takes on the same and replicate its results to supplement their own research.

Establishes comparison:

The presence of a control group in true experimental research allows researchers to compare and contrast. The degree to which a methodology is applied to a group can be studied with respect to the end result as a frame of reference.

Conclusive:

The research combines observational and statistical analysis to generate informed conclusions. This directs the flow of follow-up actions in a definite direction, thus, making the research process fruitful.

What are the disadvantages of true experimental design?

We should also learn about the disadvantages it can pose in research to help you determine when and how you should use this type of research. 

This research design is costly. It takes a lot of investment in recruiting and managing a large number of participants which is necessary for the sample to be representative. 

The high resource investment makes it highly important for the researcher to plan each aspect of the process to its minute details.

Too idealistic:

The research takes place in a completely controlled environment. Such a scenario is not representative of real-world situations and so the results may not be authentic. 

T his is one of the main limitation why open-field research is preferred over lab research, wherein the researcher can influence the study.

Time-consuming:

Setting up and conducting a true experiment is highly time-consuming. This is because of the processes like recruiting a large enough sample, gathering respondent data, random distribution into groups, monitoring the process over a span of time, tracking changes, and making adjustments. 

The amount of processes, although essential to the entire model, is not a feasible option to go for when the results are required in the near future.

Now that we’ve learned about the advantages and disadvantages let’s look at its types.

Get started with your Experimental Research

Send your survey to the right people to receive quality responses.

What are the 3 types of true experimental design?

The research design is categorized into three types based on the way you should conduct the research. Each type has its own procedure and guidelines, which you should be aware of to achieve reliable data.  

The three types are: 

1) Post-test-only control group design. 

2) Pre-test post-test control group design.

3) Solomon four group control design.

Let’s see how these three types differ. 

1) Post-test-only control group design:

In this type of true experimental research, the control as well as the experimental group that has been formed using random allocation, are not tested before applying the experimental methodology. This is so as to avoid affecting the quality of the study.

The participants are always on the lookout to identify the purpose and criteria for assessment. Pre-test conveys to them the basis on which they are being judged which can allow them to modify their end responses, compromising the quality of the entire research process. 

However, this can hinder your ability to establish a comparison between the pre-experiment and post-experiment conditions which weighs in on the changes that have taken place over the course of the research.

2) Pre-test post-test control group design:

It is a modification of the post-test control group design with an additional test carried out before the implementation of the experimental methodology. 

This two-way testing method can help in noticing significant changes brought in the research groups as a result of the experimental intervention. There is no guarantee that the results present the true picture as post-testing can be affected due to the exposure of the respondents to the pre-test.

3) Solomon four group control design:

This type of true experimental design involves the random distribution of sample members into 4 groups. These groups consist of 2 control groups that are not subjected to the experiments and changes and 2 experimental groups that the experimental methodology applies to.

Out of these 4 groups, one control and one experimental group is used for pre-testing while all four groups are subjected to post-tests.

This way researcher gets to establish pre-test post-test contrast while there remains another set of respondents that have not been exposed to pre-tests and so, provide genuine post-test responses, thus, accounting for testing effects.

Explore all the survey question types possible on Voxco.

What is the difference between pre-experimental & true experimental research design.

Pre-experimental research helps determine the researchers’ intervention on a group of people. It is a step where you design the proper experiment to address a research question. 

True experiment defines that you are conducting the research. It helps establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the variables. 

We’ll discuss the differences between the two based on four categories, which are: 

• Observatory Vs. Statistical. 
• Absence Vs. Presence of control groups. 
• Non-randomization Vs. Randomization. 
• Feasibility test Vs. Conclusive test.

Let’s find the differences to better understand the two experiments. 

Observatory vs Statistical:

Pre-experimental research  is an observation-based model i.e. it is highly subjective and qualitative in nature. 

The true experimental design  offers an accurate analysis of the data collected using statistical data analysis tools.

Absence vs Presence of control groups:

Pre-experimental research  designs do not usually employ a control group which makes it difficult to establish contrast. 

While all three types of  true experiments  employ control groups.

Non-randomization vs Randomization:

Pre-experimental research  doesn’t use randomization in certain cases whereas 

True experimental research  always adheres to a randomization approach to group distribution.

Feasibility test vs Conclusive test:

Pre-tests  are used as a feasibility mechanism to see if the methodology being applied is actually suitable for the research purpose and whether it will have an impact or not.

While  true experiments  are conclusive in nature.

Guide to Descriptive Research

Learn the key steps of conducting descriptive research to uncover breakthrough insights into your target market.

7 Steps to conduct a true experimental research

It’s important to understand the steps/guidelines of research in order to maintain research integrity and gather valid and reliable data.  

We have explained 7 steps to conducting this research in detail. The TL;DR version of it is: 

1) Identify the research objective.

2) Identify independent and dependent variables.

3) Define and group the population.

4) Conduct Pre-tests.

5) Conduct the research.

6) Conduct post-tests.

7) Analyse the collected data. 

Now let’s explore these seven steps in true experimental design. 

1) Identify the research objective:

Identify the variables which you need to analyze for a cause-and-effect relationship. Deliberate which particular relationship study will help you make effective decisions and frame this research objective in one of the following manners:

• Determination of the impact of X on Y
• Studying how the usage/application of X causes Y

2) Identify independent and dependent variables:

Establish clarity as to what would be your controlling/independent variable and what variable would change and would be observed by the researcher. In the above samples, for research purposes, X is an independent variable & Y is a dependent variable.

3) Define and group the population:

Define the targeted audience for the true experimental design. It is out of this target audience that a sample needs to be selected for accurate research to be carried out. It is imperative that the target population gets defined in as much detail as possible.

To narrow the field of view, a random selection of individuals from the population is carried out. These are the selected respondents that help the researcher in answering their research questions. Post their selection, this sample of individuals gets randomly subdivided into control and experimental groups.

4) Conduct Pre-tests:

Before commencing with the actual study, pre-tests are to be carried out wherever necessary. These pre-tests take an assessment of the condition of the respondent so that an effective comparison between the pre and post-tests reveals the change brought about by the research.

5) Conduct the research:

Implement your experimental procedure with the experimental group created in the previous step in the true experimental design. Provide the necessary instructions and solve any doubts or queries that the participants might have. Monitor their practices and track their progress. Ensure that the intervention is being properly complied with, otherwise, the results can be tainted.

6) Conduct post-tests:

Gauge the impact that the intervention has had on the experimental group and compare it with the pre-tests. This is particularly important since the pre-test serves as a starting point from where all the changes that have been measured in the post-test, are the effect of the experimental intervention. 

So for example: If the pre-test in the above example shows that a particular customer service employee was able to solve 10 customer problems in two hours and the post-test conducted after a month of 2-hour workouts every day shows a boost of 5 additional customer problems being solved within those 2 hours, the additional 5 customer service calls that the employee makes is the result of the additional productivity gained by the employee as a result of putting in the requisite time

7) Analyse the collected data:

Use appropriate statistical tools to derive inferences from the data observed and collected. Correlational data analysis tools and tests of significance are highly effective relationship-based studies and so are highly applicable for true experimental research.

This step also includes differentiating between the pre and the post-tests for scoping in on the impact that the independent variable has had on the dependent variable. A contrast between the control group and the experimental groups sheds light on the change brought about within the span of the experiment and how much change is brought intentionally and is not caused by chance.

Voxco is trusted by 500+ global brands and top 50 MR firms to gather insights and take actions.

See how Voxco can help enhance your research efficiency.

Wrapping up;

This sums up everything about true experimental design. While it’s often considered complex and expensive, it is also one of the most accurate research.

The true experiment uses statistical analysis which ensures that your data is reliable and has a high confidence level. Curious to learn how you can use  survey software  to conduct your experimental research,  book a meeting with us .

• What is true experimental research design?

True experimental research design helps investigate the cause-and-effect relationships between the variables under study. The research method requires manipulating an independent variable, random assignment of participants to different groups, and measuring the dependent variable. 

• How does true experiment research differ from other research designs?

The true experiment uses random selection/assignment of participants in the group to minimize preexisting differences between groups. It allows researchers to make causal inferences about the influence of independent variables. This is the factor that makes it different from other research designs like correlational research. 

• What are the key components of true experimental research designs?

The following are the important factors of a true experimental design: 

• Manipulation of the independent variable. 
• Control groups. 
• Experiment groups. 
• Dependent variable. 
• Random assignment. 
• What are some advantages of true experiment design?

It enables you to establish causal relationships between variables and offers control over the confounding variables. Moreover, you can generalize the research findings to the target population. 

• What ethical considerations are important in a true experimental research design?

When conducting this research method, you must obtain informed consent from the participants. It’s important to ensure the confidentiality and privacy of the participants to minimize any risk or harm. 

Explore Voxco Survey Software

+ Omnichannel Survey Software 

+ Online Survey Software 

+ CATI Survey Software 

+ IVR Survey Software 

+ Market Research Tool

+ Customer Experience Tool 

+ Product Experience Software 

+ Enterprise Survey Software 

Causal Research

The use of Causal Research in making Business Decisions See what question types are possible with a sample survey! Try a Sample Survey Table of

Hcahps survey questions: definition and questions

Hcahps survey questions: definition and questions SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin Table of Contents What is Hcahps

Unveiling the Factors that Mold Your Brand’s Perception

Unveiling The Factors That Mold Your Brand Perception SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table of Contents It takes an average of 10 seconds for consumers to

Cluster Sampling – Definition and examples

Mastering the Methods of Cluster Sampling Get started with Voxco’s ultimate guide to sampling methods Download Free Sampling Methods Guide SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table

How Philip Huard Uses His Survey Programming Skills to Help Clients

The ebbs and flows in business can often cause a fluctuation in the demand for research. This applies to many different industries, in both public

Maximize The Value Of NPS Analysis For Your Business

Maximize The Value Of NPS Analysis For Your Business SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table of Contents NPS Analysis is important as it provides you with

We use cookies in our website to give you the best browsing experience and to tailor advertising. By continuing to use our website, you give us consent to the use of cookies. Read More

Understanding True Experiments in Psychology: Principles and Applications

True experiments in psychology are a crucial method used by researchers to test hypotheses, establish cause and effect relationships, and advance scientific knowledge. In this article, we will delve into the principles of true experiments, such as random assignment and manipulation of variables.

We will also explore how true experiments differ from other types of studies, the ethical considerations involved, and the limitations researchers face. Stay tuned to discover how researchers can improve the validity of true experiments and their applications in the field of psychology.

• Random assignment is a crucial principle in true experiments as it ensures that participants are assigned to groups without bias, increasing the validity of the study.
• Manipulation of the independent variable and control group are key elements in establishing cause and effect relationships in true experiments.
• True experiments have various applications such as testing hypotheses, identifying effective treatments, and advancing scientific knowledge in psychology.
• 1 What Are True Experiments in Psychology?
• 2.1 Random Assignment
• 2.2 Control Group
• 2.3 Manipulation of Independent Variable
• 2.4 Measurement of Dependent Variable
• 2.5 Elimination of Confounding Variables
• 3.1 Correlational Studies
• 3.2 Quasi-Experiments
• 3.3 Observational Studies
• 4.1 Testing Hypotheses
• 4.2 Establishing Cause and Effect Relationships
• 4.3 Replicating Previous Findings
• 4.4 Identifying Effective Treatments
• 4.5 Advancing Scientific Knowledge
• 5 What Are the Ethical Considerations in True Experiments?
• 6 What Are the Limitations of True Experiments?
• 7 How Can Researchers Improve the Validity of True Experiments?
• 8.1 What is a true experiment in psychology?
• 8.2 What are the principles of true experiments in psychology?
• 8.3 Why is random assignment important in true experiments?
• 8.4 How does manipulation of an independent variable work in true experiments?
• 8.5 How are extraneous variables controlled in true experiments?
• 8.6 What are some applications of true experiments in psychology?

What Are True Experiments in Psychology?

True experiments in psychology refer to research studies that involve the manipulation of an independent variable to observe the effects on a dependent variable within a controlled environment.

By manipulating the independent variable, researchers aim to determine causality relationships between variables, testing hypotheses and theories. This controlled setting ensures that any changes in the dependent variable are a direct result of the manipulated independent variable, helping to eliminate extraneous factors and increase the internal validity of the study.

Researchers carefully design these experiments, often using random assignment to assign participants to different conditions, minimizing the influence of individual differences. This rigorous methodology allows psychologists to draw reliable conclusions about human behavior and cognition.

What Are the Principles of True Experiments?

The principles of true experiments in psychology encompass key elements such as random assignment , control group implementation, and the manipulation of independent variables.

Random assignment is a crucial aspect of experimental design that involves assigning participants to different groups by chance to reduce biases and ensure that each participant has an equal chance of being in any group. This helps in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between variables.

Control group practices involve creating a group that does not receive the experimental treatment to serve as a benchmark for comparison, allowing researchers to assess the impact of the treatment.

The manipulation of variables refers to intentionally changing one variable to observe its effect on another, allowing researchers to test hypotheses and draw conclusions based on the results.

Random Assignment

Random assignment is a crucial aspect of true experiments, ensuring that participants are assigned to groups without bias or influence.

By randomly assigning individuals to different experimental groups, researchers can be more confident that any differences observed in the outcomes are due to the manipulation of the independent variable rather than individual characteristics.

This process helps eliminate selection bias, where certain characteristics of participants may influence group allocation, ultimately leading to distorted results.

The importance of random assignment lies in its ability to create comparable groups, making the conclusions drawn from the study more credible and generalizable.

Control Group

The control group in true experiments serves as a baseline for comparison, allowing researchers to assess the impact of the independent variable.

By isolating the variable of interest and comparing it to a group that does not receive the treatment or intervention, researchers can determine whether the observed effects are truly due to the independent variable. This group provides a standard of reference against which the experimental group is measured, ensuring that any changes or outcomes can be attributed accurately. Control groups play a crucial role in reducing bias and ensuring the validity of study results, helping researchers draw meaningful conclusions from their experiments.

Manipulation of Independent Variable

Manipulating the independent variable is a core component of true experiments, enabling researchers to assess its causal impact on the dependent variable.

By systematically varying the independent variable, researchers can observe how changes in the manipulated factor lead to changes in the dependent variable, thereby establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. This manipulation allows for controlling and testing different conditions to study the direct influence of the independent variable on the outcome. Through this process, researchers can deduce the extent to which the independent variable influences the dependent variable, aiding in drawing valid conclusions about the relationship between the two variables.

Measurement of Dependent Variable

The measurement of the dependent variable in true experiments involves assessing the outcome or response that is influenced by the manipulation of the independent variable.

In research studies, the process of measuring the dependent variable plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation. Researchers use various techniques to quantify and record the responses of participants to different conditions. This measurement step is essential for comparing the outcomes across different groups and evaluating the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable. Data collection tools such as surveys, questionnaires, observations, and physiological measurements are commonly employed to capture the relevant information accurately.

Elimination of Confounding Variables

Eliminating confounding variables is essential in true experiments to ensure that the observed effects are attributed to the manipulated variables rather than external influences.

To address confounding variables effectively, researchers employ various strategies to control and minimize the impact of extraneous factors.

One common approach is randomization, where participants are assigned to different experimental conditions randomly to distribute potential confounders evenly across groups.

Another method involves matching participants based on certain variables to ensure comparability between groups.

Researchers may use statistical techniques such as regression analysis to control for confounding variables during data analysis.

How Are True Experiments Different from Other Types of Studies?

True experiments in psychology differ from other types of studies such as correlational studies and quasi-experiments by their ability to establish causal relationships through controlled manipulation.

While correlational studies aim to identify relationships between variables without manipulating them, true experiments involve the deliberate manipulation of one or more factors to observe the effect on another variable. This manipulation allows researchers to assess causality effectively by controlling for confounding variables and random assignment of participants to experimental conditions.

With experimental designs, researchers can establish a cause-and-effect relationship, providing stronger evidence of the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable. This rigorous approach helps in drawing more definitive conclusions compared to observational or correlational studies.

Correlational Studies

Correlational studies in psychology focus on identifying relationships between variables without manipulating them, offering insights into associations and predictive patterns.

These studies are significant in understanding how variables interact in the natural world, providing crucial data for researchers to analyze and draw conclusions from. By examining the relationship between variables, researchers can determine if changes in one variable correspond with changes in another, revealing potential predictive patterns. This type of research design is valuable when it is not possible or ethical to manipulate certain variables, allowing researchers to observe and interpret connections without intervening. Through statistical analysis, correlational studies help establish the strength and direction of relationships between different factors, contributing to a deeper understanding of complex phenomena.

Quasi-Experiments

Quasi-experiments in psychology resemble true experiments but lack random assignment or full control over variables, often utilized when strict experimental conditions are challenging to implement.

This type of research design shares many similarities with traditional experiments, such as having a treatment group and a control group to analyze the effects of an independent variable. Without random assignment, researchers cannot ensure that participants are equally distributed between groups based on relevant factors, potentially impacting the internal validity of the study. The limitation in control and randomization in quasi-experiments leads to difficulties in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship definitively.

Observational Studies

Observational studies in psychology involve the systematic observation of behaviors, perceptions, or phenomena without intervention or manipulation, providing valuable insights into natural settings.

In these studies, researchers carefully examine how people interact with their environment and how certain stimuli influence their actions and reactions. Behavioral analysis plays a crucial role in understanding human nature and decision-making processes. By closely monitoring individuals in their everyday routines and environments, psychologists can uncover patterns, trends, and subconscious influences that might not be apparent in experimental settings.

What Are the Applications of True Experiments in Psychology?

True experiments play a vital role in psychology by testing hypotheses, establishing cause-and-effect relationships, replicating findings, and advancing scientific knowledge through systematic procedures.

One of the key elements of true experiments is hypothesis testing , where researchers formulate a clear statement to be tested through experimentation. This process allows them to investigate and validate theories in a controlled environment.

These experiments are essential for assessing causality , as they help determine if changes in one variable directly cause changes in another. This ability to establish cause-and-effect relationships is crucial for understanding the intricacies of human behavior and mental processes.

By focusing on these rigorous methods, psychologists can push the boundaries of scientific advancement and contribute valuable insights to the field.

Testing Hypotheses

One of the primary applications of true experiments in psychology is testing hypotheses by manipulating variables and analyzing the resulting data for empirical support.

Formulating a hypothesis is the initial step in this process. Researchers conceptualize a testable statement that predicts the relationship between variables. For instance, in a study examining the impact of music on concentration, the hypothesis could be that participants exposed to classical music will perform better on a cognitive task compared to those in a silent environment.

After establishing the hypothesis, the experiment is designed to manipulate the independent variable (in this case, music exposure) and measure the dependent variable (concentration level). Data collection methods, such as observation or surveys, are then employed to gather information.

Establishing Cause and Effect Relationships

True experiments excel in establishing cause-and-effect relationships, particularly in cognitive processing studies, by systematically manipulating variables to determine their impact on outcomes.

In cognitive psychology, researchers use true experiments to delve into the intricate mechanisms of cognitive processes, such as memory, attention, and perception. By carefully manipulating independent variables and observing changes in dependent variables, they can infer causal relationships and better understand the underlying cognitive mechanisms. This method allows researchers to draw reliable conclusions about how specific variables influence mental processes, contributing valuable insights to the field.

Replicating Previous Findings

True experiments contribute to replicating previous findings in psychology, especially in memory research, by confirming the reliability and validity of established results through rigorous experimentation.

In memory-related studies, replicating research findings becomes crucial to strengthen the scientific foundation and ensure the credibility of existing knowledge in cognitive processes. Through meticulous experimental design and methodological precision, researchers aim to validate the consistency of outcomes, providing a solid basis for generalizing findings to broader populations or contexts.

Result validation processes often involve conducting multiple trials, controlling for confounding variables, and utilizing statistical analyses to determine the robustness and significance of the obtained results. By meticulously following these steps, scientists can enhance the overall understanding of memory mechanisms and contribute to the advancement of psychological theories.

Identifying Effective Treatments

True experiments aid in identifying effective treatments and interventions in psychology, enabling researchers to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic approaches or behavioral modifications through controlled studies.

By establishing control over variables and random assignment of participants, true experiments establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the intervention and outcomes. These experiments often involve an experimental group receiving the treatment and a control group that does not, allowing researchers to compare results objectively.

The results obtained from true experiments provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of different therapeutic techniques and help psychologists tailor interventions to suit individual client needs. This evidence-based approach ensures that psychological interventions are not only well-founded but also have a higher chance of success.

Advancing Scientific Knowledge

True experiments are pivotal in advancing scientific knowledge in psychology, with EEG data studies exemplifying how controlled experimentation enhances our understanding of cognitive processes and brain functions.

Through true experiments, researchers are able to systematically manipulate variables to establish cause-and-effect relationships in their studies, providing valuable insights into complex neural mechanisms. The meticulous process of EEG data analysis in experimental settings allows scientists to observe real-time brain activity, monitor cognitive responses, and pinpoint specific brain regions involved in various tasks.

The applications of cognitive research are vast and impactful, ranging from exploring memory formation, attentional processes, language comprehension, to investigating neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. Understanding the intricacies of the brain through empirical research is crucial for developing effective interventions and treatments for cognitive impairments.

What Are the Ethical Considerations in True Experiments?

Ethical considerations in true experiments involve ensuring the well-being and rights of participants, obtaining informed consent, maintaining confidentiality, and adhering to ethical guidelines set by psychological associations.

Central to the ethical framework of true experiments is the fundamental principle of beneficence, where researchers must prioritize the welfare and best interests of those participating in the study. This encompasses not only physical health but also psychological and emotional aspects to ensure a holistic approach to participant protection. Informed consent plays a pivotal role, granting individuals the autonomy to make voluntary decisions regarding their involvement after being provided with all pertinent information. This transparent exchange is crucial for fostering trust and respect.

What Are the Limitations of True Experiments?

The limitations of true experiments in psychology include challenges related to controlling extraneous variables , generalizing findings to real-world scenarios, and addressing ethical constraints in experimental designs.

Extraneous variables, also known as confounding variables, can significantly impact the results of an experiment by introducing unintended influences that distort the relationships being studied. These variables are crucial to be managed effectively to ensure the internal validity of the study. Complete control over all extraneous variables is often impractical, especially in complex human behaviors where numerous factors can interact. This limitation highlights the need for researchers to carefully design experiments and utilize statistical techniques to minimize their effects.

How Can Researchers Improve the Validity of True Experiments?

Researchers can enhance the validity of true experiments in psychology by implementing rigorous scientific methods, conducting thorough data analysis, ensuring result reliability, and adhering to established research protocols.

One of the key strategies for enhancing experiment validity is to prioritize random assignment of participants to experimental groups, which helps control for confounding variables and increases the likelihood of establishing cause and effect relationships.

Researchers should carefully design control conditions to accurately measure the impact of the independent variable. Data validation processes such as peer review and replication studies play a vital role in confirming the robustness of experimental findings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a true experiment in psychology.

A true experiment in psychology is a research method in which an independent variable is manipulated to determine its effect on a dependent variable, while controlling for other variables that may influence the results.

What are the principles of true experiments in psychology?

The three main principles of true experiments in psychology are random assignment, manipulation of an independent variable, and control of extraneous variables.

Why is random assignment important in true experiments?

Random assignment helps to ensure that participants are assigned to different experimental groups by chance, reducing the likelihood of pre-existing differences between the groups that could affect the results.

How does manipulation of an independent variable work in true experiments?

The independent variable, often referred to as the treatment, is manipulated by the researcher to observe its effects on the dependent variable. This allows for the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships.

How are extraneous variables controlled in true experiments?

Extraneous variables, which are factors that may influence the results but are not the focus of the study, are controlled through various methods such as random assignment, use of control groups, and experimental design.

What are some applications of true experiments in psychology?

True experiments are commonly used in psychology to study the effects of various interventions or treatments on behavior or mental processes. They can also be used to test theories and hypotheses, and to determine the effectiveness of different strategies or programs.

Dr. Emily Tan is a researcher in the field of psychological assessment and testing. Her expertise includes the development and validation of psychological measures, with a particular interest in personality assessment. Dr. Tan’s work aims to improve the accuracy and ethical application of psychological tests in various settings, from clinical diagnostics to organizational hiring processes.

Similar Posts

The Importance of Psychometrics in Psychology

The article was last updated by Vanessa Patel on February 9, 2024. Psychometrics, a crucial field in psychology, plays a significant role in understanding human…

Exploring Case Studies in AP Psychology

The article was last updated by Nicholas Reed on February 8, 2024. Curious about the world of AP Psychology and the role case studies play…

Understanding the Psychology of Habits: How They Form and Influence Behavior

The article was last updated by Dr. Emily Tan on February 8, 2024. Have you ever wondered why we have certain behaviors that seem almost…

Understanding the Role of Median in Psychology: Statistical Insights

The article was last updated by Julian Torres on February 5, 2024. Have you ever wondered about the importance of median in psychology research? In…

Deciphering the Meaning of CRF in Psychological Context

The article was last updated by Samantha Choi on February 9, 2024. Curious about CRF in psychology? Wondering how it influences behavioral conditioning, learning, memory,…

Understanding CPI in Psychology: Definition and Significance

The article was last updated by Alicia Rhodes on February 4, 2024. Curious about what CPI in psychology is all about? This article will delve…

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

30 8.1 Experimental design: What is it and when should it be used?

Learning objectives.

• Define experiment
• Identify the core features of true experimental designs
• Describe the difference between an experimental group and a control group
• Identify and describe the various types of true experimental designs

Experiments are an excellent data collection strategy for social workers wishing to observe the effects of a clinical intervention or social welfare program. Understanding what experiments are and how they are conducted is useful for all social scientists, whether they actually plan to use this methodology or simply aim to understand findings from experimental studies. An experiment is a method of data collection designed to test hypotheses under controlled conditions. In social scientific research, the term experiment has a precise meaning and should not be used to describe all research methodologies.

Experiments have a long and important history in social science. Behaviorists such as John Watson, B. F. Skinner, Ivan Pavlov, and Albert Bandura used experimental design to demonstrate the various types of conditioning. Using strictly controlled environments, behaviorists were able to isolate a single stimulus as the cause of measurable differences in behavior or physiological responses. The foundations of social learning theory and behavior modification are found in experimental research projects. Moreover, behaviorist experiments brought psychology and social science away from the abstract world of Freudian analysis and towards empirical inquiry, grounded in real-world observations and objectively-defined variables. Experiments are used at all levels of social work inquiry, including agency-based experiments that test therapeutic interventions and policy experiments that test new programs.

Several kinds of experimental designs exist. In general, designs considered to be true experiments contain three basic key features:

• random assignment of participants into experimental and control groups
• a “treatment” (or intervention) provided to the experimental group
• measurement of the effects of the treatment in a post-test administered to both groups

Some true experiments are more complex.  Their designs can also include a pre-test and can have more than two groups, but these are the minimum requirements for a design to be a true experiment.

Experimental and control groups

In a true experiment, the effect of an intervention is tested by comparing two groups: one that is exposed to the intervention (the experimental group , also known as the treatment group) and another that does not receive the intervention (the control group ). Importantly, participants in a true experiment need to be randomly assigned to either the control or experimental groups. Random assignment uses a random number generator or some other random process to assign people into experimental and control groups. Random assignment is important in experimental research because it helps to ensure that the experimental group and control group are comparable and that any differences between the experimental and control groups are due to random chance. We will address more of the logic behind random assignment in the next section.

Treatment or intervention

In an experiment, the independent variable is receiving the intervention being tested—for example, a therapeutic technique, prevention program, or access to some service or support. It is less common in of social work research, but social science research may also have a stimulus, rather than an intervention as the independent variable. For example, an electric shock or a reading about death might be used as a stimulus to provoke a response.

In some cases, it may be immoral to withhold treatment completely from a control group within an experiment. If you recruited two groups of people with severe addiction and only provided treatment to one group, the other group would likely suffer. For these cases, researchers use a control group that receives “treatment as usual.” Experimenters must clearly define what treatment as usual means. For example, a standard treatment in substance abuse recovery is attending Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. A substance abuse researcher conducting an experiment may use twelve-step programs in their control group and use their experimental intervention in the experimental group. The results would show whether the experimental intervention worked better than normal treatment, which is useful information.

The dependent variable is usually the intended effect the researcher wants the intervention to have. If the researcher is testing a new therapy for individuals with binge eating disorder, their dependent variable may be the number of binge eating episodes a participant reports. The researcher likely expects her intervention to decrease the number of binge eating episodes reported by participants. Thus, she must, at a minimum, measure the number of episodes that occur after the intervention, which is the post-test .  In a classic experimental design, participants are also given a pretest to measure the dependent variable before the experimental treatment begins.

Types of experimental design

Let’s put these concepts in chronological order so we can better understand how an experiment runs from start to finish. Once you’ve collected your sample, you’ll need to randomly assign your participants to the experimental group and control group. In a common type of experimental design, you will then give both groups your pretest, which measures your dependent variable, to see what your participants are like before you start your intervention. Next, you will provide your intervention, or independent variable, to your experimental group, but not to your control group. Many interventions last a few weeks or months to complete, particularly therapeutic treatments. Finally, you will administer your post-test to both groups to observe any changes in your dependent variable. What we’ve just described is known as the classical experimental design and is the simplest type of true experimental design. All of the designs we review in this section are variations on this approach. Figure 8.1 visually represents these steps.

An interesting example of experimental research can be found in Shannon K. McCoy and Brenda Major’s (2003) study of people’s perceptions of prejudice. In one portion of this multifaceted study, all participants were given a pretest to assess their levels of depression. No significant differences in depression were found between the experimental and control groups during the pretest. Participants in the experimental group were then asked to read an article suggesting that prejudice against their own racial group is severe and pervasive, while participants in the control group were asked to read an article suggesting that prejudice against a racial group other than their own is severe and pervasive. Clearly, these were not meant to be interventions or treatments to help depression, but were stimuli designed to elicit changes in people’s depression levels. Upon measuring depression scores during the post-test period, the researchers discovered that those who had received the experimental stimulus (the article citing prejudice against their same racial group) reported greater depression than those in the control group. This is just one of many examples of social scientific experimental research.

In addition to classic experimental design, there are two other ways of designing experiments that are considered to fall within the purview of “true” experiments (Babbie, 2010; Campbell & Stanley, 1963).  The posttest-only control group design is almost the same as classic experimental design, except it does not use a pretest. Researchers who use posttest-only designs want to eliminate testing effects , in which participants’ scores on a measure change because they have already been exposed to it. If you took multiple SAT or ACT practice exams before you took the real one you sent to colleges, you’ve taken advantage of testing effects to get a better score. Considering the previous example on racism and depression, participants who are given a pretest about depression before being exposed to the stimulus would likely assume that the intervention is designed to address depression. That knowledge could cause them to answer differently on the post-test than they otherwise would. In theory, as long as the control and experimental groups have been determined randomly and are therefore comparable, no pretest is needed. However, most researchers prefer to use pretests in case randomization did not result in equivalent groups and to help assess change over time within both the experimental and control groups.

Researchers wishing to account for testing effects but also gather pretest data can use a Solomon four-group design. In the Solomon four-group design , the researcher uses four groups. Two groups are treated as they would be in a classic experiment—pretest, experimental group intervention, and post-test. The other two groups do not receive the pretest, though one receives the intervention. All groups are given the post-test. Table 8.1 illustrates the features of each of the four groups in the Solomon four-group design. By having one set of experimental and control groups that complete the pretest (Groups 1 and 2) and another set that does not complete the pretest (Groups 3 and 4), researchers using the Solomon four-group design can account for testing effects in their analysis.

Solomon four-group designs are challenging to implement in the real world because they are time- and resource-intensive. Researchers must recruit enough participants to create four groups and implement interventions in two of them.

Overall, true experimental designs are sometimes difficult to implement in a real-world practice environment. It may be impossible to withhold treatment from a control group or randomly assign participants in a study. In these cases, pre-experimental and quasi-experimental designs–which we  will discuss in the next section–can be used.  However, the differences in rigor from true experimental designs leave their conclusions more open to critique.

Experimental design in macro-level research

You can imagine that social work researchers may be limited in their ability to use random assignment when examining the effects of governmental policy on individuals.  For example, it is unlikely that a researcher could randomly assign some states to implement decriminalization of recreational marijuana and some states not to in order to assess the effects of the policy change.  There are, however, important examples of policy experiments that use random assignment, including the Oregon Medicaid experiment. In the Oregon Medicaid experiment, the wait list for Oregon was so long, state officials conducted a lottery to see who from the wait list would receive Medicaid (Baicker et al., 2013).  Researchers used the lottery as a natural experiment that included random assignment. People selected to be a part of Medicaid were the experimental group and those on the wait list were in the control group. There are some practical complications macro-level experiments, just as with other experiments.  For example, the ethical concern with using people on a wait list as a control group exists in macro-level research just as it does in micro-level research.

Key Takeaways

• True experimental designs require random assignment.
• Control groups do not receive an intervention, and experimental groups receive an intervention.
• The basic components of a true experiment include a pretest, posttest, control group, and experimental group.
• Testing effects may cause researchers to use variations on the classic experimental design.
• Classic experimental design- uses random assignment, an experimental and control group, as well as pre- and posttesting
• Control group- the group in an experiment that does not receive the intervention
• Experiment- a method of data collection designed to test hypotheses under controlled conditions
• Experimental group- the group in an experiment that receives the intervention
• Posttest- a measurement taken after the intervention
• Posttest-only control group design- a type of experimental design that uses random assignment, and an experimental and control group, but does not use a pretest
• Pretest- a measurement taken prior to the intervention
• Random assignment-using a random process to assign people into experimental and control groups
• Solomon four-group design- uses random assignment, two experimental and two control groups, pretests for half of the groups, and posttests for all
• Testing effects- when a participant’s scores on a measure change because they have already been exposed to it
• True experiments- a group of experimental designs that contain independent and dependent variables, pretesting and post testing, and experimental and control groups

Image attributions

exam scientific experiment by mohamed_hassan CC-0

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

True, Natural and Field Experiments An easy lesson idea for learning about experiments.

Travis Dixon September 29, 2016 Research Methodology

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

There is a difference between a “true experiment” a “field experiment” and  a “natural experiment”. These separate experimental methods are commonly used in psychological research and they each have their strengths and limitations.

True Experiments

Berry’s classic study compared two cultures in order to understand how economics, parenting and cultural values can influence behaviour. But what type of method would we call this?

A true experiment is one where:

• have randomly assigned participants to a condition (if using independent samples)

Repeated measures designs don’t need random allocation because there is no allocation as all participants do both conditions.

One potential issue in laboratory experiments is that they are conducted in environments that are not natural for the participants, so the behaviour might not reflect what happens in real life.

Field Experiments

A field experiment is one where:

• the researcher conducts an experiment by manipulating an IV,
• …and measuring the effects on the DV in a natural environment.

They still try to minimize the effects of other variables and to control for these, but it’s just happening in a natural environment: the field.

• Natural Experiment

A natural experiment is one where:

• the independent variable is naturally occurring. i.e. it hasn’t been manipulated by the researcher.

There are many instances where naturally occurring events or phenomenon may interest researchers. The issue with natural experiments is that it can’t be guaranteed that it is the independent variable that is having an effect on the dependent variable.

• Quantitative Research Methods Glossary
• Let’s STOP the research methods madness!
• What makes an experiment “quasi”?

Activity Idea

Students can work with a partner to decide if the following are true, field or natural experiments.

If you cant’ decide, what other information do you need?

• Berry’s cross-cultural study on conformity ( Key Study: Conformity Across Cultures (Berry, 1967)
• Bandura’s bobo doll study ( Key Study: Bandura’s Bobo Doll (1963)
• Rosenzweig’s rat study ( Key Study: Animal research on neuroplasticity (Rosenzweig and Bennett, 1961)

Let’s make it a bit trickier:

• Key Study: London Taxi Drivers vs. Bus Drivers (Maguire, 2006)
• Key Study: Evolution of Gender Differences in Sexual Behaviour (Clark and Hatfield, 1989)
• Key Study: Serotonin, tryptophan and the brain (Passamonti et al., 2012)
• Saint Helena Study : television was introduced on the island of Saint Helena in the Atlantic ocean and the researchers measured the behaviour of the kids before and after TV was introduced.
• Light Therapy : the researchers randomly assigned patients with depression into three different groups. The three groups received different forms of light therapy to treat depression (red light, bright light, soft light). The lights were installed in the participants’ bedrooms and were timed to come on naturally. The effects on depression were measured via interviews.

What are the strengths and limitations of:

• True Experiment 
• Field Experiment 

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

Psychology Sorted

Psychology for all, experimental methods explained.

The easiest one to define is the true experiment.  

Often called a ‘laboratory/lab’ experiment, this does not have to take place in a lab, but can be conducted in a classroom, office, waiting room, or even outside, providing it meets the criteria.  These are that allocation of participants to the two or more experimental (or experimental and control) groups or conditions is random and that the independent variable (IV) is manipulated by the researcher in order to measure the effect on the dependent variable (DV).  Other variables are carefully controlled, such as location, temperature, time of day, time taken for experiment, materials used, etc. This should result in a cause and effect relationship between the IV and the DV. Examples are randomised controlled drug trials or many of the cognitive experiments into memory, such as Glanzer and Cunitz_1966.

A field experiment is similar, in that individuals are usually randomly assigned to groups, where this is possible, and the IV is manipulated by the researcher. However, as this takes place in the participants’ natural surroundings, the extraneous variables that could confound the findings of the research are somewhat more difficult to control.  The implications for causation depend on how well these variables are controlled, and on the random allocation of participants.   Examples are bystander effect studies, and also research into the effect of digital technology on learning, such as that conducted by Hembrooke and Gay_2003 .

A quasi-experiment  is similar to either or both of the above, but the participants are not randomly allocated to groups.  Instead they are allocated on the basis of self-selection as male/female; left or right-handed; preference for coffee or tea; young/old, etc.  or researcher selection as scoring above or below and certain level on a pre-test; measured socio-economic status; psychology student or biology student, etc.  These are therefore, non-equivalent groups.  The IV is often manipulated and the DV measured as before, but the nature of the groups is a potential confounding variable.  If testing the effect of a new reading scheme on the reading ages of 11 year olds, a quasi-experimental design would allocate one class of 11 year olds to read using the scheme, and another to continue with the old scheme (control group), and then measure reading ages after a set period of time.  But there may have been other differences between the groups that mean a cause and effect relationship cannot be reliably established: those in the first class may also have already been better readers, or several months older, than those in the control group. Baseline pre-testing is one way around this, in which the students’ improvement is measured against their own earlier reading age, in a pre-test/post-test design.  In some quasi-experiments, the allocation to groups by certain criteria itself forms the IV, and the effects of gender, age or handedness on memory, for example, are measured. Examples are research into the efficacy of anti-depressants, when some participants are taking one anti-depressant and some another, or Caspi et al._2003 , who investigated whether a polymorphism on the serotonin transporter gene is linked to a higher or lower risk of individual depression in the face of different levels of perceived stress.

Finally, natural experiments are those in which there is no manipulation of the IV, because it is a naturally-occurring variable.  It may be an earthquake (IV) and measurement of people’s fear levels (DV) at living on a fault line before and after the event, or an increase in unemployment as a large factory closes (IV) and measurement of depression levels amongst adults of working age before and after the factory closure (DV). As with field experiments, many of the extraneous variables are difficult to control as the research takes place in people’s natural environment. A good example of a natural experiment is Charlton (1975) research into the effect of the introduction of television to the remote island of St. Helena.

The differences between quasi experiments and correlational research, and between natural experiments and case studies are sometimes hard to determine, so I would always encourage students to explain exactly why they are designating something as one or the other. We can’t always trust the original article either – Bartlett was happy to describe his studies as experiments, which they were not! Here’s hoping these examples have helped.  The following texts are super-useful, and were referred to while writing  this post.:

Campbell, D.T. & Stanley J.C . (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (ISBN 9780528614002)

Coolican, H. (2009, 5th ed.). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. UK: Hodder (ISBN 9780340983447)

Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (2001, 2nd ed.).  Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. UK: Wadsworth (ISBN 9780395615560)

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Experimental Design

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 28 August 2020
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Kim Koh 2  

75 Accesses

Experiments ; Randomized clinical trial ; Randomized trial

In quality-of-life and well-being research specifically, and in medical, nursing, social, educational, and psychological research more generally, experimental design can be used to test cause-and-effect relationships between the independent and dependent variables.

Description

Experimental design was pioneered by R. A. Fisher in the fields of agriculture and education (Fisher 1935 ). In studies that use experimental design, the independent variables are manipulated or controlled by researchers, which enables the testing of the cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables. An experimental design can control many threats to internal validity by using random assignment of participants to different treatment/intervention and control/comparison groups. Therefore, it is considered one of the most statistically robust designs in quality-of-life and well-being research, as well as in...

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Chicago: Rand MçNally & Company.

Google Scholar  

Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments . Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.

Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects: Using experimental designs and observational design . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Koh .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy

Filomena Maggino

Section Editor information

Department of ECPS & Intitute of Applied Mathematics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Bruno Zumbo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Koh, K. (2020). Experimental Design. In: Maggino, F. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_967-2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_967-2

Received : 11 October 2019

Accepted : 02 December 2019

Published : 28 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-69909-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-69909-7

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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

14.2 True experiments

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

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

A true experiment , often considered to be the “gold standard” in research designs, is thought of as one of the most rigorous of all research designs. In this design, one or more independent variables (as treatments) are manipulated by the researcher, subjects are randomly assigned (i.e., random assignment) to different treatment levels, and the results of the treatments on outcomes (dependent variables) are observed. The unique strength of experimental research is its ability to increase internal validity and help establish causality through treatment manipulation, while controlling for the effects of extraneous variables. As such they are best suited for explanatory research questions.

In true experimental design, research subjects are assigned to either an experimental group, which receives the treatment or intervention being investigated, or a control group, which does not.  Control groups may receive no treatment at all, the standard treatment (which is called “treatment as usual” or TAU), or a treatment that entails some type of contact or interaction without the characteristics of the intervention being investigated.  For example, the control group may participate in a support group while the experimental group is receiving a new group-based therapeutic intervention consisting of education and cognitive behavioral group therapy.

After determining the nature of the experimental and control groups, the next decision a researcher must make is when they need to collect data during their experiment. Do they take a baseline measurement and then a measurement after treatment, or just a measurement after treatment, or do they handle data collection another way? Below, we’ll discuss three main types of true experimental designs. There are sub-types of each of these designs, but here, we just want to get you started with some of the basics.

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

For the purposes of this section, let’s bring back the example of CBT for the treatment of social anxiety. We have a group of 500 individuals who have agreed to participate in our study, and we have randomly assigned them to the control and experimental groups. The participants in the experimental group will receive CBT, while the participants in the control group will receive a series of videos about social anxiety.

Classical experiments (pretest posttest control group design)

The elements of a classical experiment are (1) random assignment of participants into an experimental and control group, (2) a pretest to assess the outcome(s) of interest for each group, (3) delivery of an intervention/treatment to the experimental group, and (4) a posttest to both groups to assess potential change in the outcome(s).

When explaining experimental research designs, we often use diagrams with abbreviations to visually represent the components of the experiment. Table 14.2 starts us off by laying out what the abbreviations mean.

Figure 14.1 depicts a classical experiment using our example of assessing the intervention of CBT for social anxiety.  In the figure, RA denotes random assignment to the experimental group A and RB is random assignment to the control group B. O 1 (observation 1) denotes the pretest, X e denotes the experimental intervention, and O 2 (observation 2) denotes the posttest.

The more general, or universal, notation for classical experimental design is shown in Figure 14.2.

In a situation where the control group received treatment as usual instead of no intervention, the diagram would look this way (Figure 14.3), with X i denoting treatment as usual:

Hopefully, these diagrams provide you a visualization of how this type of experiment establishes temporality , a key component of a causal relationship. By administering the pretest, researchers can assess if the change in the outcome occured after the intervention. Assuming there is a change in the scores between the pretest and posttest, we would be able to say that yes, the change did occur after the intervention.

Posttest only control group design

Posttest only control group design involves only giving participants a posttest, just like it sounds. But why would you use this design instead of using a pretest posttest design? One reason could be to avoid potential testing effects that can happen when research participants take a pretest.

In research, the testing effect threatens internal validity when the pretest changes the way the participants respond on the posttest or subsequent assessments (Flannelly, Flannelly, & Jankowski, 2018). [1] A common example occurs when testing interventions for cognitive impairment in older adults. By taking a cognitive assessment during the pretest, participants get exposed to the items on the assessment and get to “practice” taking it (see for example, Cooley et al., 2015). [2] They may perform better the second time they take it because they have learned how to take the test, not because there have been changes in cognition. This specific type of testing effect is called the practice effect . [3]

The testing effect isn’t always bad in practice—our initial assessments might help clients identify or put into words feelings or experiences they are having when they haven’t been able to do that before. In research, however, we might want to control its effects to isolate a cleaner causal relationship between intervention and outcome. Going back to our CBT for social anxiety example, we might be concerned that participants would learn about social anxiety symptoms by virtue of taking a pretest. They might then identify that they have those symptoms on the posttest, even though they are not new symptoms for them. That could make our intervention look less effective than it actually is. To mitigate the influence of testing effects, posttest only control group designs do not administer a pretest to participants. Figure 14.4 depicts this.

A drawback to the posttest only control group design is that without a baseline measurement, establishing causality can be more difficult. If we don’t know someone’s state of mind before our intervention, how do we know our intervention did anything at all? Establishing time order is thus a little more difficult. The posttest only control group design relies on the random assignment to groups to create groups that are equivalent at baseline because, without a pretest, researchers cannot assess whether the groups are equivalent before the intervention. Researchers must balance this consideration with the benefits of this type of design.

Solomon four group design

One way we can possibly measure how much the testing effect threatens internal validity is with the Solomon four group design. Basically, as part of this experiment, there are two experimental groups and two control groups. The first pair of experimental/control groups receives both a pretest and a posttest. The other pair receives only a posttest (Figure 14.5). In addition to addressing testing effects, this design also addresses the problems of establishing time order and equivalent groups in posttest only control group designs.

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

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

Key Takeaways

• True experimental design is best suited for explanatory research questions.
• True experiments require random assignment of participants to control and experimental groups.
• Pretest posttest research design involves two points of measurement—one pre-intervention and one post-intervention.
• Posttest only research design involves only one point of measurement—after the intervention or treatment. It is a useful design to minimize the effect of testing effects on our results.
• Solomon four group research design involves both of the above types of designs, using 2 pairs of control and experimental groups. One group receives both a pretest and a posttest, while the other receives only a posttest. This can help uncover the influence of testing effects.

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

• Think about a true experiment you might conduct for your research project. Which design would be best for your research, and why?
• What challenges or limitations might make it unrealistic (or at least very complicated!) for you to carry your true experimental design in the real-world as a researcher?
• What hypothesis(es) would you test using this true experiment?

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

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

• Think about a true experiment you might conduct for this research project. Which design would be best for this research, and why?
• What challenges or limitations might make it unrealistic (or at least very complicated) for you to carry your true experimental design in the real-world as a researcher?
• Flannelly, K. J., Flannelly, L. T., & Jankowski, K. R. B. (2018). Threats to the internal validity of experimental and quasi-experimental research in healthcare. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, 24 (3), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.20 17.1421019 ↵
• Cooley, S. A., Heaps, J. M., Bolzenius, J. D., Salminen, L. E., Baker, L. M., Scott, S. E., & Paul, R. H. (2015). Longitudinal change in performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in older adults. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 824-835. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1087596 ↵
• Duff, K., Beglinger, L. J., Schultz, S. K., Moser, D. J., McCaffrey, R. J., Haase, R. F., Westervelt, H. J., Langbehn, D. R., Paulsen, J. S., & Huntington's Study Group (2007). Practice effects in the prediction of long-term cognitive outcome in three patient samples: a novel prognostic index. Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 22(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.08.013 ↵

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements in cognitive assessments due to exposure to the instrument

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

Share This Book

Module 2: Research Design - Section 2

• Section 1 Discussion
• Section 2 Discussion

Section 2: Experimental Studies

Unlike a descriptive study, an experiment is a study in which a treatment, procedure, or program is intentionally introduced and a result or outcome is observed. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines an experiment as "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried."

This means that no matter who the participant is, he/she has an equal chance of getting into all of the groups or treatments in an experiment. This process helps to ensure that the groups or treatments are similar at the beginning of the study so that there is more confidence that the manipulation (group or treatment) "caused" the outcome. More information about random assignment may be found in section Random assignment.

Definition : An experiment is a study in which a treatment, procedure, or program is intentionally introduced and a result or outcome is observed.

Case Example for Experimental Study

Experimental studies — example 1.

Experimental Studies — Example 2

A fitness instructor wants to test the effectiveness of a performance-enhancing herbal supplement on students in her exercise class. To create experimental groups that are similar at the beginning of the study, the students are assigned into two groups at random (they can not choose which group they are in). Students in both groups are given a pill to take every day, but they do not know whether the pill is a placebo (sugar pill) or the herbal supplement. The instructor gives Group A the herbal supplement and Group B receives the placebo (sugar pill). The students' fitness level is compared before and after six weeks of consuming the supplement or the sugar pill. No differences in performance ability were found between the two groups suggesting that the herbal supplement was not effective.

Email Updates

Frequently asked questions

What’s the difference between correlational and experimental research.

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

Frequently asked questions: Methodology

Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent—for example, in randomized controlled trials for medical research.

Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group . As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who stay in the study. Because of this, study results may be biased .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

To make quantitative observations , you need to use instruments that are capable of measuring the quantity you want to observe. For example, you might use a ruler to measure the length of an object or a thermometer to measure its temperature.

Criterion validity and construct validity are both types of measurement validity . In other words, they both show you how accurately a method measures something.

While construct validity is the degree to which a test or other measurement method measures what it claims to measure, criterion validity is the degree to which a test can predictively (in the future) or concurrently (in the present) measure something.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity . You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity in order to achieve construct validity.

Convergent validity and discriminant validity are both subtypes of construct validity . Together, they help you evaluate whether a test measures the concept it was designed to measure.

• Convergent validity indicates whether a test that is designed to measure a particular construct correlates with other tests that assess the same or similar construct.
• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related. This type of validity is also called divergent validity .

You need to assess both in order to demonstrate construct validity. Neither one alone is sufficient for establishing construct validity.

• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related

Content validity shows you how accurately a test or other measurement method taps  into the various aspects of the specific construct you are researching.

In other words, it helps you answer the question: “does the test measure all aspects of the construct I want to measure?” If it does, then the test has high content validity.

The higher the content validity, the more accurate the measurement of the construct.

If the test fails to include parts of the construct, or irrelevant parts are included, the validity of the instrument is threatened, which brings your results into question.

Face validity and content validity are similar in that they both evaluate how suitable the content of a test is. The difference is that face validity is subjective, and assesses content at surface level.

When a test has strong face validity, anyone would agree that the test’s questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure.

For example, looking at a 4th grade math test consisting of problems in which students have to add and multiply, most people would agree that it has strong face validity (i.e., it looks like a math test).

On the other hand, content validity evaluates how well a test represents all the aspects of a topic. Assessing content validity is more systematic and relies on expert evaluation. of each question, analyzing whether each one covers the aspects that the test was designed to cover.

A 4th grade math test would have high content validity if it covered all the skills taught in that grade. Experts(in this case, math teachers), would have to evaluate the content validity by comparing the test to the learning objectives.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method . Unlike probability sampling (which involves some form of random selection ), the initial individuals selected to be studied are the ones who recruit new participants.

Because not every member of the target population has an equal chance of being recruited into the sample, selection in snowball sampling is non-random.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method , where there is not an equal chance for every member of the population to be included in the sample .

This means that you cannot use inferential statistics and make generalizations —often the goal of quantitative research . As such, a snowball sample is not representative of the target population and is usually a better fit for qualitative research .

Snowball sampling relies on the use of referrals. Here, the researcher recruits one or more initial participants, who then recruit the next ones.

Participants share similar characteristics and/or know each other. Because of this, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, giving rise to sampling bias .

Snowball sampling is best used in the following cases:

• If there is no sampling frame available (e.g., people with a rare disease)
• If the population of interest is hard to access or locate (e.g., people experiencing homelessness)
• If the research focuses on a sensitive topic (e.g., extramarital affairs)

The reproducibility and replicability of a study can be ensured by writing a transparent, detailed method section and using clear, unambiguous language.

Reproducibility and replicability are related terms.

• Reproducing research entails reanalyzing the existing data in the same manner.
• Replicating (or repeating ) the research entails reconducting the entire analysis, including the collection of new data . 
• A successful reproduction shows that the data analyses were conducted in a fair and honest manner.
• A successful replication shows that the reliability of the results is high.

Stratified sampling and quota sampling both involve dividing the population into subgroups and selecting units from each subgroup. The purpose in both cases is to select a representative sample and/or to allow comparisons between subgroups.

The main difference is that in stratified sampling, you draw a random sample from each subgroup ( probability sampling ). In quota sampling you select a predetermined number or proportion of units, in a non-random manner ( non-probability sampling ).

Purposive and convenience sampling are both sampling methods that are typically used in qualitative data collection.

A convenience sample is drawn from a source that is conveniently accessible to the researcher. Convenience sampling does not distinguish characteristics among the participants. On the other hand, purposive sampling focuses on selecting participants possessing characteristics associated with the research study.

The findings of studies based on either convenience or purposive sampling can only be generalized to the (sub)population from which the sample is drawn, and not to the entire population.

Random sampling or probability sampling is based on random selection. This means that each unit has an equal chance (i.e., equal probability) of being included in the sample.

On the other hand, convenience sampling involves stopping people at random, which means that not everyone has an equal chance of being selected depending on the place, time, or day you are collecting your data.

Convenience sampling and quota sampling are both non-probability sampling methods. They both use non-random criteria like availability, geographical proximity, or expert knowledge to recruit study participants.

However, in convenience sampling, you continue to sample units or cases until you reach the required sample size.

In quota sampling, you first need to divide your population of interest into subgroups (strata) and estimate their proportions (quota) in the population. Then you can start your data collection, using convenience sampling to recruit participants, until the proportions in each subgroup coincide with the estimated proportions in the population.

A sampling frame is a list of every member in the entire population . It is important that the sampling frame is as complete as possible, so that your sample accurately reflects your population.

Stratified and cluster sampling may look similar, but bear in mind that groups created in cluster sampling are heterogeneous , so the individual characteristics in the cluster vary. In contrast, groups created in stratified sampling are homogeneous , as units share characteristics.

Relatedly, in cluster sampling you randomly select entire groups and include all units of each group in your sample. However, in stratified sampling, you select some units of all groups and include them in your sample. In this way, both methods can ensure that your sample is representative of the target population .

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

The key difference between observational studies and experimental designs is that a well-done observational study does not influence the responses of participants, while experiments do have some sort of treatment condition applied to at least some participants by random assignment .

An observational study is a great choice for you if your research question is based purely on observations. If there are ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , an observational study may be a good choice. In an observational study, there is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, as well as no control or treatment groups .

It’s often best to ask a variety of people to review your measurements. You can ask experts, such as other researchers, or laypeople, such as potential participants, to judge the face validity of tests.

While experts have a deep understanding of research methods , the people you’re studying can provide you with valuable insights you may have missed otherwise.

Face validity is important because it’s a simple first step to measuring the overall validity of a test or technique. It’s a relatively intuitive, quick, and easy way to start checking whether a new measure seems useful at first glance.

Good face validity means that anyone who reviews your measure says that it seems to be measuring what it’s supposed to. With poor face validity, someone reviewing your measure may be left confused about what you’re measuring and why you’re using this method.

Face validity is about whether a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to measure. This type of validity is concerned with whether a measure seems relevant and appropriate for what it’s assessing only on the surface.

Statistical analyses are often applied to test validity with data from your measures. You test convergent validity and discriminant validity with correlations to see if results from your test are positively or negatively related to those of other established tests.

You can also use regression analyses to assess whether your measure is actually predictive of outcomes that you expect it to predict theoretically. A regression analysis that supports your expectations strengthens your claim of construct validity .

When designing or evaluating a measure, construct validity helps you ensure you’re actually measuring the construct you’re interested in. If you don’t have construct validity, you may inadvertently measure unrelated or distinct constructs and lose precision in your research.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity ,  because it covers all of the other types. You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity to achieve construct validity.

Construct validity is about how well a test measures the concept it was designed to evaluate. It’s one of four types of measurement validity , which includes construct validity, face validity , and criterion validity.

There are two subtypes of construct validity.

• Convergent validity : The extent to which your measure corresponds to measures of related constructs
• Discriminant validity : The extent to which your measure is unrelated or negatively related to measures of distinct constructs

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.

You can think of naturalistic observation as “people watching” with a purpose.

A dependent variable is what changes as a result of the independent variable manipulation in experiments . It’s what you’re interested in measuring, and it “depends” on your independent variable.

In statistics, dependent variables are also called:

• Response variables (they respond to a change in another variable)
• Outcome variables (they represent the outcome you want to measure)
• Left-hand-side variables (they appear on the left-hand side of a regression equation)

An independent variable is the variable you manipulate, control, or vary in an experimental study to explore its effects. It’s called “independent” because it’s not influenced by any other variables in the study.

Independent variables are also called:

• Explanatory variables (they explain an event or outcome)
• Predictor variables (they can be used to predict the value of a dependent variable)
• Right-hand-side variables (they appear on the right-hand side of a regression equation).

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

• Open-ended and flexible
• Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
• Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
• Unbiased and neutral

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when: 

• You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
• You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyze your data quickly and efficiently.
• Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant.

More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

• You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.

Unstructured interviews are best used when:

• You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
• You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualize your initial thoughts and hypotheses.
• Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts.

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research .

In research, you might have come across something called the hypothetico-deductive method . It’s the scientific method of testing hypotheses to check whether your predictions are substantiated by real-world data.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally.

Here are a few common types:

• Inductive generalization : You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from.
• Statistical generalization: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
• Causal reasoning: You make cause-and-effect links between different things.
• Sign reasoning: You make a conclusion about a correlational relationship between different things.
• Analogical reasoning: You make a conclusion about something based on its similarities to something else.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

In inductive research , you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad scan of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Triangulation can help:

• Reduce research bias that comes from using a single method, theory, or investigator
• Enhance validity by approaching the same topic with different tools
• Establish credibility by giving you a complete picture of the research problem

But triangulation can also pose problems:

• It’s time-consuming and labor-intensive, often involving an interdisciplinary team.
• Your results may be inconsistent or even contradictory.

There are four main types of triangulation :

• Data triangulation : Using data from different times, spaces, and people
• Investigator triangulation : Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analyzing data
• Theory triangulation : Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research
• Methodological triangulation : Using different methodologies to approach the same topic

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.

You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.

Exploratory research is a methodology approach that explores research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. It is often used when the issue you’re studying is new, or the data collection process is challenging in some way.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.

Clean data are valid, accurate, complete, consistent, unique, and uniform. Dirty data include inconsistencies and errors.

Dirty data can come from any part of the research process, including poor research design , inappropriate measurement materials, or flawed data entry.

Data cleaning takes place between data collection and data analyses. But you can use some methods even before collecting data.

For clean data, you should start by designing measures that collect valid data. Data validation at the time of data entry or collection helps you minimize the amount of data cleaning you’ll need to do.

After data collection, you can use data standardization and data transformation to clean your data. You’ll also deal with any missing values, outliers, and duplicate values.

Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.

These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.

Data cleaning is necessary for valid and appropriate analyses. Dirty data contain inconsistencies or errors , but cleaning your data helps you minimize or resolve these.

Without data cleaning, you could end up with a Type I or II error in your conclusion. These types of erroneous conclusions can be practically significant with important consequences, because they lead to misplaced investments or missed opportunities.

Data cleaning involves spotting and resolving potential data inconsistencies or errors to improve your data quality. An error is any value (e.g., recorded weight) that doesn’t reflect the true value (e.g., actual weight) of something that’s being measured.

In this process, you review, analyze, detect, modify, or remove “dirty” data to make your dataset “clean.” Data cleaning is also called data cleansing or data scrubbing.

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

In multistage sampling , you can use probability or non-probability sampling methods .

For a probability sample, you have to conduct probability sampling at every stage.

You can mix it up by using simple random sampling , systematic sampling , or stratified sampling to select units at different stages, depending on what is applicable and relevant to your study.

Multistage sampling can simplify data collection when you have large, geographically spread samples, and you can obtain a probability sample without a complete sampling frame.

But multistage sampling may not lead to a representative sample, and larger samples are needed for multistage samples to achieve the statistical properties of simple random samples .

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

• Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analyzed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions. 
• Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
• Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualize your quantitative findings.
• Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

In multistage sampling , or multistage cluster sampling, you draw a sample from a population using smaller and smaller groups at each stage.

This method is often used to collect data from a large, geographically spread group of people in national surveys, for example. You take advantage of hierarchical groupings (e.g., from state to city to neighborhood) to create a sample that’s less expensive and time-consuming to collect data from.

No, the steepness or slope of the line isn’t related to the correlation coefficient value. The correlation coefficient only tells you how closely your data fit on a line, so two datasets with the same correlation coefficient can have very different slopes.

To find the slope of the line, you’ll need to perform a regression analysis .

Correlation coefficients always range between -1 and 1.

The sign of the coefficient tells you the direction of the relationship: a positive value means the variables change together in the same direction, while a negative value means they change together in opposite directions.

The absolute value of a number is equal to the number without its sign. The absolute value of a correlation coefficient tells you the magnitude of the correlation: the greater the absolute value, the stronger the correlation.

These are the assumptions your data must meet if you want to use Pearson’s r :

• Both variables are on an interval or ratio level of measurement
• Data from both variables follow normal distributions
• Your data have no outliers
• Your data is from a random or representative sample
• You expect a linear relationship between the two variables

Quantitative research designs can be divided into two main categories:

• Correlational and descriptive designs are used to investigate characteristics, averages, trends, and associations between variables.
• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to test causal relationships .

Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible. Common types of qualitative design include case study , ethnography , and grounded theory designs.

A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.

The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:

• Your research questions and/or hypotheses
• Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
• The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
• Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
• Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
• Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
• Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests  or thematic analysis )

A research design is a strategy for answering your   research question . It defines your overall approach and determines how you will collect and analyze data.

Questionnaires can be self-administered or researcher-administered.

Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered online or in paper-and-pen formats, in person or through mail. All questions are standardized so that all respondents receive the same questions with identical wording.

Researcher-administered questionnaires are interviews that take place by phone, in-person, or online between researchers and respondents. You can gain deeper insights by clarifying questions for respondents or asking follow-up questions.

You can organize the questions logically, with a clear progression from simple to complex, or randomly between respondents. A logical flow helps respondents process the questionnaire easier and quicker, but it may lead to bias. Randomization can minimize the bias from order effects.

Closed-ended, or restricted-choice, questions offer respondents a fixed set of choices to select from. These questions are easier to answer quickly.

Open-ended or long-form questions allow respondents to answer in their own words. Because there are no restrictions on their choices, respondents can answer in ways that researchers may not have otherwise considered.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

Correlation describes an association between variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other (i.e., there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables). The two variables are correlated with each other, and there’s also a causal link between them.

While causation and correlation can exist simultaneously, correlation does not imply causation. In other words, correlation is simply a relationship where A relates to B—but A doesn’t necessarily cause B to happen (or vice versa). Mistaking correlation for causation is a common error and can lead to false cause fallacy .

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

Random error  is almost always present in scientific studies, even in highly controlled settings. While you can’t eradicate it completely, you can reduce random error by taking repeated measurements, using a large sample, and controlling extraneous variables .

You can avoid systematic error through careful design of your sampling , data collection , and analysis procedures. For example, use triangulation to measure your variables using multiple methods; regularly calibrate instruments or procedures; use random sampling and random assignment ; and apply masking (blinding) where possible.

Systematic error is generally a bigger problem in research.

With random error, multiple measurements will tend to cluster around the true value. When you’re collecting data from a large sample , the errors in different directions will cancel each other out.

Systematic errors are much more problematic because they can skew your data away from the true value. This can lead you to false conclusions ( Type I and II errors ) about the relationship between the variables you’re studying.

Random and systematic error are two types of measurement error.

Random error is a chance difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a researcher misreading a weighing scale records an incorrect measurement).

Systematic error is a consistent or proportional difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a miscalibrated scale consistently records weights as higher than they actually are).

On graphs, the explanatory variable is conventionally placed on the x-axis, while the response variable is placed on the y-axis.

• If you have quantitative variables , use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your response variable is categorical, use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your explanatory variable is categorical, use a bar graph.

The term “ explanatory variable ” is sometimes preferred over “ independent variable ” because, in real world contexts, independent variables are often influenced by other variables. This means they aren’t totally independent.

Multiple independent variables may also be correlated with each other, so “explanatory variables” is a more appropriate term.

The difference between explanatory and response variables is simple:

• An explanatory variable is the expected cause, and it explains the results.
• A response variable is the expected effect, and it responds to other variables.

In a controlled experiment , all extraneous variables are held constant so that they can’t influence the results. Controlled experiments require:

• A control group that receives a standard treatment, a fake treatment, or no treatment.
• Random assignment of participants to ensure the groups are equivalent.

Depending on your study topic, there are various other methods of controlling variables .

There are 4 main types of extraneous variables :

• Demand characteristics : environmental cues that encourage participants to conform to researchers’ expectations.
• Experimenter effects : unintentional actions by researchers that influence study outcomes.
• Situational variables : environmental variables that alter participants’ behaviors.
• Participant variables : any characteristic or aspect of a participant’s background that could affect study results.

An extraneous variable is any variable that you’re not investigating that can potentially affect the dependent variable of your research study.

A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that not only affects the dependent variable, but is also related to the independent variable.

In a factorial design, multiple independent variables are tested.

If you test two variables, each level of one independent variable is combined with each level of the other independent variable to create different conditions.

Within-subjects designs have many potential threats to internal validity , but they are also very statistically powerful .

Advantages:

• Only requires small samples
• Statistically powerful
• Removes the effects of individual differences on the outcomes

Disadvantages:

• Internal validity threats reduce the likelihood of establishing a direct relationship between variables
• Time-related effects, such as growth, can influence the outcomes
• Carryover effects mean that the specific order of different treatments affect the outcomes

While a between-subjects design has fewer threats to internal validity , it also requires more participants for high statistical power than a within-subjects design .

• Prevents carryover effects of learning and fatigue.
• Shorter study duration.
• Needs larger samples for high power.
• Uses more resources to recruit participants, administer sessions, cover costs, etc.
• Individual differences may be an alternative explanation for results.

Yes. Between-subjects and within-subjects designs can be combined in a single study when you have two or more independent variables (a factorial design). In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within subjects.

In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.

In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.

The word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.

Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.

In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.

To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .

Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a dice to randomly assign participants to groups.

Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.

In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.

Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalizability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.

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

“Controlling for a variable” means measuring extraneous variables and accounting for them statistically to remove their effects on other variables.

Researchers often model control variable data along with independent and dependent variable data in regression analyses and ANCOVAs . That way, you can isolate the control variable’s effects from the relationship between the variables of interest.

Control variables help you establish a correlational or causal relationship between variables by enhancing internal validity .

If you don’t control relevant extraneous variables , they may influence the outcomes of your study, and you may not be able to demonstrate that your results are really an effect of your independent variable .

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

Including mediators and moderators in your research helps you go beyond studying a simple relationship between two variables for a fuller picture of the real world. They are important to consider when studying complex correlational or causal relationships.

Mediators are part of the causal pathway of an effect, and they tell you how or why an effect takes place. Moderators usually help you judge the external validity of your study by identifying the limitations of when the relationship between variables holds.

If something is a mediating variable :

• It’s caused by the independent variable .
• It influences the dependent variable
• When it’s taken into account, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when it isn’t considered.

A confounder is a third variable that affects variables of interest and makes them seem related when they are not. In contrast, a mediator is the mechanism of a relationship between two variables: it explains the process by which they are related.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

There are three key steps in systematic sampling :

• Define and list your population , ensuring that it is not ordered in a cyclical or periodic order.
• Decide on your sample size and calculate your interval, k , by dividing your population by your target sample size.
• Choose every k th member of the population as your sample.

Systematic sampling is a probability sampling method where researchers select members of the population at a regular interval – for example, by selecting every 15th person on a list of the population. If the population is in a random order, this can imitate the benefits of simple random sampling .

Yes, you can create a stratified sample using multiple characteristics, but you must ensure that every participant in your study belongs to one and only one subgroup. In this case, you multiply the numbers of subgroups for each characteristic to get the total number of groups.

For example, if you were stratifying by location with three subgroups (urban, rural, or suburban) and marital status with five subgroups (single, divorced, widowed, married, or partnered), you would have 3 x 5 = 15 subgroups.

You should use stratified sampling when your sample can be divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups that you believe will take on different mean values for the variable that you’re studying.

Using stratified sampling will allow you to obtain more precise (with lower variance ) statistical estimates of whatever you are trying to measure.

For example, say you want to investigate how income differs based on educational attainment, but you know that this relationship can vary based on race. Using stratified sampling, you can ensure you obtain a large enough sample from each racial group, allowing you to draw more precise conclusions.

In stratified sampling , researchers divide subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, educational attainment).

Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method.

Cluster sampling is more time- and cost-efficient than other probability sampling methods , particularly when it comes to large samples spread across a wide geographical area.

However, it provides less statistical certainty than other methods, such as simple random sampling , because it is difficult to ensure that your clusters properly represent the population as a whole.

There are three types of cluster sampling : single-stage, double-stage and multi-stage clustering. In all three types, you first divide the population into clusters, then randomly select clusters for use in your sample.

• In single-stage sampling , you collect data from every unit within the selected clusters.
• In double-stage sampling , you select a random sample of units from within the clusters.
• In multi-stage sampling , you repeat the procedure of randomly sampling elements from within the clusters until you have reached a manageable sample.

Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which you divide a population into clusters, such as districts or schools, and then randomly select some of these clusters as your sample.

The clusters should ideally each be mini-representations of the population as a whole.

If properly implemented, simple random sampling is usually the best sampling method for ensuring both internal and external validity . However, it can sometimes be impractical and expensive to implement, depending on the size of the population to be studied,

If you have a list of every member of the population and the ability to reach whichever members are selected, you can use simple random sampling.

The American Community Survey  is an example of simple random sampling . In order to collect detailed data on the population of the US, the Census Bureau officials randomly select 3.5 million households per year and use a variety of methods to convince them to fill out the survey.

Simple random sampling is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants from a population . Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data is then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset.

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

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

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

Blinding is important to reduce research bias (e.g., observer bias , demand characteristics ) and ensure a study’s internal validity .

If participants know whether they are in a control or treatment group , they may adjust their behavior in ways that affect the outcome that researchers are trying to measure. If the people administering the treatment are aware of group assignment, they may treat participants differently and thus directly or indirectly influence the final results.

• In a single-blind study , only the participants are blinded.
• In a double-blind study , both participants and experimenters are blinded.
• In a triple-blind study , the assignment is hidden not only from participants and experimenters, but also from the researchers analyzing the data.

Blinding means hiding who is assigned to the treatment group and who is assigned to the control group in an experiment .

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.

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.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyze your data.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. It is made up of 4 or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with 5 or 7 possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

In scientific research, concepts are the abstract ideas or phenomena that are being studied (e.g., educational achievement). Variables are properties or characteristics of the concept (e.g., performance at school), while indicators are ways of measuring or quantifying variables (e.g., yearly grade reports).

The process of turning abstract concepts into measurable variables and indicators is called operationalization .

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Operationalization means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioral avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalize the variables that you want to measure.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
• You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

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.

A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.

Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.

To ensure the internal validity of your research, you must consider the impact of confounding variables. If you fail to account for them, you might over- or underestimate the causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables , or even find a causal relationship where none exists.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both!

You want to find out how blood sugar levels are affected by drinking diet soda and regular soda, so you conduct an experiment .

• The type of soda – diet or regular – is the independent variable .
• The level of blood sugar that you measure is the dependent variable – it changes depending on the type of soda.

Determining cause and effect is one of the most important parts of scientific research. It’s essential to know which is the cause – the independent variable – and which is the effect – the dependent variable.

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

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

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

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

Using careful research design and sampling procedures can help you avoid sampling bias . Oversampling can be used to correct undercoverage bias .

Some common types of sampling bias include self-selection bias , nonresponse bias , undercoverage bias , survivorship bias , pre-screening or advertising bias, and healthy user bias.

Sampling bias is a threat to external validity – it limits the generalizability of your findings to a broader group of people.

A sampling error is the difference between a population parameter and a sample statistic .

A statistic refers to measures about the sample , while a parameter refers to measures about the population .

Populations are used when a research question requires data from every member of the population. This is usually only feasible when the population is small and easily accessible.

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

There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment and situation effect.

The two types of external validity are population validity (whether you can generalize to other groups of people) and ecological validity (whether you can generalize to other situations and settings).

The external validity of a study is the extent to which you can generalize your findings to different groups of people, situations, and measures.

Cross-sectional studies cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship or analyze behavior over a period of time. To investigate cause and effect, you need to do a longitudinal study or an experimental study .

Cross-sectional studies are less expensive and time-consuming than many other types of study. They can provide useful insights into a population’s characteristics and identify correlations for further research.

Sometimes only cross-sectional data is available for analysis; other times your research question may only require a cross-sectional study to answer it.

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long.

The 1970 British Cohort Study , which has collected data on the lives of 17,000 Brits since their births in 1970, is one well-known example of a longitudinal study .

Longitudinal studies are better to establish the correct sequence of events, identify changes over time, and provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships, but they also tend to be more expensive and time-consuming than other types of studies.

Longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies are two different types of research design . In a cross-sectional study you collect data from a population at a specific point in time; in a longitudinal study you repeatedly collect data from the same sample over an extended period of time.

There are eight threats to internal validity : history, maturation, instrumentation, testing, selection bias , regression to the mean, social interaction and attrition .

Internal validity is the extent to which you can be confident that a cause-and-effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

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.

Discrete and continuous variables are two types of quantitative variables :

• Discrete variables represent counts (e.g. the number of objects in a collection).
• Continuous variables represent measurable amounts (e.g. water volume or weight).

Quantitative variables are any variables where the data represent amounts (e.g. height, weight, or age).

Categorical variables are any variables where the data represent groups. This includes rankings (e.g. finishing places in a race), classifications (e.g. brands of cereal), and binary outcomes (e.g. coin flips).

You need to know what type of variables you are working with to choose the right statistical test for your data and interpret your results .

You can think of independent and dependent variables in terms of cause and effect: an independent variable is the variable you think is the cause , while a dependent variable is the effect .

In an experiment, you manipulate the independent variable and measure the outcome in the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment about the effect of nutrients on crop growth:

• The  independent variable  is the amount of nutrients added to the crop field.
• The  dependent variable is the biomass of the crops at harvest time.

Defining your variables, and deciding how you will manipulate and measure them, is an important part of experimental design .

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.

I nternal validity is the degree of confidence that the causal relationship you are testing is not influenced by other factors or variables .

External validity is the extent to which your results can be generalized to other contexts.

The validity of your experiment depends on your experimental design .

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

The Difference Between a True Experiment & a Correlational Study in Psychology

In daily life, the word "experiment" usually means to try something new. But in psychology, an experiment is not always the bearer of results; sometimes it's a correlational study, which collects data and performs statistical analysis but isn't quite an experiment. The difference between an experiment and a correlational study involves many technical differences, many of which are statistical in nature.

Scientists Identify Subjects

When you perform an experiment or a correlational study, you have at least two groups of data points, representing people. One difference lies in how you identify those groups of data points. Sometimes, you, the psychologist, define the groups because you want to submit a "generic" sample of data for two or more different situations. In this case, those situations, chosen by you, identify the difference between the groups. For example, you might perform a study in which you give water to some students while giving an energy drink to others, observing how each group of students reacts to a psychological stimulus such as an annoying person entering the room. This study is an experiment because you had the power to control the groups, assigning each individual to a random group: water or energy drink. The members of groups in an experiment are called "subjects."

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

More For You

Role of statistics in biology, topics for experiments in ecology, part of brain that has superior math skills, does listening to music while doing homework affect your grade in school, what things in biology are density dependent, participants identify themselves.

For a correlational study, your data points identify themselves by providing you with information about themselves. For example, you might collect people from a college classroom and ask them whether they drink energy drinks. From there, you could label them, not assign them, as two groups: energy-drink drinkers and non-energy-drink drinkers. You might then compare the two groups on items such as test scores or IQ, seeing whether any differences between the groups exist. The lack of randomization in such a study makes it a correlational study. The members of groups in a correlational study are called "participants."

If You Can Do It, So Can I

An important concept in psychology is that of "replication," the ability to copy the work of other psychologists and get the same results. For example, if Bob from next door claims to have discovered playing classical music makes his children more obedient, his experiment should be replicated by other psychologists before the media starts encouraging homes to play Mozart. But replication is only for experiments. In correlational studies, replication is impossible. This is especially true for cases in which replication would be unethical, such as in a correlational study that finds heavy cocaine users having smaller vocabularies. To replicate such a finding, a psychologist would have to give subjects large amounts of cocaine for a long time, which would be unethical for several reasons. Thus, while experiments have the concept of replication, correlational studies often inform psychologists of phenomena that they could not produce through experiments.

They Thought of Everything!

A valid experiment must handle the many nuisance factors that come along with performing an experiment. If an experimenter fails to address a nuisance factor, other psychologists will doubt whether the experiment's results were due to what the original experimenter claims or whether they're a product of the nuisance factors. For example, if you are performing an experiment on human concentration and you have subjects come into your laboratory throughout the week, the day becomes a nuisance factor. Some researchers would be able to claim that the experiment is invalid because people are better focused on certain days of the week. Your subjects might be more stressed out on Monday and have better concentration on Saturday, for instance. If your goal of the study is to test a different variable, such as the music you expose them to, the day of the week can be a nuisance factor. To solve this problem, you would have to make the day of the week constant for all subjects, such as by only performing the experiment on Wednesday.

Out of Control

Correlational students lack the control of experiments. Psychologists collecting data cannot control the environments from which the data came. For example, when polling people on the types of music they listen to, psychologists would be unlikely to ask people what days of the week they listen to certain types of music because most people simple wouldn't be able to recall. Instead, correlational studies look at the overall trends, not the minute details. So while a correlational study might find that people who listen to classical music perform better on the SAT, psychologists would rarely say the result is causal; that is, few psychologists would claim that listening to classical music actually raises your SAT score. Instead, it's likely that other factors are at play, such as people who listen to classical being more likely to come from higher-income families, who have access to tutors and better schools. So while a correlational study can give much information on general trends, the overall lack of control in such a study precludes the ability to determine the presence of cause-and-effect relationships.

• Pearson Education: Overview of Logic and Language of Psychology Research
• Cogprints: Methods in Psychological Research
• MHHE: Psychology's Scientific Methods
• Indiana University: The Relationship Between Theory and Research

Having obtained a Master of Science in psychology in East Asia, Damon Verial has been applying his knowledge to related topics since 2010. Having written professionally since 2001, he has been featured in financial publications such as SafeHaven and the McMillian Portfolio. He also runs a financial newsletter at Stock Barometer.