goal of quasi experimental research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples

Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples

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

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

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

Example of a true experiment vs a quasi-experiment

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

Instead, you can use a quasi-experimental design.

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

Nonequivalent groups design

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

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

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

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

Regression discontinuity

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

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

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

Natural experiments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Thomas, L. (2024, January 22). Quasi-Experimental Design | Definition, Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quasi-experimental-design/

Is this article helpful?

Lauren Thomas

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Quasi-Experimental Research Design – Types, Methods

Quasi-Experimental Research Design – Types, Methods

Table of Contents

Quasi-Experimental Design

Quasi-experimental design is a research method that seeks to evaluate the causal relationships between variables, but without the full control over the independent variable(s) that is available in a true experimental design.

In a quasi-experimental design, the researcher uses an existing group of participants that is not randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. Instead, the groups are selected based on pre-existing characteristics or conditions, such as age, gender, or the presence of a certain medical condition.

Types of Quasi-Experimental Design

There are several types of quasi-experimental designs that researchers use to study causal relationships between variables. Here are some of the most common types:

Non-Equivalent Control Group Design

This design involves selecting two groups of participants that are similar in every way except for the independent variable(s) that the researcher is testing. One group receives the treatment or intervention being studied, while the other group does not. The two groups are then compared to see if there are any significant differences in the outcomes.

Interrupted Time-Series Design

This design involves collecting data on the dependent variable(s) over a period of time, both before and after an intervention or event. The researcher can then determine whether there was a significant change in the dependent variable(s) following the intervention or event.

Pretest-Posttest Design

This design involves measuring the dependent variable(s) before and after an intervention or event, but without a control group. This design can be useful for determining whether the intervention or event had an effect, but it does not allow for control over other factors that may have influenced the outcomes.

Regression Discontinuity Design

This design involves selecting participants based on a specific cutoff point on a continuous variable, such as a test score. Participants on either side of the cutoff point are then compared to determine whether the intervention or event had an effect.

Natural Experiments

This design involves studying the effects of an intervention or event that occurs naturally, without the researcher’s intervention. For example, a researcher might study the effects of a new law or policy that affects certain groups of people. This design is useful when true experiments are not feasible or ethical.

Data Analysis Methods

Here are some data analysis methods that are commonly used in quasi-experimental designs:

Descriptive Statistics

This method involves summarizing the data collected during a study using measures such as mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation. Descriptive statistics can help researchers identify trends or patterns in the data, and can also be useful for identifying outliers or anomalies.

Inferential Statistics

This method involves using statistical tests to determine whether the results of a study are statistically significant. Inferential statistics can help researchers make generalizations about a population based on the sample data collected during the study. Common statistical tests used in quasi-experimental designs include t-tests, ANOVA, and regression analysis.

Propensity Score Matching

This method is used to reduce bias in quasi-experimental designs by matching participants in the intervention group with participants in the control group who have similar characteristics. This can help to reduce the impact of confounding variables that may affect the study’s results.

Difference-in-differences Analysis

This method is used to compare the difference in outcomes between two groups over time. Researchers can use this method to determine whether a particular intervention has had an impact on the target population over time.

Interrupted Time Series Analysis

This method is used to examine the impact of an intervention or treatment over time by comparing data collected before and after the intervention or treatment. This method can help researchers determine whether an intervention had a significant impact on the target population.

Regression Discontinuity Analysis

This method is used to compare the outcomes of participants who fall on either side of a predetermined cutoff point. This method can help researchers determine whether an intervention had a significant impact on the target population.

Steps in Quasi-Experimental Design

Here are the general steps involved in conducting a quasi-experimental design:

• Identify the research question: Determine the research question and the variables that will be investigated.
• Choose the design: Choose the appropriate quasi-experimental design to address the research question. Examples include the pretest-posttest design, non-equivalent control group design, regression discontinuity design, and interrupted time series design.
• Select the participants: Select the participants who will be included in the study. Participants should be selected based on specific criteria relevant to the research question.
• Measure the variables: Measure the variables that are relevant to the research question. This may involve using surveys, questionnaires, tests, or other measures.
• Implement the intervention or treatment: Implement the intervention or treatment to the participants in the intervention group. This may involve training, education, counseling, or other interventions.
• Collect data: Collect data on the dependent variable(s) before and after the intervention. Data collection may also include collecting data on other variables that may impact the dependent variable(s).
• Analyze the data: Analyze the data collected to determine whether the intervention had a significant impact on the dependent variable(s).
• Draw conclusions: Draw conclusions about the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. If the results suggest a causal relationship, then appropriate recommendations may be made based on the findings.

Quasi-Experimental Design Examples

Here are some examples of real-time quasi-experimental designs:

• Evaluating the impact of a new teaching method: In this study, a group of students are taught using a new teaching method, while another group is taught using the traditional method. The test scores of both groups are compared before and after the intervention to determine whether the new teaching method had a significant impact on student performance.
• Assessing the effectiveness of a public health campaign: In this study, a public health campaign is launched to promote healthy eating habits among a targeted population. The behavior of the population is compared before and after the campaign to determine whether the intervention had a significant impact on the target behavior.
• Examining the impact of a new medication: In this study, a group of patients is given a new medication, while another group is given a placebo. The outcomes of both groups are compared to determine whether the new medication had a significant impact on the targeted health condition.
• Evaluating the effectiveness of a job training program : In this study, a group of unemployed individuals is enrolled in a job training program, while another group is not enrolled in any program. The employment rates of both groups are compared before and after the intervention to determine whether the training program had a significant impact on the employment rates of the participants.
• Assessing the impact of a new policy : In this study, a new policy is implemented in a particular area, while another area does not have the new policy. The outcomes of both areas are compared before and after the intervention to determine whether the new policy had a significant impact on the targeted behavior or outcome.

Applications of Quasi-Experimental Design

Here are some applications of quasi-experimental design:

• Educational research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions, such as new teaching methods, technology-based learning, or educational policies.
• Health research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the effectiveness of health interventions, such as new medications, public health campaigns, or health policies.
• Social science research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to investigate the impact of social interventions, such as job training programs, welfare policies, or criminal justice programs.
• Business research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the impact of business interventions, such as marketing campaigns, new products, or pricing strategies.
• Environmental research: Quasi-experimental designs are used to evaluate the impact of environmental interventions, such as conservation programs, pollution control policies, or renewable energy initiatives.

When to use Quasi-Experimental Design

Here are some situations where quasi-experimental designs may be appropriate:

• When the research question involves investigating the effectiveness of an intervention, policy, or program : In situations where it is not feasible or ethical to randomly assign participants to intervention and control groups, quasi-experimental designs can be used to evaluate the impact of the intervention on the targeted outcome.
• When the sample size is small: In situations where the sample size is small, it may be difficult to randomly assign participants to intervention and control groups. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to investigate the impact of an intervention without requiring a large sample size.
• When the research question involves investigating a naturally occurring event : In some situations, researchers may be interested in investigating the impact of a naturally occurring event, such as a natural disaster or a major policy change. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to evaluate the impact of the event on the targeted outcome.
• When the research question involves investigating a long-term intervention: In situations where the intervention or program is long-term, it may be difficult to randomly assign participants to intervention and control groups for the entire duration of the intervention. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to evaluate the impact of the intervention over time.
• When the research question involves investigating the impact of a variable that cannot be manipulated : In some situations, it may not be possible or ethical to manipulate a variable of interest. Quasi-experimental designs can be used to investigate the relationship between the variable and the targeted outcome.

Purpose of Quasi-Experimental Design

The purpose of quasi-experimental design is to investigate the causal relationship between two or more variables when it is not feasible or ethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Quasi-experimental designs attempt to emulate the randomized control trial by mimicking the control group and the intervention group as much as possible.

The key purpose of quasi-experimental design is to evaluate the impact of an intervention, policy, or program on a targeted outcome while controlling for potential confounding factors that may affect the outcome. Quasi-experimental designs aim to answer questions such as: Did the intervention cause the change in the outcome? Would the outcome have changed without the intervention? And was the intervention effective in achieving its intended goals?

Quasi-experimental designs are useful in situations where randomized controlled trials are not feasible or ethical. They provide researchers with an alternative method to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, policies, and programs in real-life settings. Quasi-experimental designs can also help inform policy and practice by providing valuable insights into the causal relationships between variables.

Overall, the purpose of quasi-experimental design is to provide a rigorous method for evaluating the impact of interventions, policies, and programs while controlling for potential confounding factors that may affect the outcome.

Advantages of Quasi-Experimental Design

Quasi-experimental designs have several advantages over other research designs, such as:

• Greater external validity : Quasi-experimental designs are more likely to have greater external validity than laboratory experiments because they are conducted in naturalistic settings. This means that the results are more likely to generalize to real-world situations.
• Ethical considerations: Quasi-experimental designs often involve naturally occurring events, such as natural disasters or policy changes. This means that researchers do not need to manipulate variables, which can raise ethical concerns.
• More practical: Quasi-experimental designs are often more practical than experimental designs because they are less expensive and easier to conduct. They can also be used to evaluate programs or policies that have already been implemented, which can save time and resources.
• No random assignment: Quasi-experimental designs do not require random assignment, which can be difficult or impossible in some cases, such as when studying the effects of a natural disaster. This means that researchers can still make causal inferences, although they must use statistical techniques to control for potential confounding variables.
• Greater generalizability : Quasi-experimental designs are often more generalizable than experimental designs because they include a wider range of participants and conditions. This can make the results more applicable to different populations and settings.

Limitations of Quasi-Experimental Design

There are several limitations associated with quasi-experimental designs, which include:

• Lack of Randomization: Quasi-experimental designs do not involve randomization of participants into groups, which means that the groups being studied may differ in important ways that could affect the outcome of the study. This can lead to problems with internal validity and limit the ability to make causal inferences.
• Selection Bias: Quasi-experimental designs may suffer from selection bias because participants are not randomly assigned to groups. Participants may self-select into groups or be assigned based on pre-existing characteristics, which may introduce bias into the study.
• History and Maturation: Quasi-experimental designs are susceptible to history and maturation effects, where the passage of time or other events may influence the outcome of the study.
• Lack of Control: Quasi-experimental designs may lack control over extraneous variables that could influence the outcome of the study. This can limit the ability to draw causal inferences from the study.
• Limited Generalizability: Quasi-experimental designs may have limited generalizability because the results may only apply to the specific population and context being studied.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Triangulation in Research – Types, Methods and...

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Correlational Research – Methods, Types and...

Experimental Design – Types, Methods, Guide

Descriptive Research Design – Types, Methods and...

Transformative Design – Methods, Types, Guide

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

7.3 Quasi-Experimental Research

Learning objectives.

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

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

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—perhaps a type of psychotherapy or an educational intervention. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here.

Nonequivalent Groups Design

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

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

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

Pretest-Posttest Design

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

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

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

Does Psychotherapy Work?

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 3.0.

Interrupted Time Series Design

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

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

Figure 7.5 A Hypothetical Interrupted Time-Series Design

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

Combination Designs

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

• regression to the mean
• spontaneous remission

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

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

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

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

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Quasi-Experimental Design: Definition, Types, Examples

Appinio Research · 19.12.2023 · 37min read

Ever wondered how researchers uncover cause-and-effect relationships in the real world, where controlled experiments are often elusive? Quasi-experimental design holds the key. In this guide, we'll unravel the intricacies of quasi-experimental design, shedding light on its definition, purpose, and applications across various domains. Whether you're a student, a professional, or simply curious about the methods behind meaningful research, join us as we delve into the world of quasi-experimental design, making complex concepts sound simple and embarking on a journey of knowledge and discovery.

What is Quasi-Experimental Design?

Quasi-experimental design is a research methodology used to study the effects of independent variables on dependent variables when full experimental control is not possible or ethical. It falls between controlled experiments, where variables are tightly controlled, and purely observational studies, where researchers have little control over variables. Quasi-experimental design mimics some aspects of experimental research but lacks randomization.

The primary purpose of quasi-experimental design is to investigate cause-and-effect relationships between variables in real-world settings. Researchers use this approach to answer research questions, test hypotheses, and explore the impact of interventions or treatments when they cannot employ traditional experimental methods. Quasi-experimental studies aim to maximize internal validity and make meaningful inferences while acknowledging practical constraints and ethical considerations.

Quasi-Experimental vs. Experimental Design

It's essential to understand the distinctions between Quasi-Experimental and Experimental Design to appreciate the unique characteristics of each approach:

• Randomization:  In Experimental Design, random assignment of participants to groups is a defining feature. Quasi-experimental design, on the other hand, lacks randomization due to practical constraints or ethical considerations.
• Control Groups :  Experimental Design typically includes control groups that are subjected to no treatment or a placebo. The quasi-experimental design may have comparison groups but lacks the same level of control.
• Manipulation of IV:  Experimental Design involves the intentional manipulation of the independent variable. Quasi-experimental design often deals with naturally occurring independent variables.
• Causal Inference:  Experimental Design allows for stronger causal inferences due to randomization and control. Quasi-experimental design permits causal inferences but with some limitations.

When to Use Quasi-Experimental Design?

A quasi-experimental design is particularly valuable in several situations:

• Ethical Constraints:  When manipulating the independent variable is ethically unacceptable or impractical, quasi-experimental design offers an alternative to studying naturally occurring variables.
• Real-World Settings:  When researchers want to study phenomena in real-world contexts, quasi-experimental design allows them to do so without artificial laboratory settings.
• Limited Resources:  In cases where resources are limited and conducting a controlled experiment is cost-prohibitive, quasi-experimental design can provide valuable insights.
• Policy and Program Evaluation:  Quasi-experimental design is commonly used in evaluating the effectiveness of policies, interventions, or programs that cannot be randomly assigned to participants.

Importance of Quasi-Experimental Design in Research

Quasi-experimental design plays a vital role in research for several reasons:

• Addressing Real-World Complexities:  It allows researchers to tackle complex real-world issues where controlled experiments are not feasible. This bridges the gap between controlled experiments and purely observational studies.
• Ethical Research:  It provides an honest approach when manipulating variables or assigning treatments could harm participants or violate ethical standards.
• Policy and Practice Implications:  Quasi-experimental studies generate findings with direct applications in policy-making and practical solutions in fields such as education, healthcare, and social sciences.
• Enhanced External Validity:  Findings from Quasi-Experimental research often have high external validity, making them more applicable to broader populations and contexts.

By embracing the challenges and opportunities of quasi-experimental design, researchers can contribute valuable insights to their respective fields and drive positive changes in the real world.

Key Concepts in Quasi-Experimental Design

In quasi-experimental design, it's essential to grasp the fundamental concepts underpinning this research methodology. Let's explore these key concepts in detail.

Independent Variable

The independent variable (IV) is the factor you aim to study or manipulate in your research. Unlike controlled experiments, where you can directly manipulate the IV, quasi-experimental design often deals with naturally occurring variables. For example, if you're investigating the impact of a new teaching method on student performance, the teaching method is your independent variable.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable (DV) is the outcome or response you measure to assess the effects of changes in the independent variable. Continuing with the teaching method example, the dependent variable would be the students' academic performance, typically measured using test scores, grades, or other relevant metrics.

Control Groups vs. Comparison Groups

While quasi-experimental design lacks the luxury of randomly assigning participants to control and experimental groups, you can still establish comparison groups to make meaningful inferences. Control groups consist of individuals who do not receive the treatment, while comparison groups are exposed to different levels or variations of the treatment. These groups help researchers gauge the effect of the independent variable.

Pre-Test and Post-Test Measures

In quasi-experimental design, it's common practice to collect data both before and after implementing the independent variable. The initial data (pre-test) serves as a baseline, allowing you to measure changes over time (post-test). This approach helps assess the impact of the independent variable more accurately. For instance, if you're studying the effectiveness of a new drug, you'd measure patients' health before administering the drug (pre-test) and afterward (post-test).

Threats to Internal Validity

Internal validity is crucial for establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables. However, in a quasi-experimental design, several threats can compromise internal validity. These threats include:

• Selection Bias :  When non-randomized groups differ systematically in ways that affect the study's outcome.
• History Effects:  External events or changes over time that influence the results.
• Maturation Effects:  Natural changes or developments that occur within participants during the study.
• Regression to the Mean:  The tendency for extreme scores on a variable to move closer to the mean upon retesting.
• Attrition and Mortality:  The loss of participants over time, potentially skewing the results.
• Testing Effects:  The mere act of testing or assessing participants can impact their subsequent performance.

Understanding these threats is essential for designing and conducting Quasi-Experimental studies that yield valid and reliable results.

Randomization and Non-Randomization

In traditional experimental designs, randomization is a powerful tool for ensuring that groups are equivalent at the outset of a study. However, quasi-experimental design often involves non-randomization due to the nature of the research. This means that participants are not randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Instead, researchers must employ various techniques to minimize biases and ensure that the groups are as similar as possible.

For example, if you are conducting a study on the effects of a new teaching method in a real classroom setting, you cannot randomly assign students to the treatment and control groups. Instead, you might use statistical methods to match students based on relevant characteristics such as prior academic performance or socioeconomic status. This matching process helps control for potential confounding variables, increasing the validity of your study.

Types of Quasi-Experimental Designs

In quasi-experimental design, researchers employ various approaches to investigate causal relationships and study the effects of independent variables when complete experimental control is challenging. Let's explore these types of quasi-experimental designs.

One-Group Posttest-Only Design

The One-Group Posttest-Only Design is one of the simplest forms of quasi-experimental design. In this design, a single group is exposed to the independent variable, and data is collected only after the intervention has taken place. Unlike controlled experiments, there is no comparison group. This design is useful when researchers cannot administer a pre-test or when it is logistically difficult to do so.

Example : Suppose you want to assess the effectiveness of a new time management seminar. You offer the seminar to a group of employees and measure their productivity levels immediately afterward to determine if there's an observable impact.

One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design

Similar to the One-Group Posttest-Only Design, this approach includes a pre-test measure in addition to the post-test. Researchers collect data both before and after the intervention. By comparing the pre-test and post-test results within the same group, you can gain a better understanding of the changes that occur due to the independent variable.

Example : If you're studying the impact of a stress management program on participants' stress levels, you would measure their stress levels before the program (pre-test) and after completing the program (post-test) to assess any changes.

Non-Equivalent Groups Design

The Non-Equivalent Groups Design involves multiple groups, but they are not randomly assigned. Instead, researchers must carefully match or control for relevant variables to minimize biases. This design is particularly useful when random assignment is not possible or ethical.

Example : Imagine you're examining the effectiveness of two teaching methods in two different schools. You can't randomly assign students to the schools, but you can carefully match them based on factors like age, prior academic performance, and socioeconomic status to create equivalent groups.

Time Series Design

Time Series Design is an approach where data is collected at multiple time points before and after the intervention. This design allows researchers to analyze trends and patterns over time, providing valuable insights into the sustained effects of the independent variable.

Example : If you're studying the impact of a new marketing campaign on product sales, you would collect sales data at regular intervals (e.g., monthly) before and after the campaign's launch to observe any long-term trends.

Regression Discontinuity Design

Regression Discontinuity Design is employed when participants are assigned to different groups based on a specific cutoff score or threshold. This design is often used in educational and policy research to assess the effects of interventions near a cutoff point.

Example : Suppose you're evaluating the impact of a scholarship program on students' academic performance. Students who score just above or below a certain GPA threshold are assigned differently to the program. This design helps assess the program's effectiveness at the cutoff point.

Propensity Score Matching

Propensity Score Matching is a technique used to create comparable treatment and control groups in non-randomized studies. Researchers calculate propensity scores based on participants' characteristics and match individuals in the treatment group to those in the control group with similar scores.

Example : If you're studying the effects of a new medication on patient outcomes, you would use propensity scores to match patients who received the medication with those who did not but have similar health profiles.

Interrupted Time Series Design

The Interrupted Time Series Design involves collecting data at multiple time points before and after the introduction of an intervention. However, in this design, the intervention occurs at a specific point in time, allowing researchers to assess its immediate impact.

Example : Let's say you're analyzing the effects of a new traffic management system on traffic accidents. You collect accident data before and after the system's implementation to observe any abrupt changes right after its introduction.

Each of these quasi-experimental designs offers unique advantages and is best suited to specific research questions and scenarios. Choosing the right design is crucial for conducting robust and informative studies.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Quasi-Experimental Design

Quasi-experimental design offers a valuable research approach, but like any methodology, it comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Let's explore these in detail.

Quasi-Experimental Design Advantages

Quasi-experimental design presents several advantages that make it a valuable tool in research:

• Real-World Applicability:  Quasi-experimental studies often take place in real-world settings, making the findings more applicable to practical situations. Researchers can examine the effects of interventions or variables in the context where they naturally occur.
• Ethical Considerations:  In situations where manipulating the independent variable in a controlled experiment would be unethical, quasi-experimental design provides an ethical alternative. For example, it would be unethical to assign participants to smoke for a study on the health effects of smoking, but you can study naturally occurring groups of smokers and non-smokers.
• Cost-Efficiency:  Conducting Quasi-Experimental research is often more cost-effective than conducting controlled experiments. The absence of controlled environments and extensive manipulations can save both time and resources.

These advantages make quasi-experimental design an attractive choice for researchers facing practical or ethical constraints in their studies.

Quasi-Experimental Design Disadvantages

However, quasi-experimental design also comes with its share of challenges and disadvantages:

• Limited Control:  Unlike controlled experiments, where researchers have full control over variables, quasi-experimental design lacks the same level of control. This limited control can result in confounding variables that make it difficult to establish causality.
• Threats to Internal Validity:  Various threats to internal validity, such as selection bias, history effects, and maturation effects, can compromise the accuracy of causal inferences. Researchers must carefully address these threats to ensure the validity of their findings.
• Causality Inference Challenges:  Establishing causality can be challenging in quasi-experimental design due to the absence of randomization and control. While you can make strong arguments for causality, it may not be as conclusive as in controlled experiments.
• Potential Confounding Variables:  In a quasi-experimental design, it's often challenging to control for all possible confounding variables that may affect the dependent variable. This can lead to uncertainty in attributing changes solely to the independent variable.

Despite these disadvantages, quasi-experimental design remains a valuable research tool when used judiciously and with a keen awareness of its limitations. Researchers should carefully consider their research questions and the practical constraints they face before choosing this approach.

How to Conduct a Quasi-Experimental Study?

Conducting a Quasi-Experimental study requires careful planning and execution to ensure the validity of your research. Let's dive into the essential steps you need to follow when conducting such a study.

1. Define Research Questions and Objectives

The first step in any research endeavor is clearly defining your research questions and objectives. This involves identifying the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV) you want to study. What is the specific relationship you want to explore, and what do you aim to achieve with your research?

• Specify Your Research Questions :  Start by formulating precise research questions that your study aims to answer. These questions should be clear, focused, and relevant to your field of study.
• Identify the Independent Variable:  Define the variable you intend to manipulate or study in your research. Understand its significance in your study's context.
• Determine the Dependent Variable:  Identify the outcome or response variable that will be affected by changes in the independent variable.
• Establish Hypotheses (If Applicable):  If you have specific hypotheses about the relationship between the IV and DV, state them clearly. Hypotheses provide a framework for testing your research questions.

2. Select the Appropriate Quasi-Experimental Design

Choosing the right quasi-experimental design is crucial for achieving your research objectives. Select a design that aligns with your research questions and the available data. Consider factors such as the feasibility of implementing the design and the ethical considerations involved.

• Evaluate Your Research Goals:  Assess your research questions and objectives to determine which type of quasi-experimental design is most suitable. Each design has its strengths and limitations, so choose one that aligns with your goals.
• Consider Ethical Constraints:  Take into account any ethical concerns related to your research. Depending on your study's context, some designs may be more ethically sound than others.
• Assess Data Availability:  Ensure you have access to the necessary data for your chosen design. Some designs may require extensive historical data, while others may rely on data collected during the study.

3. Identify and Recruit Participants

Selecting the right participants is a critical aspect of Quasi-Experimental research. The participants should represent the population you want to make inferences about, and you must address ethical considerations, including informed consent.

• Define Your Target Population:  Determine the population that your study aims to generalize to. Your sample should be representative of this population.
• Recruitment Process:  Develop a plan for recruiting participants. Depending on your design, you may need to reach out to specific groups or institutions.
• Informed Consent:  Ensure that you obtain informed consent from participants. Clearly explain the nature of the study, potential risks, and their rights as participants.

4. Collect Data

Data collection is a crucial step in Quasi-Experimental research. You must adhere to a consistent and systematic process to gather relevant information before and after the intervention or treatment.

• Pre-Test Measures:  If applicable, collect data before introducing the independent variable. Ensure that the pre-test measures are standardized and reliable.
• Post-Test Measures:  After the intervention, collect post-test data using the same measures as the pre-test. This allows you to assess changes over time.
• Maintain Data Consistency:  Ensure that data collection procedures are consistent across all participants and time points to minimize biases.

5. Analyze Data

Once you've collected your data, it's time to analyze it using appropriate statistical techniques . The choice of analysis depends on your research questions and the type of data you've gathered.

• Statistical Analysis :  Use statistical software to analyze your data. Common techniques include t-tests , analysis of variance (ANOVA) , regression analysis , and more, depending on the design and variables.
• Control for Confounding Variables:  Be aware of potential confounding variables and include them in your analysis as covariates to ensure accurate results.

Chi-Square Calculator :

t-Test Calculator :

6. Interpret Results

With the analysis complete, you can interpret the results to draw meaningful conclusions about the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

• Examine Effect Sizes:  Assess the magnitude of the observed effects to determine their practical significance.
• Consider Significance Levels:  Determine whether the observed results are statistically significant . Understand the p-values and their implications.
• Compare Findings to Hypotheses:  Evaluate whether your findings support or reject your hypotheses and research questions.

7. Draw Conclusions

Based on your analysis and interpretation of the results, draw conclusions about the research questions and objectives you set out to address.

• Causal Inferences:  Discuss the extent to which your study allows for causal inferences. Be transparent about the limitations and potential alternative explanations for your findings.
• Implications and Applications:  Consider the practical implications of your research. How do your findings contribute to existing knowledge, and how can they be applied in real-world contexts?
• Future Research:  Identify areas for future research and potential improvements in study design. Highlight any limitations or constraints that may have affected your study's outcomes.

By following these steps meticulously, you can conduct a rigorous and informative Quasi-Experimental study that advances knowledge in your field of research.

Quasi-Experimental Design Examples

Quasi-experimental design finds applications in a wide range of research domains, including business-related and market research scenarios. Below, we delve into some detailed examples of how this research methodology is employed in practice:

Example 1: Assessing the Impact of a New Marketing Strategy

Suppose a company wants to evaluate the effectiveness of a new marketing strategy aimed at boosting sales. Conducting a controlled experiment may not be feasible due to the company's existing customer base and the challenge of randomly assigning customers to different marketing approaches. In this scenario, a quasi-experimental design can be employed.

• Independent Variable:  The new marketing strategy.
• Dependent Variable:  Sales revenue.
• Design:  The company could implement the new strategy for one group of customers while maintaining the existing strategy for another group. Both groups are selected based on similar demographics and purchase history , reducing selection bias. Pre-implementation data (sales records) can serve as the baseline, and post-implementation data can be collected to assess the strategy's impact.

Example 2: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Employee Training Programs

In the context of human resources and employee development, organizations often seek to evaluate the impact of training programs. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with random assignment may not be practical or ethical, as some employees may need specific training more than others. Instead, a quasi-experimental design can be employed.

• Independent Variable:  Employee training programs.
• Dependent Variable:  Employee performance metrics, such as productivity or quality of work.
• Design:  The organization can offer training programs to employees who express interest or demonstrate specific needs, creating a self-selected treatment group. A comparable control group can consist of employees with similar job roles and qualifications who did not receive the training. Pre-training performance metrics can serve as the baseline, and post-training data can be collected to assess the impact of the training programs.

Example 3: Analyzing the Effects of a Tax Policy Change

In economics and public policy, researchers often examine the effects of tax policy changes on economic behavior. Conducting a controlled experiment in such cases is practically impossible. Therefore, a quasi-experimental design is commonly employed.

• Independent Variable:  Tax policy changes (e.g., tax rate adjustments).
• Dependent Variable:  Economic indicators, such as consumer spending or business investments.
• Design:  Researchers can analyze data from different regions or jurisdictions where tax policy changes have been implemented. One region could represent the treatment group (with tax policy changes), while a similar region with no tax policy changes serves as the control group. By comparing economic data before and after the policy change in both groups, researchers can assess the impact of the tax policy changes.

These examples illustrate how quasi-experimental design can be applied in various research contexts, providing valuable insights into the effects of independent variables in real-world scenarios where controlled experiments are not feasible or ethical. By carefully selecting comparison groups and controlling for potential biases, researchers can draw meaningful conclusions and inform decision-making processes.

How to Publish Quasi-Experimental Research?

Publishing your Quasi-Experimental research findings is a crucial step in contributing to the academic community's knowledge. We'll explore the essential aspects of reporting and publishing your Quasi-Experimental research effectively.

Structuring Your Research Paper

When preparing your research paper, it's essential to adhere to a well-structured format to ensure clarity and comprehensibility. Here are key elements to include:

Title and Abstract

• Title:  Craft a concise and informative title that reflects the essence of your study. It should capture the main research question or hypothesis.
• Abstract:  Summarize your research in a structured abstract, including the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Ensure it provides a clear overview of your study.

Introduction

• Background and Rationale:  Provide context for your study by discussing the research gap or problem your study addresses. Explain why your research is relevant and essential.
• Research Questions or Hypotheses:  Clearly state your research questions or hypotheses and their significance.

Literature Review

• Review of Related Work:  Discuss relevant literature that supports your research. Highlight studies with similar methodologies or findings and explain how your research fits within this context.
• Participants:  Describe your study's participants, including their characteristics and how you recruited them.
• Quasi-Experimental Design:  Explain your chosen design in detail, including the independent and dependent variables, procedures, and any control measures taken.
• Data Collection:  Detail the data collection methods , instruments used, and any pre-test or post-test measures.
• Data Analysis:  Describe the statistical techniques employed, including any control for confounding variables.
• Presentation of Findings:  Present your results clearly, using tables, graphs, and descriptive statistics where appropriate. Include p-values and effect sizes, if applicable.
• Interpretation of Results:  Discuss the implications of your findings and how they relate to your research questions or hypotheses.
• Interpretation and Implications:  Analyze your results in the context of existing literature and theories. Discuss the practical implications of your findings.
• Limitations:  Address the limitations of your study, including potential biases or threats to internal validity.
• Future Research:  Suggest areas for future research and how your study contributes to the field.

Ethical Considerations in Reporting

Ethical reporting is paramount in Quasi-Experimental research. Ensure that you adhere to ethical standards, including:

• Informed Consent:  Clearly state that informed consent was obtained from all participants, and describe the informed consent process.
• Protection of Participants:  Explain how you protected the rights and well-being of your participants throughout the study.
• Confidentiality:  Detail how you maintained privacy and anonymity, especially when presenting individual data.
• Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest:  Declare any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the interpretation of your findings.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

When reporting your Quasi-Experimental research, watch out for common pitfalls that can diminish the quality and impact of your work:

• Overgeneralization:  Be cautious not to overgeneralize your findings. Clearly state the limits of your study and the populations to which your results can be applied.
• Misinterpretation of Causality:  Clearly articulate the limitations in inferring causality in Quasi-Experimental research. Avoid making strong causal claims unless supported by solid evidence.
• Ignoring Ethical Concerns:  Ethical considerations are paramount. Failing to report on informed consent, ethical oversight, and participant protection can undermine the credibility of your study.

Guidelines for Transparent Reporting

To enhance the transparency and reproducibility of your Quasi-Experimental research, consider adhering to established reporting guidelines, such as:

• CONSORT Statement:  If your study involves interventions or treatments, follow the CONSORT guidelines for transparent reporting of randomized controlled trials.
• STROBE Statement:  For observational studies, the STROBE statement provides guidance on reporting essential elements.
• PRISMA Statement:  If your research involves systematic reviews or meta-analyses, adhere to the PRISMA guidelines.
• Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs (TREND):  TREND guidelines offer specific recommendations for transparently reporting non-randomized designs, including Quasi-Experimental research.

By following these reporting guidelines and maintaining the highest ethical standards, you can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field and ensure the credibility and impact of your Quasi-Experimental research findings.

Quasi-Experimental Design Challenges

Conducting a Quasi-Experimental study can be fraught with challenges that may impact the validity and reliability of your findings. We'll take a look at some common challenges and provide strategies on how you can address them effectively.

Selection Bias

Challenge:  Selection bias occurs when non-randomized groups differ systematically in ways that affect the study's outcome. This bias can undermine the validity of your research, as it implies that the groups are not equivalent at the outset of the study.

Addressing Selection Bias:

• Matching:  Employ matching techniques to create comparable treatment and control groups. Match participants based on relevant characteristics, such as age, gender, or prior performance, to balance the groups.
• Statistical Controls:  Use statistical controls to account for differences between groups. Include covariates in your analysis to adjust for potential biases.
• Sensitivity Analysis:  Conduct sensitivity analyses to assess how vulnerable your results are to selection bias. Explore different scenarios to understand the impact of potential bias on your conclusions.

History Effects

Challenge:  History effects refer to external events or changes over time that influence the study's results. These external factors can confound your research by introducing variables you did not account for.

Addressing History Effects:

• Collect Historical Data:  Gather extensive historical data to understand trends and patterns that might affect your study. By having a comprehensive historical context, you can better identify and account for historical effects.
• Control Groups:  Include control groups whenever possible. By comparing the treatment group's results to those of a control group, you can account for external influences that affect both groups equally.
• Time Series Analysis :  If applicable, use time series analysis to detect and account for temporal trends. This method helps differentiate between the effects of the independent variable and external events.

Maturation Effects

Challenge:  Maturation effects occur when participants naturally change or develop throughout the study, independent of the intervention. These changes can confound your results, making it challenging to attribute observed effects solely to the independent variable.

Addressing Maturation Effects:

• Randomization:  If possible, use randomization to distribute maturation effects evenly across treatment and control groups. Random assignment minimizes the impact of maturation as a confounding variable.
• Matched Pairs:  If randomization is not feasible, employ matched pairs or statistical controls to ensure that both groups experience similar maturation effects.
• Shorter Time Frames:  Limit the duration of your study to reduce the likelihood of significant maturation effects. Shorter studies are less susceptible to long-term maturation.

Regression to the Mean

Challenge:  Regression to the mean is the tendency for extreme scores on a variable to move closer to the mean upon retesting. This can create the illusion of an intervention's effectiveness when, in reality, it's a natural statistical phenomenon.

Addressing Regression to the Mean:

• Use Control Groups:  Include control groups in your study to provide a baseline for comparison. This helps differentiate genuine intervention effects from regression to the mean.
• Multiple Data Points:  Collect numerous data points to identify patterns and trends. If extreme scores regress to the mean in subsequent measurements, it may be indicative of regression to the mean rather than a true intervention effect.
• Statistical Analysis:  Employ statistical techniques that account for regression to the mean when analyzing your data. Techniques like analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) can help control for baseline differences.

Attrition and Mortality

Challenge:  Attrition refers to the loss of participants over the course of your study, while mortality is the permanent loss of participants. High attrition rates can introduce biases and affect the representativeness of your sample.

Addressing Attrition and Mortality:

• Careful Participant Selection:  Select participants who are likely to remain engaged throughout the study. Consider factors that may lead to attrition, such as participant motivation and commitment.
• Incentives:  Provide incentives or compensation to participants to encourage their continued participation.
• Follow-Up Strategies:  Implement effective follow-up strategies to reduce attrition. Regular communication and reminders can help keep participants engaged.
• Sensitivity Analysis:  Conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of attrition and mortality on your results. Compare the characteristics of participants who dropped out with those who completed the study.

Testing Effects

Challenge:  Testing effects occur when the mere act of testing or assessing participants affects their subsequent performance. This phenomenon can lead to changes in the dependent variable that are unrelated to the independent variable.

Addressing Testing Effects:

• Counterbalance Testing:  If possible, counterbalance the order of tests or assessments between treatment and control groups. This helps distribute the testing effects evenly across groups.
• Control Groups:  Include control groups subjected to the same testing or assessment procedures as the treatment group. By comparing the two groups, you can determine whether testing effects have influenced the results.
• Minimize Testing Frequency:  Limit the frequency of testing or assessments to reduce the likelihood of testing effects. Conducting fewer assessments can mitigate the impact of repeated testing on participants.

By proactively addressing these common challenges, you can enhance the validity and reliability of your Quasi-Experimental study, making your findings more robust and trustworthy.

Conclusion for Quasi-Expermental Design

Quasi-experimental design is a powerful tool that helps researchers investigate cause-and-effect relationships in real-world situations where strict control is not always possible. By understanding the key concepts, types of designs, and how to address challenges, you can conduct robust research and contribute valuable insights to your field. Remember, quasi-experimental design bridges the gap between controlled experiments and purely observational studies, making it an essential approach in various fields, from business and market research to public policy and beyond. So, whether you're a researcher, student, or decision-maker, the knowledge of quasi-experimental design empowers you to make informed choices and drive positive changes in the world.

How to Supercharge Quasi-Experimental Design with Real-Time Insights?

Introducing Appinio , the real-time market research platform that transforms the world of quasi-experimental design. Imagine having the power to conduct your own market research in minutes, obtaining actionable insights that fuel your data-driven decisions. Appinio takes care of the research and tech complexities, freeing you to focus on what truly matters for your business.

Here's why Appinio stands out:

• Lightning-Fast Insights:  From formulating questions to uncovering insights, Appinio delivers results in minutes, ensuring you get the answers you need when you need them.
• No Research Degree Required:  Our intuitive platform is designed for everyone, eliminating the need for a PhD in research. Anyone can dive in and start harnessing the power of real-time consumer insights.
• Global Reach, Local Expertise:  With access to over 90 countries and the ability to define precise target groups based on 1200+ characteristics, you can conduct Quasi-Experimental research on a global scale while maintaining a local touch.

Get free access to the platform!

Join the loop 💌

Be the first to hear about new updates, product news, and data insights. We'll send it all straight to your inbox.

Get the latest market research news straight to your inbox! 💌

Wait, there's more

19.09.2024 | 8min read

Track Your Customer Retention & Brand Metrics for Post-Holiday Success

16.09.2024 | 10min read

Creative Checkup – Optimize Advertising Slogans & Creatives for ROI

03.09.2024 | 8min read

Get your brand Holiday Ready: 4 Essential Steps to Smash your Q4

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

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

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• > Quasi-Experimental Research

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
• Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
• Part III Data Collection
• 13 Cross-Sectional Studies
• 14 Quasi-Experimental Research
• 15 Non-equivalent Control Group Pretest–Posttest Design in Social and Behavioral Research
• 16 Experimental Methods
• 17 Longitudinal Research: A World to Explore
• 18 Online Research Methods
• 19 Archival Data
• 20 Qualitative Research Design
• Part IV Statistical Approaches
• Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career

14 - Quasi-Experimental Research

from Part III - Data Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

In this chapter, we discuss the logic and practice of quasi-experimentation. Specifically, we describe four quasi-experimental designs – one-group pretest–posttest designs, non-equivalent group designs, regression discontinuity designs, and interrupted time-series designs – and their statistical analyses in detail. Both simple quasi-experimental designs and embellishments of these simple designs are presented. Potential threats to internal validity are illustrated along with means of addressing their potentially biasing effects so that these effects can be minimized. In contrast to quasi-experiments, randomized experiments are often thought to be the gold standard when estimating the effects of treatment interventions. However, circumstances frequently arise where quasi-experiments can usefully supplement randomized experiments or when quasi-experiments can fruitfully be used in place of randomized experiments. Researchers need to appreciate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various quasi-experiments so they can choose among pre-specified designs or craft their own unique quasi-experiments.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

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

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Quasi-Experimental Research
• By Charles S. Reichardt , Daniel Storage , Damon Abraham
• Edited by Austin Lee Nichols , Central European University, Vienna , John Edlund , Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Online publication: 25 May 2023
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.015

Save book to Dropbox

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

Save book to Google Drive

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

Instant insights, infinite possibilities

The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental design

Last updated

6 February 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

• What is a quasi-experimental design?

Commonly used in medical informatics (a field that uses digital information to ensure better patient care), researchers generally use this design to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment – perhaps a type of antibiotic or psychotherapy, or an educational or policy intervention.

Even though quasi-experimental design has been used for some time, relatively little is known about it. Read on to learn the ins and outs of this research design.

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• When to use a quasi-experimental design

A quasi-experimental design is used when it's not logistically feasible or ethical to conduct randomized, controlled trials. As its name suggests, a quasi-experimental design is almost a true experiment. However, researchers don't randomly select elements or participants in this type of research.

Researchers prefer to apply quasi-experimental design when there are ethical or practical concerns. Let's look at these two reasons more closely.

Ethical reasons

In some situations, the use of randomly assigned elements can be unethical. For instance, providing public healthcare to one group and withholding it to another in research is unethical. A quasi-experimental design would examine the relationship between these two groups to avoid physical danger.

Practical reasons

Randomized controlled trials may not be the best approach in research. For instance, it's impractical to trawl through large sample sizes of participants without using a particular attribute to guide your data collection .

Recruiting participants and properly designing a data-collection attribute to make the research a true experiment requires a lot of time and effort, and can be expensive if you don’t have a large funding stream.

A quasi-experimental design allows researchers to take advantage of previously collected data and use it in their study.

• Examples of quasi-experimental designs

Quasi-experimental research design is common in medical research, but any researcher can use it for research that raises practical and ethical concerns. Here are a few examples of quasi-experimental designs used by different researchers:

Example 1: Determining the effectiveness of math apps in supplementing math classes

A school wanted to supplement its math classes with a math app. To select the best app, the school decided to conduct demo tests on two apps before selecting the one they will purchase.

Scope of the research

Since every grade had two math teachers, each teacher used one of the two apps for three months. They then gave the students the same math exams and compared the results to determine which app was most effective.

Reasons why this is a quasi-experimental study

This simple study is a quasi-experiment since the school didn't randomly assign its students to the applications. They used a pre-existing class structure to conduct the study since it was impractical to randomly assign the students to each app.

Example 2: Determining the effectiveness of teaching modern leadership techniques in start-up businesses

A hypothetical quasi-experimental study was conducted in an economically developing country in a mid-sized city.

Five start-ups in the textile industry and five in the tech industry participated in the study. The leaders attended a six-week workshop on leadership style, team management, and employee motivation.

After a year, the researchers assessed the performance of each start-up company to determine growth. The results indicated that the tech start-ups were further along in their growth than the textile companies.

The basis of quasi-experimental research is a non-randomized subject-selection process. This study didn't use specific aspects to determine which start-up companies should participate. Therefore, the results may seem straightforward, but several aspects may determine the growth of a specific company, apart from the variables used by the researchers.

Example 3: A study to determine the effects of policy reforms and of luring foreign investment on small businesses in two mid-size cities

In a study to determine the economic impact of government reforms in an economically developing country, the government decided to test whether creating reforms directed at small businesses or luring foreign investments would spur the most economic development.

The government selected two cities with similar population demographics and sizes. In one of the cities, they implemented specific policies that would directly impact small businesses, and in the other, they implemented policies to attract foreign investment.

After five years, they collected end-of-year economic growth data from both cities. They looked at elements like local GDP growth, unemployment rates, and housing sales.

The study used a non-randomized selection process to determine which city would participate in the research. Researchers left out certain variables that would play a crucial role in determining the growth of each city. They used pre-existing groups of people based on research conducted in each city, rather than random groups.

• Advantages of a quasi-experimental design

Some advantages of quasi-experimental designs are:

Researchers can manipulate variables to help them meet their study objectives.

It offers high external validity, making it suitable for real-world applications, specifically in social science experiments.

Integrating this methodology into other research designs is easier, especially in true experimental research. This cuts down on the time needed to determine your outcomes.

• Disadvantages of a quasi-experimental design

Despite the pros that come with a quasi-experimental design, there are several disadvantages associated with it, including the following:

It has a lower internal validity since researchers do not have full control over the comparison and intervention groups or between time periods because of differences in characteristics in people, places, or time involved. It may be challenging to determine whether all variables have been used or whether those used in the research impacted the results.

There is the risk of inaccurate data since the research design borrows information from other studies.

There is the possibility of bias since researchers select baseline elements and eligibility.

• What are the different quasi-experimental study designs?

There are three distinct types of quasi-experimental designs:

Nonequivalent

Regression discontinuity, natural experiment.

This is a hybrid of experimental and quasi-experimental methods and is used to leverage the best qualities of the two. Like the true experiment design, nonequivalent group design uses pre-existing groups believed to be comparable. However, it doesn't use randomization, the lack of which is a crucial element for quasi-experimental design.

Researchers usually ensure that no confounding variables impact them throughout the grouping process. This makes the groupings more comparable.

Example of a nonequivalent group design

A small study was conducted to determine whether after-school programs result in better grades. Researchers randomly selected two groups of students: one to implement the new program, the other not to. They then compared the results of the two groups.

This type of quasi-experimental research design calculates the impact of a specific treatment or intervention. It uses a criterion known as "cutoff" that assigns treatment according to eligibility.

Researchers often assign participants above the cutoff to the treatment group. This puts a negligible distinction between the two groups (treatment group and control group).

Example of regression discontinuity

Students must achieve a minimum score to be enrolled in specific US high schools. Since the cutoff score used to determine eligibility for enrollment is arbitrary, researchers can assume that the disparity between students who only just fail to achieve the cutoff point and those who barely pass is a small margin and is due to the difference in the schools that these students attend.

Researchers can then examine the long-term effects of these two groups of kids to determine the effect of attending certain schools. This information can be applied to increase the chances of students being enrolled in these high schools.

This research design is common in laboratory and field experiments where researchers control target subjects by assigning them to different groups. Researchers randomly assign subjects to a treatment group using nature or an external event or situation.

However, even with random assignment, this research design cannot be called a true experiment since nature aspects are observational. Researchers can also exploit these aspects despite having no control over the independent variables.

Example of the natural experiment approach

An example of a natural experiment is the 2008 Oregon Health Study.

Oregon intended to allow more low-income people to participate in Medicaid.

Since they couldn't afford to cover every person who qualified for the program, the state used a random lottery to allocate program slots.

Researchers assessed the program's effectiveness by assigning the selected subjects to a randomly assigned treatment group, while those that didn't win the lottery were considered the control group.

• Differences between quasi-experiments and true experiments

There are several differences between a quasi-experiment and a true experiment:

Participants in true experiments are randomly assigned to the treatment or control group, while participants in a quasi-experiment are not assigned randomly.

In a quasi-experimental design, the control and treatment groups differ in unknown or unknowable ways, apart from the experimental treatments that are carried out. Therefore, the researcher should try as much as possible to control these differences.

Quasi-experimental designs have several "competing hypotheses," which compete with experimental manipulation to explain the observed results.

Quasi-experiments tend to have lower internal validity (the degree of confidence in the research outcomes) than true experiments, but they may offer higher external validity (whether findings can be extended to other contexts) as they involve real-world interventions instead of controlled interventions in artificial laboratory settings.

Despite the distinct difference between true and quasi-experimental research designs, these two research methodologies share the following aspects:

Both study methods subject participants to some form of treatment or conditions.

Researchers have the freedom to measure some of the outcomes of interest.

Researchers can test whether the differences in the outcomes are associated with the treatment.

• An example comparing a true experiment and quasi-experiment

Imagine you wanted to study the effects of junk food on obese people. Here's how you would do this as a true experiment and a quasi-experiment:

How to carry out a true experiment

In a true experiment, some participants would eat junk foods, while the rest would be in the control group, adhering to a regular diet. At the end of the study, you would record the health and discomfort of each group.

This kind of experiment would raise ethical concerns since the participants assigned to the treatment group are required to eat junk food against their will throughout the experiment. This calls for a quasi-experimental design.

How to carry out a quasi-experiment

In quasi-experimental research, you would start by finding out which participants want to try junk food and which prefer to stick to a regular diet. This allows you to assign these two groups based on subject choice.

In this case, you didn't assign participants to a particular group, so you can confidently use the results from the study.

When is a quasi-experimental design used?

Quasi-experimental designs are used when researchers don’t want to use randomization when evaluating their intervention.

What are the characteristics of quasi-experimental designs?

Some of the characteristics of a quasi-experimental design are:

Researchers don't randomly assign participants into groups, but study their existing characteristics and assign them accordingly.

Researchers study the participants in pre- and post-testing to determine the progress of the groups.

Quasi-experimental design is ethical since it doesn’t involve offering or withholding treatment at random.

Quasi-experimental design encompasses a broad range of non-randomized intervention studies. This design is employed when it is not ethical or logistically feasible to conduct randomized controlled trials. Researchers typically employ it when evaluating policy or educational interventions, or in medical or therapy scenarios.

How do you analyze data in a quasi-experimental design?

You can use two-group tests, time-series analysis, and regression analysis to analyze data in a quasi-experiment design. Each option has specific assumptions, strengths, limitations, and data requirements.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

A Modern Guide to Understanding and Conducting Research in Psychology

Chapter 7 quasi-experimental research, learning objectives.

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

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

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—perhaps a type of psychotherapy or an educational intervention. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here, focusing first on nonequivalent groups, pretest-posttest, interrupted time series, and combination designs before turning to single subject designs (including reversal and multiple-baseline designs).

7.1 Nonequivalent Groups Design

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

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

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

7.2 Pretest-Posttest Design

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

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

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

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

7.3 Interrupted Time Series Design

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

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

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

7.4 Combination Designs

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

regression to the mean

Spontaneous remission, 7.5 single-subject research.

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

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

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

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

Overview of Single-Subject Research

What is single-subject research.

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

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

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

The Case of “Anna O.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assumptions of Single-Subject Research

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

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

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

Who Uses Single-Subject Research?

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

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

Single-Subject Research Designs

General features of single-subject designs.

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

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

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

Reversal Designs

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

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

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

Multiple-Baseline Designs

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

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

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

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

Data Analysis in Single-Subject Research

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

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

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

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

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

The Single-Subject Versus Group “Debate”

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

Data Analysis

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

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

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

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

External Validity

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

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

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

Single-Subject and Group Research as Complementary Methods

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

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

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

7.6 Glossary

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

applied behavior analysis

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

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

A detailed description of an individual case.

experimental analysis of behavior

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

group research

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

interrupted time-series design

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

item-order effect

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

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

multiple-baseline design

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

naturalistic observation

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

nonequivalent groups design

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

nonexperimental research

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

open-ended item

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

percentage of nonoverlapping data

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

pretest-posttest design

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

quasi-experimental research

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

rating scale

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

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

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

reversal design

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

single-subject research

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

single-variable research

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

social validity

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

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

steady state strategy

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

survey research

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

testing effect

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

visual inspection

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

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Quasi-experimental Research: What It Is, Types & Examples

Much like an actual experiment, quasi-experimental research tries to demonstrate a cause-and-effect link between a dependent and an independent variable. A quasi-experiment, on the other hand, does not depend on random assignment, unlike an actual experiment. The subjects are sorted into groups based on non-random variables.

What is Quasi-Experimental Research?

“Resemblance” is the definition of “quasi.” Individuals are not randomly allocated to conditions or orders of conditions, even though the regression analysis is changed. As a result, quasi-experimental research is research that appears to be experimental but is not.

The directionality problem is avoided in quasi-experimental research since the regression analysis is altered before the multiple regression is assessed. However, because individuals are not randomized at random, there are likely to be additional disparities across conditions in quasi-experimental research.

As a result, in terms of internal consistency, quasi-experiments fall somewhere between correlational research and actual experiments.

The key component of a true experiment is randomly allocated groups. This means that each person has an equivalent chance of being assigned to the experimental group or the control group, depending on whether they are manipulated or not.

Simply put, a quasi-experiment is not a real experiment. A quasi-experiment does not feature randomly allocated groups since the main component of a real experiment is randomly assigned groups. Why is it so crucial to have randomly allocated groups, given that they constitute the only distinction between quasi-experimental and actual  experimental research ?

Let’s use an example to illustrate our point. Let’s assume we want to discover how new psychological therapy affects depressed patients. In a genuine trial, you’d split half of the psych ward into treatment groups, With half getting the new psychotherapy therapy and the other half receiving standard  depression treatment .

And the physicians compare the outcomes of this treatment to the results of standard treatments to see if this treatment is more effective. Doctors, on the other hand, are unlikely to agree with this genuine experiment since they believe it is unethical to treat one group while leaving another untreated.

A quasi-experimental study will be useful in this case. Instead of allocating these patients at random, you uncover pre-existing psychotherapist groups in the hospitals. Clearly, there’ll be counselors who are eager to undertake these trials as well as others who prefer to stick to the old ways.

These pre-existing groups can be used to compare the symptom development of individuals who received the novel therapy with those who received the normal course of treatment, even though the groups weren’t chosen at random.

If any substantial variations between them can be well explained, you may be very assured that any differences are attributable to the treatment but not to other extraneous variables.

As we mentioned before, quasi-experimental research entails manipulating an independent variable by randomly assigning people to conditions or sequences of conditions. Non-equivalent group designs, pretest-posttest designs, and regression discontinuity designs are only a few of the essential types.

What are quasi-experimental research designs?

Quasi-experimental research designs are a type of research design that is similar to experimental designs but doesn’t give full control over the independent variable(s) like true experimental designs do.

In a quasi-experimental design, the researcher changes or watches an independent variable, but the participants are not put into groups at random. Instead, people are put into groups based on things they already have in common, like their age, gender, or how many times they have seen a certain stimulus.

Because the assignments are not random, it is harder to draw conclusions about cause and effect than in a real experiment. However, quasi-experimental designs are still useful when randomization is not possible or ethical.

The true experimental design may be impossible to accomplish or just too expensive, especially for researchers with few resources. Quasi-experimental designs enable you to investigate an issue by utilizing data that has already been paid for or gathered by others (often the government). 

Because they allow better control for confounding variables than other forms of studies, they have higher external validity than most genuine experiments and higher  internal validity  (less than true experiments) than other non-experimental research.

Is quasi-experimental research quantitative or qualitative?

Quasi-experimental research is a quantitative research method. It involves numerical data collection and statistical analysis. Quasi-experimental research compares groups with different circumstances or treatments to find cause-and-effect links. 

It draws statistical conclusions from quantitative data. Qualitative data can enhance quasi-experimental research by revealing participants’ experiences and opinions, but quantitative data is the method’s foundation.

Quasi-experimental research types

There are many different sorts of quasi-experimental designs. Three of the most popular varieties are described below: Design of non-equivalent groups, Discontinuity in regression, and Natural experiments.

Design of Non-equivalent Groups

Example: design of non-equivalent groups, discontinuity in regression, example: discontinuity in regression, natural experiments, example: natural experiments.

However, because they couldn’t afford to pay everyone who qualified for the program, they had to use a random lottery to distribute slots.

Experts were able to investigate the program’s impact by utilizing enrolled people as a treatment group and those who were qualified but did not play the jackpot as an experimental group.

How QuestionPro helps in quasi-experimental research?

QuestionPro can be a useful tool in quasi-experimental research because it includes features that can assist you in designing and analyzing your research study. Here are some ways in which QuestionPro can help in quasi-experimental research:

Design surveys

Randomize participants, collect data over time, analyze data, collaborate with your team.

With QuestionPro, you have access to the most mature market research platform and tool that helps you collect and analyze the insights that matter the most. By leveraging InsightsHub, the unified hub for data management, you can ​​leverage the consolidated platform to organize, explore, search, and discover your  research data  in one organized data repository . 

Optimize Your quasi-experimental research with QuestionPro. Get started now!

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

SWOT Analysis: What It Is And How To Do It?

Sep 27, 2024

Alchemer vs SurveyMonkey: Which Survey Tool Is Best for You

Sep 26, 2024

SurveySparrow vs SurveyMonkey: Choosing the Right Survey Tool

User Behavior Analytics: What it is, Importance, Uses & Tools

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

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

Chapter 7: Nonexperimental Research

Quasi-Experimental Research

Learning Objectives

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

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

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—perhaps a type of psychotherapy or an educational intervention. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here.

Nonequivalent Groups Design

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

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

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

Pretest-Posttest Design

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

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

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

Does Psychotherapy Work?

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

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

Interrupted Time Series Design

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

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

Combination Designs

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Image Descriptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Quasi-Experimental Research: Types, Examples & Application

Let’s say you want to study the effects of a new drug on lowering blood pressure. You could randomly assign half of the participants to receive the drug and the other half to receive a placebo. However, this isn’t fair to the patients in the placebo group. 

So, instead of experimenting to find out the effect of the new drug, you use a quasi-experiment to evaluate the drug. The purpose of quasi-experimental research is to establish a causal relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable.

This guide will discuss the different types of quasi-experimental research, their practical applications, and the best practices for conducting successful quasi-experimental research.

Understanding Quasi-Experimental Research

Quasi-experimental research is a way of finding out if there’s a cause-and-effect relationship between variables when true experiments are not possible because of practical or ethical constraints.

For example, you want to know if a new medicine is effective for migraines. Instead of giving the medication to some people and not to others, you use quasi-experimental research to compare who takes the medication and people who haven’t.

What’s The Difference Between True Experiments and Quasi-Experiments

Quasi-experimental research doesn’t always have the same level of internal validity as real experiments. Pre-selected samples can be biased and not represent the real population.

In a true experiment, the participants are assigned randomly to the experimental or control groups. This ensures that groups are as homogeneous as possible, except for the treatment they receive.

Quasi-experiments don’t randomly assign participants to groups, so the differences within the groups could affect the groups.

Read – Experimental Research Designs: Types, Examples & Methods  

• Types of Quasi-Experimental Designs

Pretest-Posttest Design

This design captures changes by measuring participants before and after an intervention. The pretest measures the dependent variable before the intervention, while the posttest measures it after the intervention.

The difference between the two measurements is the change that occurred due to the intervention. 

However, it is important to be aware of the potential threats to the internal validity of the pretest-postest design. One threat is selection bias , which happens when the group is not homogenous. 

Another is maturation, which occurs when participants change naturally over time. You can mitigate these threats using a control group, randomization, and blinding techniques.

Posttest-Only Design with Nonequivalent Groups

The posttest-only design with nonequivalent groups is similar to the pretest-posttest design, but it does not include a pretest. You see the effect of the intervention by comparing groups to see if there is a difference in their scores.

The difference in scores determines the impact of the intervention. This design is less powerful than the pretest-posttest design because it does not account for potential differences between the groups at baseline. 

However, the posttest design is still a valuable tool for research, especially when you can’t collect pretest data. You can mitigate its limitations by using matching participants on important factors, statistical analysis, and sensitivity analysis

• Regression Discontinuity Design

The regression discontinuity design uses naturally occurring cutoff points to assign participants to treatment and control groups. It’s widely adopted in education and social policy research. 

For example, a talent recruiter might use the cutoff score on a standardized test to move candidates to the next phase of the application.

Interrupted Time Series Design

The Interrupted Time Series design is a type of study that uses time series data to figure out how interventions or events affect the population. In this study, you measure the dependent variable multiple times over time, before and after the intervention.

The interrupted time series design is most commonly used to study the impact of policies or programs. For example, you are studying the impact of a new law on traffic accidents.

You could collect data on the number of traffic accidents each month for a year before the law was passed and a year after the law was passed. If the number of traffic accidents decreases after the law was passed, then you could conclude that the law had a positive impact on traffic safety.

Rigor in Quasi-Experimental Research

Matching techniques.

Matching techniques are a way to create balanced treatment and control groups in quasi-experimental research. This is done by matching participants on important characteristics, such as age, gender, or socioeconomic status.

Propensity score matching is one of the most popular matching methods. It works by using a statistical model to figure out how likely it is that each person in the study would have been in the treatment group if they were selected randomly. Then, people are randomly assigned according to their propensity scores, making sure that the treatment group and the control group are as close to the same as possible.

• Creates balanced treatment and control groups, which reduces bias in the results.
• Versatile- you can use them in various research settings, especially where randomization is not possible.
• Relatively easy to implement.
• Computationally complex.
• Sensitive to the choice of the matching algorithm.
• Does not perfectly balance the treatment and control groups on all relevant characteristics.

Instrumental Variables

An instrumental variable (IV) in quasi-experimental research is a variable that’s related to the independent variable, but not to the error term. It’s a variable that can be used to measure how the independent variable affects the dependent variable.

Let’s say you want to investigate how a new drug reduces the risk of heart attack. You can use the number of days a person has taken aspirin as the instrumental variable.

Aspirin is associated with an independent variable (new drug), however, it is not associated with a dependent variable (risk of a heart attack). This is because people who take aspirin are more likely to take other medications, such as statins, which also lower the risk of heart attack.

• Addresses endogeneity issues.
• Versatile-you can use it in different research settings
• It is relatively hard to find an instrumental variable that meets all of the criteria.
• May not be perfectly correlated with the independent variable.
• Tends to be affected by the dependent variable.

Difference-in-Differences Analysis

Difference-in-differences analysis is a statistical technique that can be used to compare changes in treatment and control groups over time. It is typically used in quasi-experimental research to estimate the causal effect of an intervention.

You have to first define two groups when using the difference-in-differences analysis: the treatment group and the control group. A treatment group is a group that receives an intervention, while a control group doesn’t receive an intervention.

Next, collect data on the dependent variable for both groups before and after the intervention. The difference-in-differences estimate is then calculated by comparing the change in the dependent variable for the treatment group to the change in the dependent variable for the control group.

For example, in a study by David Card and Alan Krueger , they compared the effect of increasing the minimum wage in a particular region to the employment rate. They found that the minimum wage increase in New Jersey did not lead to job losses.

• Addresses selection bias.
• Control for time-invariant confounders.
• Requires a rigorous research design.
• Sensitive to measurement errors.
• Difficult to interpret when multiple interventions or events are happening during the study period.

Challenges and Best Practices

• Validity Threat
• Selection bias : This occurs when the groups being compared are not equivalent. This can happen if participants are self-selected into the groups, or if the groups are not randomly assigned.
• History effects : These are events that happen during the study period that could affect the dependent variable. For example, if there is a natural disaster during the study period, it could affect the results.
• Maturation : This refers to the natural changes that occur over time. For example, students may naturally improve their test scores over time, regardless of whether or not they receive an intervention.
• Testing effects : These are the effects of taking a test on subsequent test scores. For example, if students take a pretest before an intervention, they may learn from the test and do better on the posttest, even if the intervention had no effect.
• Instrumentation : This refers to changes in the way the dependent variable is measured. For example, if the test used to measure student achievement is changed during the study period, it could affect the results.

Strategies for Minimizing Validity Threats

• Matching participants on important characteristics such as age, education level, and more to reduce selection bias.
• Use control groups to avoid history effects, maturation effects, and testing effects.
• Use multiple methods to measure dependent variables to reduce instrumentation effects.
• Conduct a pilot study to identify and address potential validity threats 

Read Also – Internal Validity in Research: Definition, Threats, Examples 

Sample Size and Power

Sample size is the number of participants in a study, while power is the probability of detecting a meaningful effect if it exists.

You have to carefully consider sample size and power when designing a quasi-experiment. This is because groups may not be 100% homogeneous at the start of the study, which can limit the strength of the design.

Using power analysis, you can figure out the sample size you need to see a significant effect. Power analysis looks at the magnitude of the effect, and the standard deviation of the dependent variable, and determines the alpha level.

Generalizability

A major downside of the quasi-experimental design is that it’s usually not generalizable or applicable to other environments. It is typically done in natural environments, so you can’t control factors that could influence the results.

Carefully consider the context of the study before you generalize a quasi-experimental. Also, try replicating the study in other settings to see if the results are consistent.

Real-World Applications

• Healthcare Interventions:

A study by the Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia used a quasi-experimental design to assess the effectiveness of a new program for preventing childhood obesity. The study found that the program was effective in reducing the risk of obesity, but it was also expensive.

• Education Policy Changes

A study by Raj Chetty and his colleagues found that students who attended charter schools in California were more likely to attend college than students who did not attend charter schools. However, this study arguably promoted academically underqualified students being admitted to colleges.

• Social and Economic Interventions

A study by the RAND Corporation used a quasi-experimental design to assess the effects of a job training program on employment and earnings. 

The study found that job training programs were effective in increasing employment and earnings, but they also found that the impact varied depending on the characteristics of the participants and the design of the program.

Ethical Considerations

• Informed consent : Provide full information about the purpose of the study, the procedures, the risks and benefits of participating, and their right to withdraw from the study at any time.
• Confidentiality : Do not collect any personal information that is irrelevant to the study and keep participant information confidential.
• Risks to participants : Quasi-experimental research may pose some risks to participants, such as the risk of harm or discomfort. Minimize these risks as much as possible and only perform the research if the benefits outweigh the risks.
• Benefits to participants : Quasi-experimental research should offer some potential benefits to participants, such as access to new treatments or interventions. Researchers should carefully consider the potential benefits and risks of participating in the study before recruiting participants
• Balance of research goals and participant welfare : Do not conduct research that is likely to harm participants, even if the research has the potential to benefit society.

Read: What are Ethical Practices in Market Research?

Quasi-experimental research is a valuable tool for understanding the causal effects of interventions. It is particularly useful when you can’t conduct actual experiments because of ethical or practical constraints.

However, it is important to be aware of the limitations of this type of research. Carefully design the study and consider the limitations to ensure that the findings are accurate and reliable.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• Quasi-Experimental Research
• Quasi-Experiments
• True Experiments
• Moradeke Owa

You may also like:

What is Pure or Basic Research? + [Examples & Method]

Simple guide on pure or basic research, its methods, characteristics, advantages, and examples in science, medicine, education and psychology

Market Research: Types, Methods & Survey Examples

A complete guide on market research; definitions, survey examples, templates, importance and tips.

Recall Bias: Definition, Types, Examples & Mitigation

This article will discuss the impact of recall bias in studies and the best ways to avoid them during research.

Exploratory Research: What are its Method & Examples?

Overview on exploratory research, examples and methodology. Shows guides on how to conduct exploratory research with online surveys

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 4: uses and value

Affiliations.

• 1 Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA; Africa Health Research Institute, Somkhele, South Africa. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
• 3 Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
• 4 Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.
• 5 Center for Global Health and Development, Boston University, Boston, USA.
• 6 Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
• 7 Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster Health Forum, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
• 8 Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
• 9 Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa.
• 10 Research and Evaluation Strategic Initiative, FHI360, Washington DC, USA.
• 11 School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, USA.
• 12 Impact Evaluation, World Bank, Washington DC, USA.
• 13 Department of Information, Evidence and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 14 Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil; National Institute in Science, Technology and Innovation in Health (CITECS), Salvador, Brazil.
• 15 Department of Economics, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
• PMID: 28365303
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.012

Quasi-experimental studies are increasingly used to establish causal relationships in epidemiology and health systems research. Quasi-experimental studies offer important opportunities to increase and improve evidence on causal effects: (1) they can generate causal evidence when randomized controlled trials are impossible; (2) they typically generate causal evidence with a high degree of external validity; (3) they avoid the threats to internal validity that arise when participants in nonblinded experiments change their behavior in response to the experimental assignment to either intervention or control arm (such as compensatory rivalry or resentful demoralization); (4) they are often well suited to generate causal evidence on long-term health outcomes of an intervention, as well as nonhealth outcomes such as economic and social consequences; and (5) they can often generate evidence faster and at lower cost than experiments and other intervention studies.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Causality and control: threats to internal validity. Behi R, Nolan M. Behi R, et al. Br J Nurs. 1996 Mar 28-Apr 10;5(6):374-7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.1996.5.6.374. Br J Nurs. 1996. PMID: 8704467 Review.
• Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 2: complementary approaches to advancing global health knowledge. Geldsetzer P, Fawzi W. Geldsetzer P, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:12-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.015. Epub 2017 Mar 30. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. PMID: 28365307
• Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 7: assessing the assumptions. Bärnighausen T, Oldenburg C, Tugwell P, Bommer C, Ebert C, Barreto M, Djimeu E, Haber N, Waddington H, Rockers P, Sianesi B, Bor J, Fink G, Valentine J, Tanner J, Stanley T, Sierra E, Tchetgen ET, Atun R, Vollmer S. Bärnighausen T, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:53-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.017. Epub 2017 Mar 29. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. PMID: 28365306
• Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 1: introduction: two historical lineages. Bärnighausen T, Røttingen JA, Rockers P, Shemilt I, Tugwell P. Bärnighausen T, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:4-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.020. Epub 2017 Jul 8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. PMID: 28694121
• Quasi-experiments to establish causal effects of HIV care and treatment and to improve the cascade of care. Bor J, Geldsetzer P, Venkataramani A, Bärnighausen T. Bor J, et al. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015 Nov;10(6):495-501. doi: 10.1097/COH.0000000000000191. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015. PMID: 26371463 Free PMC article. Review.
• Effects of Electronic Serious Games on Older Adults With Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Zuo X, Tang Y, Chen Y, Zhou Z. Zuo X, et al. JMIR Serious Games. 2024 Jul 31;12:e55785. doi: 10.2196/55785. JMIR Serious Games. 2024. PMID: 39083796 Free PMC article. Review.
• The Effect of Family Nursing Conversations as an Add-on to Multidisciplinary Treatment in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Quasi-Experimental Trial. Rønne PF, Esbensen BA, Brødsgaard A, Andersen LØ, Sørensen BB, Hansen CA. Rønne PF, et al. SAGE Open Nurs. 2024 May 22;10:23779608241256206. doi: 10.1177/23779608241256206. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. SAGE Open Nurs. 2024. PMID: 38784650 Free PMC article.
• Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and selected unintended consequences. Ahmed F, Shafer L, Malla P, Hopkins R, Moreland S, Zviedrite N, Uzicanin A. Ahmed F, et al. BMC Public Health. 2024 Mar 22;24(1):884. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18377-1. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38519891 Free PMC article.
• Design and statistical analysis reporting among interrupted time series studies in drug utilization research: a cross-sectional survey. Zhang Y, Ren Y, Huang Y, Yao M, Jia Y, Wang Y, Mei F, Zou K, Tan J, Sun X. Zhang Y, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Mar 9;24(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02184-8. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024. PMID: 38461257 Free PMC article.
• Effects of a Remote Multimodal Intervention Involving Diet, Walking Program, and Breathing Exercise on Quality of Life Among Newly Diagnosed People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Quasi-Experimental Non-Inferiority Pilot Study. Saxby SM, Shemirani F, Crippes LJ, Ehlinger MA, Brooks L, Bisht B, Titcomb TJ, Rubenstein LM, Eyck PT, Hoth KF, Gill C, Kamholz J, Snetselaar LG, Wahls TL. Saxby SM, et al. Degener Neurol Neuromuscul Dis. 2024 Jan 9;14:1-14. doi: 10.2147/DNND.S441738. eCollection 2024. Degener Neurol Neuromuscul Dis. 2024. PMID: 38222092 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

Grants and funding

• 001/WHO_/World Health Organization/International

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• ClinicalKey
• Elsevier Science

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: In this video, we're going to look at research design for quantitative studies. We'll start by first explaining what research design is, and then we'll explore the four most common research designs for quantitative studies. Speaking of which, if you are currently working on a dissertation or a thesis, be sure to grab our free chapter templates. These are going to help you fast track your write-up. These tried and tested templates provide a detailed roadmap to guide you through each chapter step by step. If that sounds helpful, you can find the link in the description. So let's start with the basics and ask the question, what exactly is research design? Well, simply put, research design refers to the overall plan or strategy that guides a research project, from its conception to the final analysis of data. A good research design serves as a blueprint for how you, as the researcher, will collect and analyze data while ensuring consistency, reliability, and validity throughout your study. Within quantitative research, the four most common research designs are descriptive, correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental. Having a good understanding of the different research design options available to you is essential. Without a clear, big-picture view of how you'll design your research, you run the risk of making misaligned choices in terms of your methodology, I mean, especially the data collection and analysis-related decisions. In this video, we will look specifically at research design for quantitative studies, but if you're interested in the qualitative side of things, we've got a video covering that too. You can find the link in the description. So now that we've defined research design, let's dive into the four most popular design options for quantitative studies. First up is descriptive research design. As the name suggests, descriptive research focuses on describing existing conditions, behaviors, or characteristics. Importantly, this is achieved by systematically gathering information without manipulating any variables. In other words, there's no intervention on the researcher's part, only data collection. For example, if you were studying the prevalence of smartphone addiction among adolescents in your community, you could deploy a survey to a sample of teens, asking them to rate their agreement with certain statements that relate to smartphone addiction. The collected data would then provide insight regarding how widespread the issue may be. In other words, it would describe the situation. The key defining attribute of this type of design is that it purely describes the characteristics of the data. In other words, descriptive research generally doesn't explore relationships between different variables, nor the causes that underlie those relationships. This doesn't mean that descriptive research is inferior to other research design types. Actually, on the contrary, descriptive research is perfect for addressing what, who, where, and when type research aims and research questions. By doing so, it can deliver valuable insights and can also be used as a precursor to other research design types, which is coming up next. Next up, we've got correlational research design. This type of design is a popular choice for researchers looking to identify and measure relationships between two or more variables without manipulating them. In other words, this research design is useful when you want to know whether a change in one thing tends to be accompanied by a change in another thing. For example, if you wanted to explore the relationship between exercise frequency and overall health, you could use a correlational design to help you achieve this. In this case, you might gather data on participants' exercise habits along with records of their health indicators, such as blood pressure, heart rate, or body mass index. You could then use a statistical test to assess whether there's a relationship between the two variables, exercise frequency and health. As you can see, correlational research design is useful when you want to explore potential relationships between variables that can't be manipulated or controlled, whether that's because of ethical, practical, or logistical reasons. Also, since correlational design doesn't involve the manipulation of variables, it can be implemented at a larger scale more easily than experimental design types, which we'll look at soon. That being said, it's important to keep in mind that correlational research design does have limitations, just like any design type. Most notably, it cannot be used to establish causality. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. So, be sure to exercise caution when you interpret correlational findings and don't make the mistake of drawing casual inferences based solely on correlational research. To establish causality, you need to move into the realm of experimental design, up next. Experimental research design is used to determine if there's a causal relationship between variables. With this type of research design, you, as the researcher, manipulate one variable, the independent variable, while controlling others, the dependent variables. Doing so allows you to observe the effect of the former on the latter and draw conclusions about potential causality. For example, if you wanted to measure how different types of fertilizer affect plant growth, you could set up several groups of plants, with each group receiving a different type of fertilizer, as well as one with no fertilizer at all. You could then measure how each plant group grew, on average, over time and compare the results from the different groups to see which fertilizer was most effective. Naturally, experimental research design provides researchers with a powerful way to identify and measure causal relationships and their directionality between variables. However, developing a rigorous experimental design can be challenging, as it's not always easy to control all of the variables in a study. This often results in smaller sample sizes, which can reduce the statistical power and generalizability of the results. Another challenge with experimental research design is that it requires random assignment. This means assigning participants to different groups or conditions in a way that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to any group. Note that this is not the same as random sampling. You can learn more about that in our sampling video up here. Assigning participants randomly helps reduce the potential for bias and confounding variables, but it can lead to ethics-related challenges. For example, withholding a potentially beneficial medical treatment from a control group of patients may be considered unethical in certain situations. So, as with any research design option, experimental design comes with its unique set of pros and cons. Hey, if you're enjoying this video so far, please help us out by hitting that like button. You can also subscribe for loads of plain language actionable advice. If you're new to research, check out our free dissertation writing course, which covers everything that you need to get started on your research project. As always, you can find the link in the description. Last but not least, we've got quasi-experimental research. This type of design is used when the research aims involve investigating causal relationships, but the researcher cannot or does not want to randomly assign participants to different groups, whether it's for practical or ethical reasons. Instead, with a quasi-experimental design, the researcher relies on existing groups or pre-existing conditions to form groups for comparison. For example, if you were studying the effects of a new teaching method on students' achievement in a particular school district, you might not be able to randomly assign students to different classes using different teaching methods. In that case, you'd have to choose classes or schools that already use different teaching methods. This way, you'd still achieve separate groups without having to assign the participants to specific groups yourself. Naturally, quasi-experimental research designs have limitations when compared to experimental designs. Given that participant assignment is not random, it's more difficult to confidently establish causality between variables. Moreover, you have less control over other variables that may impact findings, which increases the risk of confounding variables. All that said, quasi-experimental designs can still be incredibly valuable in research contexts where random assignment just isn't possible. Notably, this design type can often be undertaken on a much larger scale than experimental research, which means greater statistical power. What's important is that you, as the researcher, understand the limitations and conduct your quasi-experiment as rigorously as possible, paying careful attention to any potential confounding variables. All right, so there you have it. In this video, we've explored four popular quantitative research designs, descriptive, correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental. If you got value from this video, please hit that like button. That way, more students can find this content. For more videos like this, check out the Grad Coach channel and be sure to subscribe for plain language, actionable research tips, and advice. Also, if you're looking for one-on-one support with your dissertation, thesis, or research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service where we hold your hand throughout the research process step by step. You can learn more about that and book a free consultation at gradcoach.com.

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

Quasi-Experimental Research

Learning objectives.

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

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

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—perhaps a type of psychotherapy or an educational intervention. There are many different kinds of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here.

Nonequivalent Groups Design

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

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

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

Pretest-Posttest Design

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

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

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

Does Psychotherapy Work?

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

The Effects of Psychotherapy: An Evaluation

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

Interrupted Time Series Design

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

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

Combination Designs

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

• Quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions. Among the important types are nonequivalent groups designs, pretest-posttest, and interrupted time-series designs.
• Quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem because it involves the manipulation of the independent variable. It does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables, however, because it does not involve random assignment to conditions. For these reasons, quasi-experimental research is generally higher in internal validity than correlational studies but lower than true experiments.
• Practice: Imagine that two professors decide to test the effect of giving daily quizzes on student performance in a statistics course. They decide that Professor A will give quizzes but Professor B will not. They will then compare the performance of students in their two sections on a common final exam. List five other variables that might differ between the two sections that could affect the results.
• regression to the mean
• spontaneous remission
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. ↵
• Posternak, M. A., & Miller, I. (2001). Untreated short-term course of major depression: A meta-analysis of studies using outcomes from studies using wait-list control groups. Journal of Affective Disorders, 66 , 139–146. ↵
• Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 , 319–324. ↵
• Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ↵

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book