Two independent groups design

Pada penelitian ini, partisipan dipilih secara acak (random), dimana setiap partisipan yang terpilih
akan ditempatkan pada masing-masing kelompok (grup).

Sekali lagi, ini adalah desain eksperimen untuk satu variabel independen, dengan dua kelompok
eksperimen. Untuk mempermudah pemehaman, perhatikan dahulu jumlah variabel independen,
kemudian akan diapakan setiap variabel independen tersebut. Pada subbab ini, ada satu variabel
independen, dimana satu variabel indepeden tersebut menpunyai dua grup.

http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FIP/JUR._KURIKULUM_DAN_TEK._PENDIDIKAN/196005081985031-
TOTO_FATHONI/PENELITIAN_EKSPERIMEN.pdf

http://digilib.unimus.ac.id/files/disk1/107/jtptunimus-gdl-pratiwirit-5314-4-bab3.pdf
Gribbons, Barry & Herman, Joan (1997). True and quasi-experimental designs. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(14). Retrieved July 25, 2013 from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=14 . This paper has been viewed 183,173 times since
11/13/1999.

TrueandQuasiExperimentalDesigns.
BarryGribbons
NationalCenterforResearchonEvaluation,Standards,andStudentTesting

JoanHerman
NationalCenterforResearchonEvaluation,Standards,andStudentTesting

Experimentaldesignsareespeciallyusefulinaddressingevaluation
questionsabouttheeffectivenessandimpactofprograms.Emphasizingthe
useofcomparativedataascontextforinterpretingfindings,experimental
designsincreaseourconfidencethatobservedoutcomesaretheresultofa
givenprogramorinnovationinsteadofafunctionofextraneousvariablesor
events.Forexample,experimentaldesignshelpustoanswersuchquestions
asthefollowing:Wouldadoptinganewintegratedreadingprogramimprove
studentperformance?IsTQMhavingapositiveimpactonstudent
achievementandfacultysatisfaction?Istheparentinvolvementprogram
influencingparents'engagementinandsatisfactionwithschools?Howisthe
school'sprofessionaldevelopmentprograminfluencingteacher'scollegiality
andclassroompractice?

Asonecanseefromtheexamplequestionsabove,designsspecifyfromwhom
informationistobecollectedandwhenitistobecollected.Amongthe
differenttypesofexperimentaldesign,therearetwogeneralcategories:

trueexperimentaldesign:Thiscategoryofdesignincludesmorethan
onepurposivelycreatedgroup,commonmeasuredoutcome(s),and
randomassignment.Notethatindividualbackgroundvariablessuch
assexandethnicitydonotsatisfythisrequirementsincetheycannot
bepurposivelymanipulatedinthisway.

quasiexperimentaldesign:Thiscategoryofdesignismostfrequently
usedwhenitisnotfeasiblefortheresearchertouserandom
assignment.

Thisarticledescribesthestrengthsandlimitationsofspecifictypesofquasi
experimentalandtrueexperimentaldesign.

QUASIEXPERIMENTALDESIGNSINEVALUATION
Asstatedpreviously,quasiexperimentaldesignsarecommonlyemployedin
theevaluationofeducationalprogramswhenrandomassignmentisnot
possibleorpractical.Althoughquasiexperimentaldesignsneedtobeused
commonly,theyaresubjecttonumerousinterpretationproblems.Frequently
usedtypesofquasiexperimentaldesignsincludethefollowing:

Nonequivalentgroup,posttestonly(Quasiexperimental).

Thenonequivalent,posttestonlydesignconsistsofadministeringanoutcome
measuretotwogroupsortoaprogram/treatmentgroupandacomparison.
Forexample,onegroupofstudentsmightreceivereadinginstructionusinga
wholelanguageprogramwhiletheotherreceivesaphoneticsbasedprogram.
Aftertwelveweeks,areadingcomprehensiontestcanbeadministeredtosee
whichprogramwasmoreeffective.

Amajorproblemwiththisdesignisthatthetwogroupsmightnotbe
necessarilythesamebeforeanyinstructiontakesplaceandmaydifferin
importantwaysthatinfluencewhatreadingprogresstheyareabletomake.
Forinstance,ifitisfoundthatthestudentsinthephoneticsgroupsperform
better,thereisnowayofdeterminingiftheyarebetterpreparedorbetter
readersevenbeforetheprogramand/orwhetherotherfactorsareinfluential
totheirgrowth.

Nonequivalentgroup,pretestposttest.

Thenonequivalentgroup,pretestposttestdesignpartiallyeliminatesamajor
limitationofthenonequivalentgroup,posttestonlydesign.Atthestartofthe
study,theresearcherempiricallyassessesthedifferencesinthetwogroups.
Therefore,iftheresearcherfindsthatonegroupperformsbetterthanthe
otherontheposttest,s/hecanruleoutinitialdifferences(ifthegroupswere
infactsimilaronthepretest)andnormaldevelopment(e.g.resultingfrom
typicalhomeliteracypracticesorotherinstruction)asexplanationsforthe
differences.

Someproblemsstillmightresultfromstudentsinthecomparisongroup
beingincidentallyexposedtothetreatmentcondition,beingmoremotivated
thanstudentsintheothergroup,havingmoremotivatedorinvolvedparents,
etc.Additionalproblemsmayresultfromdiscoveringthatthetwogroupsdo
differonthepretestmeasure.Ifgroupsdifferattheonsetofthestudy,any
differencesthatoccurintestscoresattheconclusionaredifficultto
interpret.

Timeseriesdesigns.
Intimeseriesdesigns,severalassessments(ormeasurements)areobtained
fromthetreatmentgroupaswellasfromthecontrolgroup.Thisoccursprior
toandaftertheapplicationofthetreatment.Theseriesofobservations
beforeandaftercanproviderichinformationaboutstudents'growth.
Becausemeasuresatseveralpointsintimepriorandsubsequenttothe
programarelikelytoprovideamorereliablepictureofachievement,thetime
seriesdesignissensitivetotrendsinperformance.Thus,thisdesign,
especiallyifacomparisongroupofsimilarstudentsisused,providesastrong
pictureoftheoutcomesofinterest.Nevertheless,althoughtoalesserdegree,
limitationsandproblemsofthenonequivalentgroup,pretestposttestdesign
stillapplytothisdesign.

TRUEEXPERIMENTALDESIGNS

Thestrongestcomparisonscomefromtrueexperimentaldesignsinwhich
subjects(students,teachers,classrooms,schools,etc.)arerandomlyassigned
toprogramandcomparisongroups.Itisonlythroughrandomassignment
thatevaluatorscanbeassuredthatgroupsaretrulycomparableandthat
observeddifferencesinoutcomesarenottheresultofextraneousfactorsor
preexistingdifferences.Forexample,withoutrandomassignment,what
inferencecanwedrawfromfindingsthatstudentsinreformclassrooms
outperformedstudentsinnonreformclassroomsifwesuspectthatthe
reformteachersweremorequalified,innovative,andeffectivepriortothe
reform?Doweattributetheobserveddifferencetothereformprogramorto
preexistingdifferencesbetweengroups?Intheformercase,thereform
appearstobeeffective,likelyworththeinvestment,andpossiblyjustifying
expansion;inthelattercase,alternativeinferencesarewarranted.Thereare
severaltypesoftrueexperimentaldesign:

PosttestOnly,ControlGroup.

Posttestonly,controlgroupdesignsdifferfrompreviouslydiscusseddesigns
inthatsubjectsarerandomlyassignedtooneofthetwogroups.Given
sufficientnumbersofsubjects,randomizationhelpstoassurethatthetwo
groups(orconditions,raters,occasions,etc.)arecomparableorequivalentin
termsofcharacteristicswhichcouldaffectanyobserveddifferencesin
posttestscores.Althoughapretestcanbeusedtoassessorconfirmwhether
thetwogroupswereinitiallythesameontheoutcomeofinterest(asin
pretestposttest,controlgroupdesigns),apretestislikelyunnecessarywhen
randomizationisusedandlargenumbersofstudentsand/orteachersare
involved.Withsmallersamples,pretestingmaybeadvisabletocheckonthe
equivalenceofthegroups.
OtherDesigns.

Someothergeneraltypesofdesignsincludecounterbalancedandmatched
subjects(foramoredetaileddiscussionofdifferentdesignsseeCampbell&
Stanley,1966).Withcounterbalanceddesigns,allgroupsparticipateinmore
thanonerandomlyorderedtreatment(andcontrol)conditions.Inmatched
designs,pairsofstudentsmatchedonimportantcharacteristics(forexample,
pretestscoresordemographicvariables)areassignedtooneofthetwo
treatmentconditions.Theseapproachesareeffectiveifrandomizationis
employed.

Evenexperimentaldesigns,however,canbeproblematicevenwhentrue
experimentaldesignsareemployed(Cook&Campbell,1979).Onethreatis
thatthecontrolgroupcanbeinadvertentlyexposedtotheprogram;sucha
threatalsooccurswhenkeyaspectsoftheprogramalsoexistinthe
comparisongroup.Additionally,oneoftheconditions(groups),suchas
instructionalprogramsmaybeperceivedasmoredesirablethantheother.If
participantsinthestudylearnoftheothergroup,thenimportant
motivationaldifferences(beingdemoralizedoreventryingharderto
compensate)couldimpacttheresults.Differencesinthequalitywithwhicha
programorcomparisontreatmentisimplementedalsocaninfluenceresults
(theteachersimplementingoneortheotherhavegreatercontentor
pedagogicalknowledge).Stillanotherthreattothevalidityofadesignis
differentialparticipantmortalityinthetwogroups.

LIMITATIONSOFTRUEEXPERIMENTALDESIGN

Experimentaldesignsalsoarelimitedbynarrowrangeofevaluation
purposestheyaddress.Whenconductinganevaluation,theresearcher
certainlyneedstodevelopadequatedescriptionsofprograms,astheywere
intendedaswellashowtheywererealizedinthespecificsetting.Also,the
researcherfrequentlyneedstoprovidetimely,responsivefeedbackfor
purposesofprogramdevelopmentorimprovement.Althoughlesscommon,
accessandequityissueswithinacriticaltheoryframeworkmaybe
important.Experimentaldesignsdonotaddressthesefacetsofevaluation.

Withcomplexeducationalprograms,rarelycanwecontrolalltheimportant
variableswhicharelikelytoinfluenceprogramoutcomes,evenwiththebest
experimentaldesign.Norcantheresearchernecessarilybesure,without
verification,thattheimplementedprogramwasreallydifferentinimportant
waysfromtheprogramofthecomparisongroup(s),orthattheimplemented
program(notothercontemporaneousfactorsorevents)producedthe
observedresults.Beingmindfuloftheseissues,itisimportantforevaluators
nottodevelopafalsesenseofsecurity.

Finally,evenwhenthepurposeoftheevaluationistoassesstheimpactofa
program,logisticalandfeasibilityissuesconstrainexperimentalframeworks.
Randomlyassigningstudentsineducationalsettingsfrequentlyisnot
realistic,especiallywhenthedifferentconditionsareviewedasmoreorless
desirable.Thisoftenleadstheresearchertousequasiexperimentaldesigns.
Problemsassociatedwiththelackofrandomizationareexacerbatedasthe
researcherbeginstorealizethattheprogramsandsettingsareinfact
dynamic,constantlychanging,andalmostalwaysunstandardized.

RECOMMENDATIONSFOREVALUATION

Theprimaryfactorwhichdirectstheevaluationdesignisthepurposeforthe
evaluation.Restated,itiscriticaltoconsidertheutilityofanyevaluation
information.Iftheprogram'simpactonparticipantoutcomesisakeyconcern
orifmultipleprograms(instructionalstrategies,orsomethingelse)arebeing
consideredandeducatorsarelookingforevidencetoassesstherelative
effectivenessofeachtoinformdecisionsaboutwhichapproachtoselect,then
experimentaldesignsareappropriateandnecessary.Nonetheless,resulting
informationshouldbeaugmentedbyrichdescriptionsofprogramsand
mechanismsneedtobeestablishedwhichenableprovidingtimely,responsive
feedback(Foradetaileddiscussionofotherapproachestoevaluation,see
Lincoln&Guba,1985;Patton,1997,andReinhart&Rallis,1994).

Inadditiontousingmultipleevaluationmethods,evaluatorsshouldbe
carefulincollectingtherightkindsofinformationwhenusingexperimental
frameworks.Measuresmustbealignedwiththeprogram'sgoalsor
objectives.Additionally,itisoftenmuchmorepowerfultoemploymultiple
measures.Triangulatingseverallinesofevidenceormeasuresinanswering
specificevaluationquestionsaboutprogramoutcomesincreasesthe
reliabilityandcredibilityofresults.Furthermore,wheninterpretingthis
evidence,itisoftenusefultouseabsolutestandardsofsuccessinadditionto
relativecomparisons.

Thelastrecommendationistoalwaysconsideralternativeexplanationsfor
anyobserveddifferencesinoutcomemeasures.Ifthetreatmentgroup
outperformsthecontrolgroup,considerafullrangeofplausibleexplanations
inadditiontotheclaimthattheinnovativepracticeismoreeffective.
Programstaffandparticipantscanbeveryhelpfulinidentifyingthese
alternativeexplanationsandevaluatingtheplausibilityofeach.

ADDITIONALREADING
Campbell,D.T.&Stanley,J.C.(1966).Experimentalandquasiexperimental
designsforresearch.Chicago:RandMcNallyCollegePub.Co.

Cook,T.D.&Campbell,D.T.(1979).Quasiexperimentation:designand
analysisissuesforfieldsettings.Chicago:RandMcNallyCollegePub.Co.

Lincoln,Y.S.&Guba,E.G.(1985).Naturalisticinquiry.BeverlyHills:Sage
Publications.

Patton,M.Q.(1997).Utilizationfocusedevaluation,edition3.Thousand
Oaks,CA:SagePublications.

Reinhart,C.S.&Rallis,S.F.(1994).Thequalitativequantitativedebate:New
perspectives.SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.

Descriptors: *Comparative Analysis; *Control Groups; Evaluation Methods; Evaluation Utilization;

*Experiments; Measurement Techniques; *Pretests Posttests; *Quasiexperimental Design; Sampling;
Selection
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=14