Sociological Research: Designs, Methods

Sociologists use many different designs and methods to study society and social behavior. Most
sociological research involves ethnography, or “field work” designed to depict the characteristics of a
population as fully as possible.

Three popular social research designs (models) are

Cross‐sectional, in which scientists study a number of individuals of different ages who have the same
trait or characteristic of interest at a single time

Longitudinal, in which scientists study the same individuals or society repeatedly over a specified
period of time

Cross‐sequential, in which scientists test individuals in a cross‐sectional sample more than once over a
specified period of time

Six of the most popular sociological research methods (procedures) are the case study, survey,
observational, correlational, experimental, and cross‐cultural methods, as well as working with
information already available.

Case study research

In case study research, an investigator studies an individual or small group of individuals with an
unusual condition or situation. Case studies are typically clinical in scope. The investigator (often a
clinical sociologist) sometimes uses self‐report measures to acquire quantifiable data on the subject. A
comprehensive case study, including a long‐term follow‐up, can last months or years.
On the positive side, case studies obtain useful information about individuals and small groups. On the
negative side, they tend to apply only to individuals with similar characteristics rather than to the
general population. The high likelihood of the investigator's biases affecting subjects' responses limits
the generalizability of this method.

Survey research

Survey research involves interviewing or administering questionnaires, or written surveys, to large

numbers of people. The investigator analyzes the data obtained from surveys to learn about
similarities, differences, and trends. He or she then makes predictions about the population being
studied.

As with most research methods, survey research brings both advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages include obtaining information from a large number of respondents, conducting personal
interviews at a time convenient for respondents, and acquiring data as inexpensively as possible. “Mail‐
in” surveys have the added advantage of ensuring anonymity and thus prompting respondents to
answer questions truthfully.

Disadvantages of survey research include volunteer bias, interviewer bias, and distortion. Volunteer
bias occurs when a sample of volunteers is not representative of the general population. Subjects who
are willing to talk about certain topics may answer surveys differently than those who are not willing to
talk. Interviewer bias occurs when an interviewer's expectations or insignificant gestures (for example,
frowning or smiling) inadvertently influence a subject's responses one way or the other. Distortion
occurs when a subject does not respond to questions honestly.

Observational research
Because distortion can be a serious limitation of surveys, observational research involves directly
observing subjects' reactions, either in a laboratory (called laboratory observation) or in a natural
setting (called naturalistic observation). Observational research reduces the possibility that subjects
will not give totally honest accounts of the experiences, not take the study seriously, and fail to
remember, or feel embarrassed.

Observational research has limitations, however. Subject bias is common, because volunteer subjects
may not be representative of the general public. Individuals who agree to observation and monitoring
may function differently than those who do not. They may also function differently in a laboratory
setting than they do in other settings.

Correlational research

A sociologist may also conduct correlational research. A correlation is a relationship between two
variables (or “factors that change”). These factors can be characteristics, attitudes, behaviors, or
events. Correlational research attempts to determine if a relationship exists between the two variables,
and the degree of that relationship.

A social researcher can use case studies, surveys, interviews, and observational research to discover
correlations. Correlations are either positive (to +1.0), negative (to −1.0), or nonexistent (0.0). In a
positive correlation, the values of the variables increase or decrease (“co‐vary”) together. In a negative
correlation, one variable increases as the other decreases. In a nonexistent correlation, no relationship
exists between the variables.

People commonly confuse correlation with causation. Correlational data do not indicate cause‐and‐
effect relationships. When a correlation exists, changes in the value of one variable reflect changes in
the value of the other. The correlation does not imply that one variable causes the other, only that
both variables somehow relate to one another. To study the effects that variables have on each other,
an investigator must conduct an experiment.

Experimental research
Experimental research attempts to determine how and why something happens. Experimental
research tests the way in which an independent variable (the factor that the scientist manipulates)
affects a dependent variable (the factor that the scientist observes).

A number of factors can affect the outcome of any type of experimental research. One is finding
samples that are random and representative of the population being studied. Another is experimenter
bias, in which the researcher's expectations about what should or should not happen in the study sway
the results. Still another is controlling for extraneous variables, such as room temperature or noise
level, that may interfere with the results of the experiment. Only when the experimenter carefully
controls for extraneous variables can she or he draw valid conclusions about the effects of specific
variables on other variables.

Cross-cultural research

Sensitivity to others' norms, folkways, values, mores, attitudes, customs, and practices necessitates
knowledge of other societies and cultures. Sociologists may conduct cross‐cultural research, or
research designed to reveal variations across different groups of people. Most cross‐cultural research
involves survey, direct observation, and participant observation methods of research.

Participant observation requires that an “observer” become a member of his or her subjects'
community. An advantage of this method of research is the opportunity it provides to study what
actually occurs within a community, and then consider that information within the political, economic,
social, and religious systems of that community. Cross‐cultural research demonstrates that Western
cultural standards do not necessarily apply to other societies. What may be “normal” or acceptable for
one group may be “abnormal” or unacceptable for another.

Research with existing data, or secondary analysis

Some sociologists conduct research by using data that other social scientists have already collected.
The use of publicly accessible information is known as secondary analysis, and is most common in
situations in which collecting new data is impractical or unnecessary. Sociologists may obtain statistical
data for analysis from businesses, academic institutions, and governmental agencies, to name only a
few sources. Or they may use historical or library information to generate their hypotheses.

WHAT IS DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

A dependent variable is the variable in a scientific experiment that's being tested. An independent
variable is the variable that can be changed during the course of an experiment to study the effect on
the dependent variable.

The dependent variable is the primary object of study in any experiment, and it does not change
throughout the course of the experiment. Different independent variables may be used throughout the
course of an experiment to determine what impact, if any, the change has on the dependent variable.
When results of an experiment are put on a graph, the independent variable is on the X-axis and the
dependent variable is on the Y-axis.

What Is the Difference Between Independent and Dependent Variables?

Independent vs Dependent Variables

The two main variables in an experiment are the independent and dependent variable.

An independent variable is the variable that is changed or controlled in a scientific experiment to test
the effects on the dependent variable.

A dependent variable is the variable being tested and measured in a scientific experiment.

The dependent variable is 'dependent' on the independent variable. As the experimenter changes the
independent variable, the effect on the dependent variable is observed and recorded.
For example, a scientist wants to see if the brightness of light has any effect on a moth being attracted
to the light. The brightness of the light is controlled by the scientist. This would be the independent
variable. How the moth reacts to the different light levels (distance to light source) would be the
dependent variable.

When results are plotted in graphs, the convention is to use the independent variable as the x-axis and
the dependent variable as the y-axis.

The Difference Between Independent and Dependent Variables

FEBRUARY 19, 2014 BY MICHELLE HASSLER

Difference between independent and dependent variables In an equation, there are two types of
variables: independent and dependent. These values represent mathematical tools that are used in an
experiment. Independent and dependent variables allow a researcher to maintain control, measure
results, and draw accurate conclusions.

The basic definition of independent and dependent variables is universal in both science and math.
However, the way the variables are used differs depending on whether you are conducting a scientific
experiment, performing a math problem, or studying statistics.
Check out this course if you are looking for a fun and easy way to learn math formulas and techniques.

Independent variables are values that can be changed in a given equation or experiment. Think of an
independent variable as your input. An independent variable represents information that you put in to
the equation.

Dependent variables are values that result directly from the independent variable. Ultimately, they
depend on the independent variable. You do not put this information into the equation or experiment
but instead observe or discover it.

A simple equation used in the field of physics can be used to demonstrate the relationship between
independent and dependent variables.

Newton’s Second Law of Motion states the following:

F = ma

(Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.)

When measuring the acceleration of an object, the mass does not change. Therefore, it remains
constant. The independent variable in this formula would be force. Force can be changed, and a
greater force results in a greater acceleration.

Independent and Dependent Variables in Science

Let’s imagine that a scientist is conducting an experiment to test if a vitamin enriched water will result
in more growth than plain water.

The independent variable is the variable that is manipulated by the researcher during an experiment. In
this case, the independent variable is the vitamin substance that is being given to the plant. This is
controlled by the experimenting scientist.

The dependent variable is the amount of plant growth. This is affected directly by the vitamin
substance or independent variable. It is important to note that there can be more than one dependent
variable. For example, in the above experiment, the daily growth rate could be measured as well as the
overall height of the plant after a number of days. Width or other factors to measure health such as
could be measured as well. All of these variables are dependent upon the independent variable (the
vitamin substance).

Outside of some advanced forms of research, you cannot have more than one independent variable for
a valid experiment. In order to receive accurate results, the researcher needs to know the one factor
that is causing the results of the experiment.

When conducting an experiment, control variables or constants come into play. The control variables
are variables that must be held constant or neutralized from the beginning to the end of the
experiment for the results to be reliable. Everything except the independent and dependent variables
need to stay the same throughout the experiment. Some control variables would be the amount of
liquid given to the plant, the tools used, location, soil quality, sunlight, and temperature.

Independent and Dependent Variables in Math

You probably remember being introduced to variables during an introductory Algebra lesson. In math,
variables are the x and y values in an equation or graph. The term function is often used when using
independent and dependent variables in math. Functions are examined algebraically or graphically by
either looking at equations or graphs. A function represents a mathematical relationship where the
value of a single, dependent variable is determined by one or more independent variables.
The independent variable is often designated by x. The dependent variable is often designated by y.

We say y is a function of x. This means y depends on or is determined by x.

Mathematically, we write y = f(x). This means that mathematically y depends on x. If we know the value
of x, then we can find the value of y. Equations show relationships. The final solution of the equation
(y) depends on the value of (x) or the independent variable which can be changed.

Let’s look at the equation y = 4x – 3. The dependent variable is y because it depends upon the value
chosen for x. The dependent variable is usually isolated on one side of the equation.

If you are looking to learn basic Algebra or brush up on your knowledge, check out this course.

Graphing Independent and Dependent Variables

Throughout the practice of both math and science, dependent and independent variables can be
plotted on the x and y axes of a graph. A graph shows a clear relationship between the x and y
variables.

A simple and effective way to represent data using an independent and dependent variable would be a
two-dimensional graph. When graphing information, traditionally the independent variable is placed on
the y axis and the dependent variable is placed on the x axis. These variables are usually studied to
determine if there is a correlation in the data. The independent variables are the input into the
mathematical problem or system and are not changed by the process.
Graphs are often used in descriptive statistics to summarize data and discover patterns. If you are
looking to learn concepts, calculations and applications of descriptive statistics, check out this course
offered by Udemy.

The following examples of independent and dependent variables can easily be shown on a graph.

Independent Variable

Dependent Variable

Hours Worked

Amount of Money Earned

Total Calories Consumed

Total Weight Gain

Number of Assignments Completed

Math Course Grade

Summary of Differences
In science, for one independent variable, there may be more than one dependent variable. However,
for more than one dependent variable, there is always one independent variable.

The value of an independent value can be changed. You cannot change of the value of a dependent
variable.

The independent variable is the value which is manipulated in an experiment. The dependent variable
is the value observed by the researcher during an experiment.

Knowing the differences between independent and dependent variables will help as you as you
sharpen your problem solving skills and continue to explore new concepts within the fields of
mathematics and the science. If you are brushing up on your knowledge in preparation of an SAT test,
this teaching and coaching course would help to improve your SAT score or just broaden your general
knowledge when it comes to high school level subject matter.

Dependent Variable

The variable that depends on other factors that are measured. These variables are expected to change
as a result of an experimental manipulation of the independent variable or variables. It is the presumed
effect.

Independent Variable

The variable that is stable and unaffected by the other variables you are trying to measure. It refers to
the condition of an experiment that is systematically manipulated by the investigator. It is the
presumed cause.

Dependent and Independent Variables

A moment ago, we discussed the two variables in our experiment - hunger and throwing a ball. But,
they are both better defined by the terms 'dependent' or 'independent' variable.

The dependent variable is the variable a researcher is interested in. The changes to the dependent
variable are what the researcher is trying to measure with all their fancy techniques. In our example,
your dependent variable is the person's ability to throw a ball. We're trying to measure the change in
ball throwing as influenced by hunger.
An independent variable is a variable believed to affect the dependent variable. This is the variable that
you, the researcher, will manipulate to see if it makes the dependent variable change. In our example
of hungry people throwing a ball, our independent variable is how long it's been since they've eaten.

To reiterate, the independent variable is the thing over which the researcher has control and is
manipulating. In this experiment, the researcher is controlling the food intake of the participant. The
dependent variable is believed to be dependent on the independent variable.

Your experiment's dependent variable is the ball throwing, which will hopefully change due to the
independent variable. So now, our scientific sentence is, 'You are going to manipulate an independent
variable to see what happens to the dependent variable.'

Cohort study

For other senses of this word, see cohort (disambiguation).

A cohort study is a particular form of longitudinal study (panel study) that sample a cohort (a
group of people who share a defining characteristic, typically who experienced a common event in a
selected period, such as birth or graduation), performing a cross-section at intervals through time. A
cohort study is a panel study, but a panel study is not always a cohort study as individuals in a panel
study do not always share a common characteristic.[1]

A cohort study is a quasi-experiment used in medicine, nursing, psychology, social science,

actuarial science, business analytics, and ecology. For instance in medicine, it is an analysis of risk
factors and follows a group of people who do not have the disease, and uses correlations to determine
the absolute risk of subject contraction. It is one type of clinical study design and should be compared
with a cross-sectional study. Cohort studies are largely about the life histories of segments of
populations, and the individual people who constitute these segments.[2][3]

A cohort is a group of people who share a common characteristic or experience within a defined
period (e.g., are currently living, are exposed to a drug or vaccine or pollutant, or undergo a certain
medical procedure). Thus a group of people who were born on a day or in a particular period, say 1948,
form a birth cohort. The comparison group may be the general population from which the cohort is
drawn, or it may be another cohort of persons thought to have had little or no exposure to the
substance under investigation, but otherwise similar. Alternatively, subgroups within the cohort may
be compared with each other.
 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a superior methodology in the hierarchy of evidence in
therapy, because they limit the potential for any biases by randomly assigning one patient pool to an
intervention and another patient pool to non-intervention (or placebo). This minimizes the chance that
the incidence of confounding (particularly unknown confounding) variables will differ between the two
groups. However, it is important to note that RCTs may not be suitable in all cases and other
methodologies could be much more suitable to investigate the study's objective(s).

Cohort studies can be retrospective (looking back in time, thus using existing data such as
medical records or claims database) or prospective (requiring the collection of new data).[4]

Application

In medicine, a cohort study is often undertaken to obtain evidence to try to refute the existence
of a suspected association between cause and effect; failure to refute a hypothesis often strengthens
confidence in it. Crucially, the cohort is identified before the appearance of the disease under
investigation. The study groups follow a group of people who do not have the disease for a period of
time and see who develops the disease (new incidence). The cohort cannot therefore be defined as a
group of people who already have the disease. Prospective (longitudinal) cohort studies between
exposure and disease strongly aid in studying causal associations, though distinguishing true causality
usually requires further corroboration from further experimental trials.

The advantage of prospective cohort study data is that it can help determine risk factors for
contracting a new disease because it is a longitudinal observation of the individual through time, and
the collection of data at regular intervals, so recall error is reduced. However, cohort studies are
expensive to conduct, are sensitive to attrition and take a long follow-up time to generate useful data.
Nevertheless, the results that are obtained from long-term cohort studies are of substantially superior
quality to those obtained from retrospective/cross-sectional studies. Prospective cohort studies are
considered to yield the most reliable results in observational epidemiology. They enable a wide range
of exposure-disease associations to be studied.

Some cohort studies track groups of children from their birth, and record a wide range of
information (exposures) about them. The value of a cohort study depends on the researchers' capacity
to stay in touch with all members of the cohort. Some studies have continued for decades.

In a cohort study, the population under investigation consists of individuals who are at risk of
developing a specific disease or health outcome.[5]

Examples
 This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has
been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (July 2011) (Learn how and when to remove
this template message)

An example of an epidemiological question that can be answered using a cohort study is: does
exposure to X (say, smoking) associate with outcome Y (say, lung cancer)? Such a study would recruit a
group of smokers and a group of non-smokers (the unexposed group) and follow them for a set period
of time and note differences in the incidence of lung cancer between the groups at the end of this time.
The groups are matched in terms of many other variables such as economic status and other health
status so that the variable being assessed, the independent variable (in this case, smoking) can be
isolated as the cause of the dependent variable (in this case, lung cancer). In this example, a statistically
significant increase in the incidence of lung cancer in the smoking group as compared to the non-
smoking group is evidence in favor of the hypothesis. However, rare outcomes, such as lung cancer,
are generally not studied with the use of a cohort study, but are rather studied with the use of a case-
control study.

Shorter term studies are commonly used in medical research as a form of clinical trial, or means
to test a particular hypothesis of clinical importance. Such studies typically follow two groups of
patients for a period of time and compare an endpoint or outcome measure between the two groups.

Randomized controlled trials, or RCTs are a superior methodology in the hierarchy of evidence,
because they limit the potential for bias by randomly assigning one patient pool to an intervention and
another patient pool to non-intervention (or placebo). This minimizes the chance that the incidence of
confounding variables will differ between the two groups.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes not practical or ethical to perform RCTs to answer a clinical

question. To take our example, if we already had reasonable evidence that smoking causes lung cancer
then persuading a pool of non-smokers to take up smoking in order to test this hypothesis would
generally be considered quite unethical.

Two examples of cohort studies that have been going on for more than 50 years are the
Framingham Heart Study and the National Child Development Study (NCDS), the most widely
researched of the British birth cohort studies. Key findings of NCDS and a detailed profile of the study
appear in the International Journal of Epidemiology.[6]

The Dunedin Longitudinal Study, started in 1975, has been studying the thousand people born in
Dunedin, New Zealand in 1972-73. The subjects are interviewed regularly, with Phase 45 starting in 2017.

The largest cohort study in women is the Nurses' Health Study. Started in 1976, it is tracking
over 120,000 nurses and has been analyzed for many different conditions and outcomes.
 The largest cohort study in Africa is the Birth to Twenty Study, which began in 1990 and tracks a
cohort of over 3,000 children born in the weeks following Nelson Mandela's release from prison.

Other famous examples are the Grant Study tracking a number of Harvard graduates from ca.
1950.77, the Whitehall Study tracking 10,308 British civil servants, and the Caerphilly Heart Disease
Study, which since 1979 has studied a representative sample of 2,512 men, drawn from the Welsh town
of Caerphilly.

Variations

Comparison of timelines of case-control and cohort studies

The diagram indicates the starting point and direction of cohort and case-control studies. In
Case-control studies the analysis proceeds from documented disease and investigations are made to
arrive at the possible causes of the disease. In cohort studies the assessments starts with the putative
cause of disease, and observations are made of the occurrence of disease relative to the hypothesized
causal agent.[8]

Current and historical cohorts

A current cohort study represents a true prospective study where the data concerning exposure
are assembled prior to the occurrence of the fact to be studied, for instance a disease. An example of a
current cohort study is the Oxford Family Planning Association Study in the United Kingdom, which
aimed to provide a balanced view of the beneficial and harmful effects of different methods of
contraception. This study has provided a large amount of information on the efficacy and safety of
contraceptive methods, and in particular oral contraceptives (OCs), diaphragms and intrauterine device
(IUDs).

In a historical cohort study the data concerning exposure and occurrence of a disease, births, a
political attitude or any other categorical variable are collected after the events have taken place, and
the subjects (those exposed and unexposed to the agent under study) are assembled from existing
records or health care registers.

A "prospective cohort" defines the groups before the study is done, while historical studies,
which are sometimes referred to as "retrospective cohort", defines the grouping after the data is
collected. Examples of a retrospective cohort are Long-Term Mortality after Gastric Bypass Surgery[9]
and The Lothian Birth Cohort Studies.[10]

Though historical studies are sometimes referred to as retrospective study, it a misnomer as the
methodological principles of historical cohort studies and prospective studies are the same.[8]

Nested case-control study

 An example of a nested case-control study is Inflammatory markers and the risk of coronary
heart disease in men and women, which was a case control analyses extracted from the Framingham
Heart Study cohort.[11]

Household panel survey

Household panel surveys are an important sub-type of cohort study. These draw representative
samples of households and survey them, following all individuals through time on a usually annual
basis. Examples include the US Panel Study of Income Dynamics (since 1968), the German Socio-
Economic Panel (since 1984), the British Household Panel Survey (since 1991), the Household, Income
and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (since 2001) and the European Community Household Panel
(1994–2001).

Cohort Study

A study design where one or more samples (called cohorts) are followed prospectively and
subsequent status evaluations with respect to a disease or outcome are conducted to determine which
initial participants exposure characteristics (risk factors) are associated with it. As the study is
conducted, outcome from participants in each cohort is measured and relationships with specific
characteristics determined

Advantages

Subjects in cohorts can be matched, which limits the influence of confounding variables

Standardization of criteria/outcome is possible

Easier and cheaper than a randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Disadvantages

Cohorts can be difficult to identify due to confounding variables

No randomization, which means that imbalances in patient characteristics could exist

Blinding/masking is difficult

Outcome of interest could take time to occur

Design pitfalls to look out for

The cohorts need to be chosen from separate, but similar, populations.

How many differences are there between the control cohort and the experiment cohort? Will those
differences cloud the study outcomes?
Fictitious Example

A cohort study was designed to assess the impact of sun exposure on skin damage in beach volleyball
players. During a weekend tournament, players from one team wore waterproof, SPF 35 sunscreen,
while players from the other team did not wear any sunscreen. At the end of the volleyball tournament
players' skin from both teams was analyzed for texture, sun damage, and burns. Comparisons of skin
damage were then made based on the use of sunscreen. The analysis showed a significant difference
between the cohorts in terms of the skin damage.

Real-life Example

Ramchand, R., Ialongo, N. S., &Chilcoat, H. D. (2007).The effect of working for pay on adolescent
tobacco use. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 2056-2062.

This study uses data collected from high school students from Baltimore, Maryland, and studies
the differences in initiation of tobacco use between a cohort of adolescents that started working for
pay and a cohort of adolescents that did not work. The results suggest that adolescents who work for
pay have a higher risk of initiating tobacco use.

Lindenauer, P. K., Rothberg, M. B., Pekow, P. S., Kenwood, C., Benjamin, E. M., &Auerbach, A. D.
(2007).Outcomes of care by hospitalists, general internists, and family physicians. New England Journal
of Medicine, 357(25), 2589-2600.

To study effects of hospitalists, general internists, and family physicians on patient care,
patients that were hospitalized with certain conditions under the care of hospitalists, general
internists, and family physicians were separated into three cohorts. The results showed that patients
cared for by hospitalists had shorter hospital stays and lower costs than those cared for by general
internists or family physicians.

Nichol, K. L., Nordin, J. D., Nelson, D. B., Mullooly, J. P., &Hak, E. (2007). Effectiveness of influenza
vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(14), 1373-1381.

To determine the long-term effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people, cohorts of

vaccinated elderly and unvaccinated community-dwelling elderly were studied. The results suggest that
the elderly who are vaccinated have a reduced risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza.

Quasi-experiment

A quasi-experiment is an empirical study used to estimate the causal impact of an intervention

on its target population without random assignment. Quasi-experimental research shares similarities
with the traditional experimental design or randomized controlled trial, but they specifically lack the
element of random assignment to treatment or control. Instead, quasi-experimental designs typically
allow the researcher to control the assignment to the treatment condition, but using some criterion
other than random assignment (e.g., an eligibility cutoff mark).[1] In some cases, the researcher may
have control over assignment to treatment. Quasi-experiments are subject to concerns regarding
internal validity, because the treatment and control groups may not be comparable at baseline. With
random assignment, study participants have the same chance of being assigned to the intervention
group or the comparison group. As a result, differences between groups on both observed and
unobserved characteristics would be due to chance, rather than to a systematic factor related to
treatment (e.g., illness severity). Randomization itself does not guarantee that groups will be
equivalent at baseline. Any change in characteristics post-intervention is likely attributable to the
intervention. With quasi-experimental studies, it may not be possible to convincingly demonstrate a
causal link between the treatment condition and observed outcomes. This is particularly true if there
are confounding variables that cannot be controlled or accounted for.[2]

Design

The first part of creating a quasi-experimental design is to identify the variables. The quasi-
independent variable will be the x-variable, the variable that is manipulated in order to affect a
dependent variable. “X” is generally a grouping variable with different levels. Grouping means two or
more groups, such as two groups receiving alternative treatments, or a treatment group and a no-
treatment group (which may be given a placebo - placebos are more frequently used in medical or
physiological experiments). The predicted outcome is the dependent variable, which is the y-variable.
In a time series analysis, the dependent variable is observed over time for any changes that may take
place. Once the variables have been identified and defined, a procedure should then be implemented
and group differences should be examined.[3]

In an experiment with random assignment, study units have the same chance of being assigned
to a given treatment condition. As such, random assignment ensures that both the experimental and
control groups are equivalent. In a quasi-experimental design, assignment to a given treatment
condition is based on something other than random assignment. Depending on the type of quasi-
experimental design, the researcher might have control over assignment to the treatment condition
but use some criteria other than random assignment (e.g., a cutoff score) to determine which
participants receive the treatment, or the researcher may have no control over the treatment condition
assignment and the criteria used for assignment may be unknown. Factors such as cost, feasibility,
political concerns, or convenience may influence how or if participants are assigned to a given
treatment conditions, and as such, quasi-experiments are subject to concerns regarding internal
validity (i.e., can the results of the experiment be used to make a causal inference?).
 Quasi-experiments are also effective because they use the "pre-post testing". This means that
there are tests done before any data is collected to see if there are any person confounds or if any
participants have certain tendencies. Then the actual experiment is done with post test results
recorded. This data can be compared as part of the study or the pre-test data can be included in an
explanation for the actual experimental data. Quasi experiments have independent variables that
already exist such as age, gender, eye color. These variables can either be continuous (age) or they can
be categorical (gender). In short, naturally occurring variables are measured within quasi experiments.
[4]

There are several types of quasi-experimental designs, each with different strengths,
weaknesses and applications. These designs include (but are not limited to):[5]

Difference in differences (pre-post with-without comparison)

Nonequivalent control groups design

no-treatment control group designs

nonequivalent dependent variables designs

removed treatment group designs

repeated treatment designs

reversed treatment nonequivalent control groups designs

cohort designs

post-test only designs

regression continuity designs

Regression discontinuity design

case-control design

time-series designs

multiple time series design

interrupted time series design

Propensity score matching

Instrumental variables
Panel analysis

Of all of these designs, the regression discontinuity design comes the closest to the
experimental design, as the experimenter maintains control of the treatment assignment and it is
known to “yield an unbiased estimate of the treatment effects”.[5]:242 It does, however, require large
numbers of study participants and precise modeling of the functional form between the assignment
and the outcome variable, in order to yield the same power as a traditional experimental design.

Though quasi-experiments are sometimes shunned by those who consider themselves to be

experimental purists (leading Donald T. Campbell to coin the term “queasy experiments” for them),[6]
they are exceptionally useful in areas where it is not feasible or desirable to conduct an experiment or
randomized control trial. Such instances include evaluating the impact of public policy changes,
educational interventions or large scale health interventions. The primary drawback of quasi-
experimental designs is that they cannot eliminate the possibility of confounding bias, which can
hinder one’s ability to draw causal inferences. This drawback is often used to discount quasi-
experimental results. However, such bias can be controlled for using various statistical techniques such
as multiple regressions, if one can identify and measure the confounding variable(s). Such techniques
can be used to model and partial out the effects of confounding variables techniques, thereby
improving the accuracy of the results obtained from quasi-experiments. Moreover, the developing use
of propensity score matching to match participants on variables important to the treatment selection
process can also improve the accuracy of quasi-experimental results. In sum, quasi-experiments are a
valuable tool, especially for the applied researcher. On their own, quasi-experimental designs do not
allow one to make definitive causal inferences; however, they provide necessary and valuable
information that cannot be obtained by experimental methods alone. Researchers, especially those
interested in investigating applied research questions, should move beyond the traditional
experimental design and avail themselves of the possibilities inherent in quasi-experimental designs.[5]

Ethics

A true experiment would randomly assign children to a scholarship, in order to control for all
other variables. Quasi-experiments are commonly used in social sciences, public health, education, and
policy analysis, especially when it is not practical or reasonable to randomize study participants to the
treatment condition.

As an example, suppose we divide households into two categories: Households in which the
parents spank their children, and households in which the parents do not spank their children. We can
run a linear regression to determine if there is a positive correlation between parents' spanking and
their children's aggressive behavior. However, to simply randomize parents to spank or to not spank
their children may not be practical or ethical, because some parents may believe it is morally wrong to
spank their children and refuse to participate.
 Some authors distinguish between a natural experiment and a "quasi-experiment".[1][5] The
difference is that in a quasi-experiment the criterion for assignment is selected by the researcher, while
in a natural experiment the assignment occurs 'naturally,' without the researcher's intervention.

Quasi experiments have outcome measures, treatments, and experimental units, but do not use
random assignment. Quasi-experiments are often the design that most people choose over true
experiments. The main reason is that they can usually be conducted while true experiments can not
always be. Quasi-experiments are interesting because they bring in features from both experimental
and non experimental designs. Measured variables can be brought in, as well as manipulated variables.
Usually Quasi-experiments are chosen by experimenters because they maximize internal and external
validity.[7]

Advantages

Since quasi-experimental designs are used when randomization is impractical and/or unethical,
they are typically easier to set up than true experimental designs, which require[8] random assignment
of subjects. Additionally, utilizing quasi-experimental designs minimizes threats to ecological validity as
natural environments do not suffer the same problems of artificiality as compared to a well-controlled
laboratory setting.[9] Since quasi-experiments are natural experiments, findings in one may be applied
to other subjects and settings, allowing for some generalizations to be made about population. Also,
this experimentation method is efficient in longitudinal research that involves longer time periods
which can be followed up in different environments.

Other advantages of quasi experiments include the idea of having any manipulations the
experimenter so chooses. In natural experiments, the researchers have to let manipulations occur on
their own and have no control over them whatsoever. Also, using self selected groups in quasi
experiments also takes away to chance of ethical, conditional, etc. concerns while conducting the
study.[7]

Disadvantages

Quasi-experimental estimates of impact are subject to contamination by confounding variables.

[1] In the example above, a variation in the children's response to spanking is plausibly influenced by
factors that cannot be easily measured and controlled, for example the child's intrinsic wildness or the
parent's irritability. The lack of random assignment in the quasi-experimental design method may allow
studies to be more feasible, but this also poses many challenges for the investigator in terms of internal
validity. This deficiency in randomization makes it harder to rule out confounding variables and
introduces new threats to internal validity.[10] Because randomization is absent, some knowledge
about the data can be approximated, but conclusions of causal relationships are difficult to determine
due to a variety of extraneous and confounding variables that exist in a social environment. Moreover,
even if these threats to internal validity are assessed, causation still cannot be fully established because
the experimenter does not have total control over extraneous variables.[11]

Disadvantages also include the study groups may provide weaker evidence because of the lack
of randomness. Randomness brings a lot of useful information to a study because it broadens results
and therefore gives a better representation of the population as a whole. Using unequal groups can
also be a threat to internal validity. If groups are not equal, which is not always the case in quasi
experiments, then the experimenter might not be positive what the causes are for the results.[4]

Internal validity

Internal validity is the approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect or causal
relationships. This is why validity is important for quasi experiments because they are all about causal
relationships. It occurs when the experimenter tries to control all variables that could affect the results
of the experiment. Statistical regression, history and the participants are all possible threats to internal
validity. The question you would want to ask while trying to keep internal validity high is "Are there any
other possible reasons for the outcome besides the reason I want it to be?" If so, then internal validity
might not be as strong.[7]

External validity

External validity is the extent to which results obtained from a study sample can be generalized
to the population of interest. When External Validity is high, the generalization is accurate and can
represent the outside world from the experiment. External Validity is very important when it comes to
statistical research because you want to make sure that you have a correct depiction of the population.
When external validity is low, the credibility of your research comes into doubt. Reducing threats to
external validity can be done by making sure there is a random sampling of participants and random
assignment as well.[12]

Design types

"Person-by-treatment" designs are the most common type of quasi experiment design. In this
design, the experimenter measures at least one independent variable. Along with measuring one
variable, the experimenter will also manipulate a different independent variable. Because there is
manipulating and measuring of different independent variables, the research is mostly done in
laboratories. An important factor in dealing with person-by-treatment designs are that random
assignment will need to be used in order to make sure that the experimenter has complete control
over the manipulations that are being done to the study.[13]
 An example of this type of design was performed at the University of Notre Dame. The study
was conducted to see if being mentored for your job led to increased job satisfaction. The results
showed that many people who did have a mentor showed very high job satisfaction. However, the
study also showed that those who did not receive the mentor also had a high number of satisfied
employees. Seibert concluded that although the workers who had mentors were happy, he could not
assume that the reason for it was the mentors themselves because of the numbers of the high number
of non-mentored employees that said they were satisfied. This is why prescreening is very important so
that you can minimize any flaws in the study before they are seen.[14]

"Natural Experiments" are a different type of quasi experiment design used by researchers. It
differs from person-by-treatment in a way that there is not a variable that is being manipulated by the
experimenter. Instead of controlling at least one variable like the person-by-treatment design,
experimenters do not use random assignment and leave the experimental control up to chance. This is
where the name "Natural" Experiment comes from. The manipulations occur naturally, and although
this may seem like an inaccurate technique, it has actually proven to be useful in many cases. These are
the studies done to people who had something sudden happen to them. This could mean good or bad,
traumatic or euphoric. An example of this could be studies done on those who have been in a car
accident and those who have not. Car accidents occur naturally, so it would not be ethical to stage
experiments to traumatize subjects in the study. These naturally occurring events have proven to be
useful for studying post traumatic stress disorder cases.[13]

Quasi-Experiment: Definitions

I'm going to do a psychological experiment where I make people different ages and then see
how they react to loud noises. Well, I'd like to. Unfortunately, even with our advanced quantum physics
and computers, we cannot reverse or control age like that. Psychological researchers are forced to
work around the issue.

Because we can't reverse someone's age, we have to work with people who are already that
age. But, we miss some things in the process. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

A true experiment has one main component - randomly assigned groups. This translates to
every participant having an equal chance of being in the experimental group, where they are subject to
a manipulation, or the control group, where they are not manipulated.

A quasi-experiment is simply defined as not a true experiment. Since the main component of a
true experiment is randomly assigned groups, this means a quasi-experiment does not have randomly
assigned groups. Why are randomly assigned groups so important since they are the only difference
between quasi-experimental and true experimental?
 When performing an experiment, a researcher is attempting to demonstrate that variable A
influences or causes variable B to do something. They want to demonstrate cause and effect. Random
assignment helps ensure that there is no pre-existing condition that will influence the variables and
mess up the results.

A silly example would be something like, 'Does chemical X1 cause blindness?' If you accidentally
put all of the people wearing glasses in the condition where you spray X1 in someone's face, then your
results are going to be skewed. This is an extreme and overly simplistic example, but it is
demonstrating why normally an experimenter wants to randomly assign people into different groups.
Let's look at some more realistic and typical quasi-experiments in psychology.

Non-Equivalent Groups

Sometimes a researcher needs a particular type of participant or they only have access to a
certain group of participants. This means that the researcher collects participants in a group that
cannot or should not be divided up, or more simply, the researcher cannot randomly assign the
participants. This non-equivalent group is defined as an experiment where existing groups are not
divided.

An experiment using non-equivalent groups might take place at a mental health institution. You
cannot randomly assign people to therapy and others to not have therapy. That would be unethical. So,
you're forced to assign the entire group to therapy, which means no random assignment.

It is possible to have multiple groups. In our mental health institution example, let's say that the
staff had divided up everyone into three groups. Furthermore, let's say you have a new type of therapy
and an old type of therapy, so nobody is going without.

Randomly assigning the groups, to try and make your study a true experiment, is not sufficient.
This is because there is no telling why an individual was assigned to any of the three groups. The reason
an individual might be in group B and not in group A could skew your results. You need to be able to
assign individuals to the treatment or alternate treatment groups to claim it as a true experiment.

Pretest-Posttest

A researcher finds a group of people to test. Then the researcher introduces a manipulation that
should change the people and test to see if there were any changes. For example, you test a group of
people on their knowledge of U.S. history. Then you assign them a study packet and test them again to
see if their knowledge has increased. This is known as a pretest-posttest design, which is when
participants are studied before and after the experimental manipulation.
 A researcher can use pretest-posttest in an almost unlimited number of ways, as long as they
follow the steps:

Test the participants prior to the experimental manipulation.

Perform the experimental manipulation, which is a fancy way of saying that you would do
something to the group, like give them homework or give them therapy or deafen them with noise.

Test the participants after the manipulation to see what changes occurred.

The reason pretest-posttest is considered a quasi-experimental design is because the majority of

researchers will manipulate their entire group. This gives them a larger sample size to see if their
manipulation actually changed the group. It is possible to randomly assign people to the experimental
or control condition to make it a true experiment, but you're reducing your sample size, and this could
put a strain on your statistics.

Another example of a pretest-posttest design might be examining the effects of not sleeping.
You take participants and test them to see how good their judgment is, their knowledge and their
hand-eye coordination. Then you keep them up all night with cola, games and bright lights. Keeping
them up is your experimental manipulation. Lastly, you test them in the morning to see what effect the
lack of sleep had on their judgment, knowledge and hand-eye coordination.

Cross Sectional and Longitudinal

Other times you want to study things like age, but age is such a pain to study because you can't
control it. So, that leaves you with two options:

Cross-sectional designs, which is when participants are representatives of age groups along a
developmental path to determine how development at different ages influences a dependent variable.

Longitudinal designs are when a sample of the population is studied at intervals to examine the
effects of development.