In quantitative research your aim is to determine the relationship between one thing (an independent variable) and another

(a dependent or outcome variable) in a population. Quantitative research designs are either descriptive (subjects usually measured once) or experimental (subjects measured before and after a treatment). A descriptive study establishes only associations between variables. An experiment establishes causality. For an accurate estimate of the relationship between variables, a descriptive study usually needs a sample of hundreds or even thousands of subjects; an experiment, especially a crossover, may need only tens of subjects. The estimate of the relationship is less likely to be biased if you have a high participation rate in a sample selected randomly from a population. In experiments, bias is also less likely if subjects are randomly assigned to treatments, and if subjects and researchers are blind to the identity of the treatments. In all studies, subject characteristics can affect the relationship you are investigating. Limit their effect either by using a less heterogeneous sample of subjects or preferably by measuring the characteristics and including them in the analysis. In an experiment, try to measure variables that might explain the mechanism of the treatment. In an unblinded experiment, such variables can help define the magnitude of any placebo effect.

Quantitative research is all about quantifying relationships between variables. Variables are things like weight, performance, time, and treatment. You measure variables on a sample of subjects, which can be tissues, cells, animals, or humans. You express the relationship between variable using effect statistics, such as correlations, relative frequencies, or differences between means. I deal with these statistics and other aspects of analysis elsewhere at this site. In this article I focus on the design of quantitative research. First I describe the types of study you can use. Next I discuss how the nature of the sample affects your ability to make statements about the relationship in the population. I then deal with various ways to work out the size of the sample. Finally I give advice about the kinds of variable you need to measure. TYPES OF STUDY Studies aimed at quantifying relationships are of two types: descriptive andexperimental (Table 1). In a descriptive study, no attempt is made to change behavior or conditions--you measure things as they are. In an experimental study you take measurements, try some sort of intervention, then take measurements again to see what happened.
Table 1: Types of research design Descriptive or observational case case series

cross-sectional cohort or prospective or longitudinal case-control or retrospective without a control group time series crossover with a control group

Experimental or longitudinal or repeated-measures

Descriptive Studies Descriptive studies are also called observational, because you observe the subjects without otherwise intervening. The simplest descriptive study is a case, which reports data on only one subject; examples are a study of an outstanding athlete or of a dysfunctional institution. Descriptive studies of a few cases are calledcase series. In cross-sectional studies variables of interest in a sample of subjects are assayed once and the relationships between them are determined. Inprospective or cohort studies, some variables are assayed at the start of a study (e.g., dietary habits), then after a period of time the outcomes are determined (e.g., incidence of heart disease). Another label for this kind of study is longitudinal, although this term also applies to experiments. Case-control studies comparecases (subjects with a particular attribute, such as an injury or ability) withcontrols (subjects without the attribute); comparison is made of the exposure to something suspected of causing the cases, for example volume of high intensity training, or number of alcoholic drinks consumed per day. Case-control studies are also called retrospective, because they focus on conditions in the past that might have caused subjects to become cases rather than controls. A common case-control design in the exercise science literature is a comparison of the behavioral, psychological or anthropometric characteristics of elite and sub-elite athletes: you are interested in what the elite athletes have been exposed to that makes them better than the sub-elites. Another type of study compares athletes with sedentary people on some outcome such as an injury, disease, or disease risk factor. Here you know the difference in exposure (training vs no training), so these studies are really cohort or prospective, even though the exposure data are gathered retrospectively at only one time point. The technical name for these studies is historical cohort. Experimental Studies Experimental studies are also known as longitudinal or repeatedmeasuresstudies, for obvious reasons. They are also referred to as interventions, because you do more than just observe the subjects.

In the simplest experiment, a time series, one or more measurements are taken on all subjects before and after a treatment. A special case of the time series is the so-called single-subject design, in which measurements are taken repeatedly (e.g., 10 times) before and after an intervention on one or a few subjects. Time series suffer from a major problem: any change you see could be due to something other than the treatment. For example, subjects might do better on the second test because of their experience of the first test, or they might change their diet between tests because of a change in weather, and diet could affect their performance of the test. The crossover design is one solution to this problem. Normally the subjects are given two treatments, one being the real treatment, the other a control or reference treatment. Half the subjects receive the real treatment first, the other half the control first. After a period of time sufficient to allow any treatment effect to wash out, the treatments are crossed over. Any effect of retesting or of anything that happened between the tests can then be subtracted out by an appropriate analysis. Multiple crossover designs involving several treatments are also possible. If the treatment effect is unlikely to wash out between measurements, a control group has to be used. In these designs, all subjects are measured, but only some of them--the experimental group--then receive the treatment. All subjects are then measured again, and the change in the experimental group is compared with the change in the control group. If the subjects are assigned randomly to experimental and control groups or treatments, the design is known as a randomized controlled trial. Random assignment minimizes the chance that either group is not typical of the population. If the subjects are blind (or masked) to the identity of the treatment, the design is asingle-blind controlled trial. The control or reference treatment in such a study is called a placebo: the name physicians use for inactive pills or treatments that are given to patients in the guise of effective treatments. Blinding of subjects eliminates the placebo effect, whereby people react differently to a treatment if they think it is in some way special. In a double-blind study, the experimenter also does not know which treatment the subjects receive until all measurements are taken. Blinding of the experimenter is important to stop him or her treating subjects in one group differently from those in another. In the best studies even the data are analyzed blind, to prevent conscious or unconscious fudging or prejudiced interpretation. Ethical considerations or lack of cooperation (compliance) by the subjects sometimes prevent experiments from being performed. For example, a randomized controlled trial of the effects of physical activity on heart disease may not have been performed yet, because it is unethical and unrealistic to randomize people to 10 years of exercise or sloth. But there have been many

short-term studies of the effects of physical activity on disease risk factors (e.g., blood pressure). Quality of Designs The various designs differ in the quality of evidence they provide for a causeand-effect relationship between variables. Cases and case series are the weakest. A well-designed cross-sectional or case-control study can provide good evidence for the absence of a relationship. But if such a study does reveal a relationship, it generally represents only suggestive evidence of a causal connection. A cross-sectional or case-control study is therefore a good starting point to decide whether it is worth proceeding to better designs. Prospective studies are more difficult and time-consuming to perform, but they produce more convincing conclusions about cause and effect. Experimental studies provide the best evidence about how something affects something else, and double-blind randomized controlled trials are the best experiments. Confounding is a potential problem in descriptive studies that try to establish cause and effect. Confounding occurs when part or all of a significant association between two variables arises through both being causally associated with a third variable. For example, in a population study you could easily show a negative association between habitual activity and most forms of degenerative disease. But older people are less active, and older people are more diseased, so you're bound to find an association between activity and disease without one necessarily causing the other. To get over this problem you have to control for potential confounding factors. For example, you make sure all your subjects are the same age, or you include age in the analysis to try to remove its effect on the relationship between the other two variables. SAMPLES You almost always have to work with a sample of subjects rather than the fullpopulation. But people are interested in the population, not your sample. Togeneralize from the sample to the population, the sample has to berepresentative of the population. The safest way to ensure that it is representative is to use a random selection procedure. You can also use a stratified random sampling procedure, to make sure that you have proportional representation of population subgroups (e.g., sexes, races, regions). When the sample is not representative of the population, selection bias is a possibility. A statistic is biased if the value of the statistic tends to be wrong (or more precisely, if the expected value--the average value from many samples drawn using the same sampling method--is not the same as the

population value.) A typical source of bias in population studies is age or socioeconomic status: people with extreme values for these variables tend not to take part in the studies. Thus a high compliance (the proportion of people contacted who end up as subjects) is important in avoiding bias. Journal editors are usually happy with compliance rates of at least 70%. Failure to randomize subjects to control and treatment groups in experiments can also produce bias. If you let people select themselves into the groups, or if you select the groups in any way that makes one group different from another, then any result you get might reflect the group difference rather than an effect of the treatment. For this reason, it's important to randomly assign subjects in a way that ensures the groups are balanced in terms of important variables that could modify the effect of the treatment (e.g., age, gender, physical performance). Human subjects may not be happy about being randomized, so you need to state clearly that it is a condition of taking part. Often the most important variable to balance is the pre-test value of the dependent variable itself. You can get close to perfectly balanced randomization for this or another numeric variable as follows: rank-order the subjects on the value of the variable; split the list up into pairs (or triplets for three treatments, etc.); assign the lowest ranked subject to a treatment by flipping a coin; assign the next two subjects (the other member of the pair, and the first member of the next pair) to the other treatment; assign the next two subjects to the first treatment, and so on. If you have male and female subjects, or any other grouping that you think might affect the treatment, perform this randomization process for each group ranked separately. Data from such pair-matched studies can be analyzed in ways that may increase the precision of the estimate of the treatment effect. Watch this space for an update shortly. When selecting subjects and designing protocols for experiments, researchers often strive to eliminate all variation in subject characteristics and behaviors. Their aim is to get greater precision in the estimate of the effect of the treatment. The problem with this approach is that the effect generalizes only to subjects with the same narrow range of characteristics and behaviors as in the sample. Depending on the nature of the study, you may therefore have to strike a balance between precision and applicability. If you lean towards applicability, your subjects will vary substantially on some characteristic or behavior that you should measure and include in your analysis. See below. SAMPLE SIZE How many subjects should you study? You can approach this crucial issue via statistical significance, confidence intervals, or "on the fly". Via Statistical Significance

Statistical significance is the standard but somewhat complicated approach. Your sample size has to be big enough for you to be sure you will detect the smallest worthwhile effect or relationship between your variables. To be sure means detecting the effect 80% of the time. Detect means getting a statistically significant effect, which means that more than 95% of the time you'd expect to see a value for the effect numerically smaller than what you observed, if there was no effect at all in the population (in other words, the p value for the effect has to be less than 0.05). Smallest worthwhile effect means the smallest effect that would make a difference to the lives of your subjects or to your interpretation of whatever you are studying. If you have too few subjects in your study and you get a statistically significant effect, most people regard your finding as publishable. But if the effect is not significant with a small sample size, most people regard it (erroneously) as unpublishable. Via Confidence Intervals Using confidence intervals or confidence limits is a more accessible approach to sample-size estimation and interpretation of outcomes. You simply want enough subjects to give acceptable precision for the effect you are studying. Precisionrefers usually to a 95% confidence interval for the true value of the effect: the range within which the true (population) value for the effect is 95% likely to fall.Acceptable means it won't matter to your subjects (or to your interpretation of whatever you are studying) if the true value of the effect is as large as the upper limit or as small as the lower limit. A bonus of using confidence intervals to justify your choice of sample size is that the sample size is about half what you need if you use statistical significance. "On the Fly" An acceptable width for the confidence interval depends on the magnitude of the observed effect. If the observed effect is close to zero, the confidence interval has to be narrow, to exclude the possibility that the true (population) value could be substantially positive or substantially negative. If the observed effect is large, the confidence interval can be wider, because the true value of the effect is still large at either end of the confidence interval. I therefore recommend getting your sample size on the fly: start a study with a small sample size, then increase the number of subjects until you get a confidence interval that is appropriate for the magnitude of the effect that you end up with. I have run simulations to show the resulting magnitudes of effects are not substantially biased. Effect of Research Design The type of design you choose for your study has a major impact on the sample size. Descriptive studies need hundreds of subjects to give acceptable

confidence intervals (or to ensure statistical significance) for small effects. Experiments generally need a lot less--often one-tenth as many--because it's easier to see changes within subjects than differences between groups of subjects. Crossovers need even less--one-quarter of the number for an equivalent trial with a control group--because every subject gets the experimental treatment. I give details on the stats pages at this site. Effect of Validity and Reliability The precision with which you measure things also has a major impact on sample size: the worse your measurements, the more subjects you need to lift the signal (the effect) out of the noise (the errors in measurement). Precision is expressed asvalidity and reliability. Validity represents how well a variable measures what it is supposed to. Validity is important in descriptive studies: if the validity of the main variables is poor, you may need thousands rather than hundreds of subjects. Reliability tells you how reproducible your measures are on a retest, so it impacts experimental studies: the more reliable a measure, the less subjects you need to see a small change in the measure. For example, a controlled trial with 20 subjects in each group or a crossover with 10 subjects may be sufficient to characterize even a small effect, if the measure is highly reliable. See the details on the stats pages. Pilot Studies As a student researcher, you might not have enough time or resources to get a sample of optimum size. Your study can nevertheless be a pilot for a larger study. Perform a pilot study to develop, adapt, or check the feasibility of techniques, to determine the reliability of measures, and/or to calculate how big the final sample needs to be. In the latter case, the pilot should have the same sampling procedure and techniques as in the larger study. For experimental designs, a pilot study can consist of the first 10 or so observations of a larger study. If you get respectable confidence limits, there may be no point in continuing to a larger sample. Publish and move on to the next project or lab! If you can't test enough subjects to get an acceptably narrow confidence interval, you should still be able to publish your finding, because your study will set useful bounds on how big and how small the effect can be. A statistician can also combine your finding with the findings of similar studies in something called a meta-analysis, which derives a confidence interval for the effect from several studies. If your study is not published, it can't contribute to the meta-analysis! Many reviewers and editors do not appreciate this important point, because they are locked into thinking that only statistically significant results are publishable.

WHAT TO MEASURE In any study, you measure the characteristics of the subjects, and theindependent and dependent variables defining the research question. For experiments, you can also measure mechanism variables, which help you explain how the treatment works. Characteristics of Subjects You must report sufficient information about your subjects to identify the population group from which they were drawn. For human subjects, variables such as sex, age, height, weight, socioeconomic status, and ethnic origin are common, depending on the focus of the study. Show the ability of athletic subjects as current or personal-best performance, preferably expressed as a percent of world-record. For endurance athletes a direct or indirect estimate of maximum oxygen consumption helps characterize ability in a manner that is largely independent of the sport. Dependent and Independent Variables Usually you have a good idea of the question you want to answer. That question defines the main variables to measure. For example, if you are interested in enhancing sprint performance, your dependent variable (or outcome variable) is automatically some measure of sprint performance. Cast around for the way to measure this dependent variable with as much precision as possible. Next, identify all the things that could affect the dependent variable. These things are the independent variables: training, sex, the treatment in an experimental study, and so on. For a descriptive study with a wide focus (a "fishing expedition"), your main interest is estimating the effect of everything that is likely to affect the dependent variable, so you include as many independent variables as resources allow. For the large sample sizes that you should use in a descriptive study, including these variables does not lead to substantial loss of precision in the effect statistics, but beware: the more effects you look for, the more likely the true value of at least one of them lies outside its confidence interval (a problem I call cumulative Type 0 error). For a descriptive study with a narrower focus (e.g., the relationship between training and performance), you still measure variables likely to be associated with the outcome variable (e.g., age-group, sex, competitive status), because either you restrict the sample to a particular subgroup defined by these variables (e.g., veteran male elite athletes) or you include the variables in the analysis.

For an experimental study, the main independent variable is the one indicating when the dependent variable is measured (e.g., before, during, and after the treatment). If there is a control group (as in controlled trials) or control treatment (as in crossovers), the identity of the group or treatment is another essential independent variable (e.g., Drug A, Drug B, placebo in a controlled trial; drug-first and placebo-first in a crossover). These variables obviously have an affect on the dependent variable, so you automatically include them in any analysis. Variables such as sex, age, diet, training status, and variables from blood or exercise tests can also affect the outcome in an experiment. For example, the response of males to the treatment might be different from that of females. Such variables account for individual differences in the response to the treatment, so it's important to take them into account. As for descriptive studies, either you restrict the study to one sex, one age, and so on, or you sample both sexes, various ages, and so on, then analyze the data with these variables included ascovariates. I favor the latter approach, because it widens the applicability of your findings, but once again there is the problem of cumulative Type 0 error for the effect of these covariates. An additional problem with small sample sizes is loss of precision of the estimate of the effect, if you include more than two or three of these variables in the analysis. Mechanism Variables With experiments, the main challenge is to determine the magnitude and confidence intervals of the treatment effect. But sometimes you want to know the mechanismof the treatment--how the treatment works or doesn't work. To address this issue, try to find one or more variables that might connect the treatment to the outcome variable, and measure these at the same times as the dependent variable. For example, you might want to determine whether a particular training method enhanced strength by increasing muscle mass, so you might measure limb girths at the same time as the strength tests. When you analyze the data, look for associations between change in limb girth and change in strength. Keep in mind that errors of measurement will tend to obscure the true association. This kind of approach to mechanisms is effectively a descriptive study on the difference scores of the variables, so it can provide only suggestive evidence for or against a particular mechanism. To understand this point, think about the example of the limb girths and strength: an increase in muscle size does not necessarily cause an increase in strength--other changes that you haven't measured might have done that. To really nail a mechanism, you have to devise another experiment aimed at changing the putative mechanism variable while you control everything else. But that's another research project. Meanwhile, it is sensible to use your current experiment to find suggestive evidence of a mechanism, provided it doesn't entail too much

extra work or expense. And if it's research for a PhD, you are expected to measure one or more mechanism variables and discuss intelligently what the data mean. Finally, a useful application for mechanism variables: they can define the magnitude of placebo effects in unblinded experiments. In such experiments, there is always a doubt that any treatment effect can be partly or wholly a placebo effect. But if you find a correlation between the change in the dependent variable and change in an objective mechanism variable--one that cannot be affected by the psychological state of the subject--then you can say for sure that the treatment effect is not all placebo. And the stronger the correlation, the smaller the placebo effect. The method works only if there are individual differences in the response to the treatment, because you can't get a correlation if every subject has the same change in the dependent variable. (Keep in mind that some apparent variability in the response between subjects is likely to be random error in the dependent variable, rather than true individual differences in the response to the treatment.) Surprisingly, the objective variable can be almost anything, provided the subject is unaware of any change in it. In our example of strength training, limb girth is not a good variable to exclude a placebo effect: subjects may have noticed their muscles get bigger, so they may have expected to do better in a strength test. In fact, any noticeable changes could inspire a placebo effect, so any objective variables that correlate with the noticeable change won't be useful to exclude a placebo effect. Think about it. But if the subjects noticed nothing other than a change in strength, and you found an association between change in blood lipids, say, and change in strength, then the change in strength cannot all be a placebo effect. Unless, of course, changes in blood lipids are related to susceptibility to suggestion...unlikely, don't you think?
editor=AT=sportsci.org Homepage 2000 Webmastered by Will Hopkins Uploaded 4 May 00 Updated extensively from an earlier version (1998)

MODULE R12 DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH

Descriptive research is used to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomena to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation. The methods involved range from the survey which describes the status quo, the correlation study which investigates the relationship between variables, to developmental studies which seek to determine changes over time.

Statement of the problem

Identification of information needed to solve the problem Selection or development of instruments for gathering the information Identification of target population and determination of sampling procedure Design of procedure for information collection Collection of information Analysis of information Generalizations and/or predictions

Survey Studies
Survey studies assess the characteristics of whole populations of people or situations.

School Surveys - Used to gather data concerned with internal or external characteristics of a school system Job Analysis - Used to gather information to be used in structuring a training program for a particular job Documentary Analysis - Closely akin to historical research; deals with documenting present situations Public Opinion Surveys - Used to enhance the decision making process by government officials Community Surveys - Used to gather data concerned with internal or external characteristics of a community

Interrelationship Studies
Interrelationship Studies trace relationships among the facts obtained to gain a deeper insight into the situation

Case Studies - Probes in depth into an individual situation or personality with the intent of diagnosing a particular condition and recommending corrective measures Causal Comparative Studies - Compares the likeness and difference among phenomena to determine if certain factors or circumstances tend to accompany certain events, conditions, or processes Correlation Studies - Determine the extent of the relationship between two or more variables

Developmental Studies

Developmental studies are concerned with the existing status and interrelationships of phenomena and changes that take place as a function of time

Growth Studies - May be either longitudinal or cross-sectional. The longitudinal technique is the most satisfactory for studying human development. The crosssectional technique is more commonly used because it is less expensive. Trend Studies - Used to make predictions from social trends, economic conditions, technological advances, etc. to future status Model or System Development - Creative development of a model or system (paradigm) based on a thorough determination of the present situation or system and the goals sought

Evaluation
Critical Examination of Source Materials - Descriptive studies cannot produce useful findings if the investigation is based on erroneous information Technical Terminology - An absence of clearly assigned meanings for terms results in ambiguous communications which cannot provide a solid foundation for scientific understanding Formulation of Hypotheses - Ambiguously formulated overgeneralized or logically unsound hypotheses lead to erroneous conclusions Observation and Experimentation - Experimentation involves the manipulation of independent variables under controlled laboratory conditions and direct observation of the results. Observing the phenomena as they exist may be the only way to examine and analyze the factors that are associated with their occurrences in a natural situation Generalization and Prediction - Universal generalizations that permit highly accurate predictions may be ideal, but even the physical scientists are less certain today than they once were of their ability to predict in certain areas except in terms of scientific probability.

MODULE R13 EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH AND DESIGN

Experimental Research - An attempt by the researcher to maintain control over all factors that may affect the result of an experiment. In doing this, the researcher attempts to determine or predict what may occur. Experimental Design - A blueprint of the procedure that enables the researcher to test his hypothesis by reaching valid conclusions about relationships between independent and dependent variables. It refers to the conceptual framework within which the experiment is conducted.

Steps involved in conducting an experimental study

Identify and define the problem. Formulate hypotheses and deduce their consequences. Construct an experimental design that represents all the elements, conditions, and relations of the consequences. 1. Select sample of subjects. 2. Group or pair subjects. 3. Identify and control non experimental factors. 4. Select or construct, and validate instruments to measure outcomes. 5. Conduct pilot study. 6. Determine place, time, and duration of the experiment. Conduct the experiment. Compile raw data and reduce to usable form. Apply an appropriate test of significance.

Essentials of Experimental Research

Manipulation of an independent variable. An attempt is made to hold all other variables except the dependent variable constant - control. Effect is observed of the manipulation of the independent variable on the dependent variable - observation. Experimental control attempts to predict events that will occur in the experimental setting by neutralizing the effects of other factors. Methods of Experimental Control Physical Control Gives all subjects equal exposure to the independent variable. Controls non experimental variables that affect the dependent variable. Selective Control - Manipulate indirectly by selecting in or out variables that cannot be controlled. Statistical Control - Variables not conducive to physical or selective manipulation may be controlled by statistical techniques (example: covariance).

Validity of Experimental Design

Internal Validity asks did the experimental treatment make the difference in this specific instance rather than other extraneous variables? External Validity asks to what populations, settings, treatment variables, and measurement variables can this observed effect be generalized?

Factors Jeopardizing Internal Validity

History - The events occurring between the first and second measurements in addition to the experimental variable which might affect the measurement.

Example: Researcher collects gross sales data before and after a 5 day 50% off sale. During the sale a hurricane occurs and results of the study may be affected because of the hurricane, not the sale.
Maturation - The process of maturing which takes place in the individual during the duration of the experiment which is not a result of specific events but of simply growing older, growing more tired, or similar changes.

Example: Subjects become tired after completing a training session, and their responses on the Posttest are affected.
Pre-testing - The effect created on the second measurement by having a measurement before the experiment.

Example: Subjects take a Pretest and think about some of the items. On the Posttest they change to answers they feel are more acceptable. Experimental group learns from the pretest.
Measuring Instruments - Changes in instruments, calibration of instruments, observers, or scorers may cause changes in the measurements.

Example: Interviewers are very careful with their first two or three interviews but on the 4th, 5th, 6th become fatigued and are less careful and make errors.
Statistical Regression - Groups are chosen because of extreme scores of measurements; those scores or measurements tend to move toward the mean with repeated measurements even without an experimental variable.

Example: Managers who are performing poorly are selected for training. Their average Posttest scores will be higher than their Pretest scores because of statistical regression, even if no training were given.
Differential Selection - Different individuals or groups would have different previous knowledge or ability which would affect the final measurement if not taken into account.

Example: A group of subjects who have viewed a TV program is compared with a group which has not. There is no way of knowing that the groups would have been equivalent since they were not randomly assigned to view the TV program.
Experimental Mortality - The loss of subjects from comparison groups could greatly affect the comparisons because of unique characteristics of those subjects. Groups to be compared need to be the same after as before the experiment.

Example: Over a 6 month experiment aimed to change accounting practices, 12 accountants drop out of the experimental group and none drop out of the control group. Not only is there differential loss in the two groups, but the 12 dropouts may be very different from those who remained in the experimental group.
Interaction of Factors, such as Selection Maturation, etc. - Combinations of these factors may interact especially in multiple group comparisons to produce erroneous measurements.

Factors Jeopardizing External Validity or Generalizability Pre-Testing -Individuals who were pretested might be less or more sensitive to the experimental variable or might have "learned" from the pre-test making them unrepresentative of the population who had not been pretested. Example: Prior to viewing a film on Environmental Effects of Chemical, a group of subjects is given a 60 item antichemical test. Taking the Pretest may increase the effect of the film. The film may not be effective for a nonpretested group. Differential Selection - The selection of the subjects determines how the findings can be generalized. Subjects selected from a small group or one with particular characteristics would limit generalizability. Randomly chosen

subjects from the entire population could be generalized to the entire population. Example: Researcher, requesting permission to conduct experiment, is turned down by 11 corporations, but the 12th corporation grant permission. The 12th corporation is obviously different then the others because they accepted. Thus subjects in the 12th corporation may be more accepting or sensitive to the treatment. Experimental Procedures - The experimental procedures and arrangements have a certain amount of effect on the subjects in the experimental settings. Generalization to persons not in the experimental setting may be precluded. Example: Department heads realize they are being studied, try to guess what the experimenter wants and respond accordingly rather than respond to the treatment. Multiple Treatment Interference - If the subjects are exposed to more than one treatment then the findings could only be generalized to individuals exposed to the same treatments in the same order of presentation. Example: A group of CPAs is given training in working with managers followed by training in working with comptrollers. Since training effects cannot be deleted, the first training will affect the second. Tools of Experimental Design Used to Control Factors Jeopardizing Validity
Pre-Test - The pre-test, or measurement before the experiment begins, can aid control for differential selection by determining the presence or knowledge of the experimental variable before the experiment begins. It can aid control of experimental mortality because the subjects can be removed from the entire comparison by removing their pre-tests.

However, pre-tests cause problems by their effect on the second measurement and by causing generalizability problems to a population not pre-tested and those with no experimental arrangements.
Control Group -The use of a matched or similar group which is not exposed to the experimental variable can help reduce the effect of History, Maturation, Instrumentation, and Interaction of Factors. The control group is exposed to all conditions of the experiment except the experimental variable.

Randomization - Use of random selection procedures for subjects can aid in control of Statistical Regression, Differential Selection, and the Interaction of Factors. It greatly increases generalizability by helping make the groups representative of the populations. Additional Groups - The effects of Pre-tests and Experimental Procedures can be partially controlled through the use of groups which were not pre-tested or exposed to experimental arrangements. They would have to be used in conjunction with other pre-tested groups or other factors jeopardizing validity would be present.

The method by which treatments are applied to subjects using these tools to control factors jeopardizing validity is the essence of experimental design. Tools of Control
Pre-Test/ Control Group Randomization Additional Groups

Internal Sources
History Maturation Pre-Testing Measuring Instrument Statistical Regression Differential Selection Experimental Mortality Interaction of Factors

Post Test

X X X X X X X X X X X

External Sources
Pre-Testing Differential Selection Procedures Multiple Treatment X X X X

Experimental Designs
Pre-Experimental Design - loose in structure, could be biased
Aim of the Research To attempt to explain a consequent by an antecedent Name of the Design One-shot experimental case study Notation Paradigm Comments An approach that prematurely links antecedents and consequences. The least reliable of all experimental approaches. An approach that provides a measure of change but can provide no conclusive results. Weakness lies in no examination of preexperimental equivalence of groups. Conclusion is reached by comparing the performance of each group to determine the effect of a variable on one of them.

X O

To evaluate the influence of a variable

One group pretestposttest

OXO Group 1: X O Group 2: - O

To determine the influence of a variable on one group and not on another

Static group comparison

True Experimental Design - greater control and refinement, greater control of validity
Aim of the Research To study the effect of an influence on a carefully controlled sample Name of the Design Pretest-posttest control group Notation Paradigm Comments This design has been called "the old workhorse of traditional experimentation." If effectively carried out, this design controls for eight threats of internal validity. Data are analyzed by analysis of covariance on posttest scores with the pretest the covariate. This is an extension of the pretestposttest control group design and probably the most powerful experimental approach. Data are analyzed by analysis of variance on posttest scores.

R--[OX O [O- O

To minimize the effect of pretesting

Solomon four-group design

R--[OX O [O- O [- X

O [-- O
To evaluate a situation that cannot be pretested Posttest only control group

R--[ XO [-O

An adaptation of the last two groups in the Solomon four-group design. Randomness is critical. Probably, the simplest and best test for significance in this design is the ttest.

Quasi-Experimental Design - not randomly selected

Aim of the Research To investigate a situation in which random selection and assignment are not possible Name of the Design Nonrandomized control group pretestposttest Notation Paradigm Comments One of the strongest and most widely used quasi-experimental designs. Differs from experimental designs because test and control groups are not equivalent. Comparing pretest results will indicate degree of equivalency between experimental and control groups. If substantial change follows introduction of the variable, then the variable can be suspect as to the cause of the change. To increase external validity, repeat the experiment in different places under different conditions. A variant of the above design by accompanying it with a parallel set of observations without the introduction of the experimental variable.

OXO O-O

To determine the influence of a variable introduced only after a series of initial observations and only where one group is available

Time series experiment

OOXO O

To bolster the validity of the above design with the addition of a control group

Control group time series

OOXO O OO-O O

To control history in time designs with a variant of the above design

Equivalent timesamples

[X1 O1] [X0 O2] [x1 O3]

An on-again, off-again design in which the experimental variable is sometimes present, sometimes absent.

Correlational and Ex Post Facto Design

Aim of the Research To seek for cause-effect relationships between two sets of data Name of the Design Causal-comparative correlational studies Notation Paradigm Comments A very deceptive procedure that requires much insight for its use. Causality cannot be inferred merely because a positive and close correlation ratio exists.

- Oa Ob -

To search backward from consequent data for antecedent causes

Ex post facto studies

This approach is experimentation in reverse. Seldom is proof through data substantiation possible. Logic and inference are the principal tools of this design

Leedy, P.D. (1997). Practical research: Planning and design (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 232-233.

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGNS Descriptive research is used to answer descriptive research questions: What is happening? How is something happening? Why is something happening? Examples:

What is the average number of staff development hours per year for teachers in the United States? What is the association between student-teacher ratios and student achievement in the states elementary schools? How does instruction differ among teachers in the district who receive different amounts of staff development? Why do teacher qualifications influence instruction?

Descriptive research designs include the following:

Simple descriptive Comparative descriptive Correlational

A simple descriptive research design is used when data are collected to describe persons, organizations, settings, or phenomena. For example, a researcher administers a survey to a random sample of teachers in the state in order to describe the characteristics of the states population of teachers. With a comparative descriptive design, the researcher describes two or more groups of participants. For example, a researcher administers a questionnaire to three groups of teachers about their classroom practices. The researcher chooses the three schools because the schools vary in terms of the amount of professional development that they provide to teachers. A correlational research design is used to describe the statistical association between two or more variables. For example, a researcher measures the student-teacher ratio in each classroom in a school district and measures the average student achievement on the state assessment in each of these same classrooms. Next the researcher uses statistical techniques to measure whether the student-teacher ratio and student achievement in the school district are connected numerically; for example, when the student-teacher ratio changes in value, so does student achievement. The researcher can then use the student-teacher ratio to predict student achievement, a technique called regression analysis. When there is more than one predictor variable, the technique of multiple regression analysis produces a multiple correlation that is used for prediction. EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGNS

Experimental research is used to answer causal research questions: Does something cause an effect? For example, does a low student-teacher ratio cause higher student achievement? Experimental research designs include the following:

True experimental (randomized trials) Quasi-experimental

In experimental research, the researcher manipulates or varies anindependent variable and measures its effects on one or more dependent variables. In a true experimental design, the researcher randomly assigns the participants who are being studied (also called the subjects) to two or morecomparison groups. Sometimes the comparison groups are referred to astreatment and control groups. Participants in the treatment group receive some type of treatment, such as a special reading program. Participants in the control group do not receive the treatment. For example, at the beginning of a school year, a researcher randomly assigns all classes in a school district to have either a low student-teacher ratio (small class, the treatment group) or a normal student-teacher ratio (large class, the control group). At the end of the school year, the researcher measures each students achievement using the state assessment and compares the average achievement of students in the two sizes of classes. In this example, class size is the independent variable because class size is being varied or manipulated. Student achievement is the dependent variable because student achievement is being measured. (Note: Researchers conducted a similar experiment in the state of Tennessee starting in 1985. The study is known as Project STAR.) In a quasi-experimental design, the researcher does not randomly assign participants to comparison groups, usually because random assignment is not feasible. To improve a quasi-experimental design, the researcher canmatch the comparison groups on characteristics that relate to the dependent variable. For example, a researcher selects from a school district 10 classes to have low studentteacher ratios and 10 classes to maintain their current high student-teacher ratios. The researcher selects the high-ratio classes based on their similarity to the low-ratio classes in terms of student socioeconomic status, a variable that is related to student achieve