Chapter 10

Quasi-Experimental and Single-Case Designs

(Reminder: Dont forget to utilize the concept maps and study questions as you study this
and the other chapters.)
The experimental research designs discussed in this chapter are used when it is
impossible to randomly assign participants to comparison groups (quasi-experimental
designs) and when a researcher is faced with a situation where only one or two
participants can participate in the research study (single case designs).
Like the designs in the last chapter, quasi-experimental and single-case designs do
have manipulation of the independent variable (otherwise they would not be
experimental research designs).
Quasi-Experimental Research Designs
These are designs that are used when it is not possible to control for all potentially
confounding variables; in most cases this is because the participants cannot be randomly
assigned to the groups.
Causal explanations can be made when using quasi-experimental designs but only
when you collect data that demonstrate that plausible rival explanations are
unlikely, and the evidence will still not be as strong as with one of the strong
designs discussed in the last chapter.
You can view quasi-experiments as falling in the center of a continuum with weak
experimental designs on the far left side and strong experimental designs on the
far right side. (In other words, quasi designs are not the worst and they are not the
best. They are in-between or moderately strong designs.)
/------------------------------------/------------------------------------/
Weak
Quasi
Strong
Designs
Designs
Designs

Three quasi-experimental research designs are presented in the text: the

nonequivalent comparison-group design, the interrupted time-series design, and
the regression discontinuity design.

Nonequivalent Comparison-Group Design

This is a design that contains a treatment group and a nonequivalent untreated
comparison group about of which are administered pretest and posttest measures. The
groups are nonequivalent because you lack random assignment (although there are
some control techniques that can help make the groups similar such as matching and
statistical control). Because of the lack of random assignment, there is no assurance that

the groups are highly are similar at the outset of the study.
Here is a depiction of the nonequivalent comparison-group design:

Because there is no random assignment to groups, confounding variables (rather

than the independent variable) may explain any difference observed between the
experimental and control groups.
The most common threat to the internal validity of this type of design is
differential selection. The problem is that the groups may be different on many
variables that are also related to the dependent variable (e.g., age, gender, IQ,
reading ability, attitude, etc.).
Here is a list of all of the primary threats to this design.

It is a good idea to collect data that can be used to demonstrate that key
confounding variables are not the cause of the obtained results. Hence, you will
need to think about potential rival explanations during the planning phase of your
research study so that you can collect the necessary data to control for these
factors.

You can eliminate the influence of many confounding variables by using the
various control techniques, especially statistical control (where you measure the
confounding variables at the pretest and control for them using statistical
procedures after the study has been completed) and matching (where you select
people to be in the groups so that the members in the different groups are similar
on the matching variables).
Only when you can rule out the effects of confounding variables can you
confidently attribute the observed group difference at the posttest to the
independent variable.

Interrupted Time-Series Design

This is a design in which a treatment condition is accessed by comparing the pattern of
pretest responses with the pattern of posttest responses obtained from a single group of
participants. In other words, the participants are pretested a number of times and then
posttested a number of times after or during exposure to the treatment condition.
Here is a depiction of the interrupted time-series design:

The pretesting phase is called the baseline which refers to the observation of a
behavior prior to the presentation of any treatment designed to alter the behavior
of interest.
A treatment effect is demonstrated only if the pattern of posttreatment responses
differs from the pattern of pretreatment responses. That is, the treatment effect is
demonstrated by a discontinuity in the pattern of pretreatment and posttreatment
responses.
For example, an effect is demonstrated when there is a change in the level and/or
slope of the posttreatment responses as compared to the pretreatment responses.
Here is an example where both the level and slope changed during the
intervention:

Many confounding variables are ruled out in the interrupted time-series design
because they are present in both the pretreatment and posttreatment responses
(i.e., the pretreatment and posttreatment responses will not differ on most
confounding variables).

However, the main potentially confounding variable that cannot be ruled out is a
history effect. The history threat is a plausible rival explanation if some event
other than the treatment co-occurs with the onset of the treatment.

Bonus material (not required)

Although not discussed in the text, there is an extension of the interrupted time-series
design. It is called the multiple time-series designit is the basic interrupted time-series
design with a comparable control group added to it. I mention this design because I do
want you to remember that YOU can put together different designs simply by using
different combinations of pretests, posttests, different types of groups, varying the
number of pretests and posttests, using a control group or not, including more than one
outcome variable, and so forth.
Both the experimental and control groups are repeatedly pretested in the multiple
time-series design. Then the experimental group receives the treatment and the

control group receives some standard treatment or no treatment, and, finally, both
groups are repeatedly posttested.
Here is a picture of the multiple time-series design:

Including a control group provides control for the history effect, but only if the
different groups are truly comparable and any history effect influences both
groups to the same degree (i.e., as long as you don't have a selection-history
effect). The various additive and interactive effects remain as potential threats to
this design.

Regression Discontinuity Design

This is a design that is used to access the effect of a treatment condition by looking for a
discontinuity in regression lines between individuals who score lower and higher than
some predetermined cutoff score on an assignment variable.

Here is the depiction of the design:

For example you might use a standardized test as your assignment variable, set
the cutoff at 50, and administer the treatment to those falling at 50 or higher and
use those with scores lower that 50 as your control group.
This is actually quite a strong design, and methodologists have, for a number of
years, been trying to get researcher to use this design more frequently.
One uses statistical techniques to control for differences on the assignment
variable and then checks to see whether the groups significantly differ.

Here is an example where a difference or discontinuity is easily seen:

If you cannot assign the participants to the treatment condition based on their
assignment variable scores, you will not be able to use this design. On the other
hand, if you can do this, then this is an excellent design.

Single-Case Experimental Designs

These are designs where the researcher attempts to demonstrate an experimental
treatment effect using single participants, one at a time.
We discuss several single-case designs: A-B-A design, A-B-A-B design,
multiple-baseline design, and the changing-criterion design.
A-B-A and A-B-A-B Designs
The A-B-A design is a design in which the participant is repeatedly pretested (the first A
phase or baseline condition), then the experimental treatment condition is administered
and the participant is repeatedly posttested (the B phase or treatment phase). Following
the posttesting stage, the pretreatment conditions are reinstated and the participant is
again repeatedly tested on the dependent variable (the second A phase or the return to
baseline condition).

Here is a depiction of the A-B-A design:

The effect of the experimental treatment is demonstrated if the pattern of the preand posttreatment responses ( the first A phase and the B phase) differ and the
pattern of responses reverts back to the original pretreatment level when the
pretreatment conditions are reinstated (the second A or return to baseline phase).
Including the second A phase controls for the potential rival hypothesis of history
that is a problem in a basic time series design (i.e., in an A-B design).
Basically, you are looking for the "fingerprint" of a stable baseline (during the
first A phase), then a clear jump or change in level or slope (during the B phase),
and then a clear reversal or return to the stable baseline (during the second A
phase).
For example, if you hope for low values on your dependent measure (e.g., talking
out behavior), you would hope to see a high-low-high pattern.
Conversely, if you hope for high values on your dependent measure (e.g.,
attending to what the teacher says), you would hope to see a low-high- low
pattern.
One limitation of the A-B-A design is that it ends with baseline condition or the
withdrawal of the treatment condition so the participant does not receive the
benefit of the treatment condition at the end of the experiment.
This limitation can be overcome by including a fourth phase which adds a second
administration of the treatment condition so the design becomes an A-B-A-B
design.
A limitation of both the A-B-A and the A-B-A-B designs is that they are
dependent on the pattern of responses reverting to baseline conditions when the
experimental treatment condition is withdrawn. This may not occur if the
experimental treatment is so powerful that its effect continues even when the
treatment is withdrawn.
If a reversal to baseline conditions does not occur another design (such as the
multiple-baseline design) must be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
treatment condition.

Multiple-Baseline Design
This is a design that investigates two or more people, behaviors, or settings to identify the
effect of an experimental treatment. The key is that the treatment condition is
successively administered to the different people, behaviors, or settings.
Here is a depiction of the design:

The multiple-baseline design requires that baseline behavior is collected on the

several people, behaviors, or settings and then the experimental treatment is
successively administered to the people, behaviors, or settings.
The experimental treatment effect is demonstrated if a change in response occurs
when the treatment is administered to each person, behavior, or setting (i.e., when
the fingerprint you are looking for is observed).
Here is an example where a treatment fingerprint is easily seen:

Rival hypotheses are unlikely to account for the changes in the behavior if the
behavior change only occurs after the treatment effect is administered to each
successive person, behavior, or setting.
This design avoids the problem of failure to revert to baseline that can exist with
the A-B-A and A-B-A-B designs.

Changing-Criterion Design
This is a single-case design that is used when a behavior needs to be shaped over time or
when it is necessary to gradually change a behavior through successive treatment periods
to reach a desired criterion.
This design involves collecting baseline data on the target behavior and then
administering the experimental treatment condition across a series of intervention
phases where each intervention phase uses a different criterion of successful
performance until the desired criterion is reached.
The criterion used in each successive intervention phase should be large enough
to detect a change in behavior but small enough so that it can be achieved.
Here is an example this design.

Methodological Considerations in
Using Single-Case Designs
The following table presents some major methodological issues you must consider when
using single-case designs.