Scribd
Upload
748 views5 pages

One-Shot Case Study Design (One-Group Posttest Only)

Uploaded by

vanshitamehta2303
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
748 views5 pages

One-Shot Case Study Design (One-Group Posttest Only)

Uploaded by

vanshitamehta2303
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Pre-experimental designs are a basic form of experimental research, typically used when

constraints like ethical concerns, feasibility, or resource limitations prevent the


implementation of more rigorous experimental designs. These designs lack the high
level of control found in true experimental designs, often due to the absence of random
assignment or control groups. While they are useful for exploratory research or when
there's a need to gather preliminary evidence, they are generally considered less reliable
in establishing cause-and-effect relationships.

Pre-experimental designs are generally categorized into three main types:

1. One-Shot Case Study Design (One-Group Posttest Only)

In this design, a single group is exposed to a treatment or intervention, and then a post-
treatment observation or measurement is made. There is no pretest or control group for
comparison, making it difficult to attribute any observed effects solely to the treatment.

 Example: A teacher implements a new teaching method in a classroom and then


measures student performance on a test. Without a pretest or control group, it's
unclear whether any observed improvement is due to the teaching method or
other factors like student motivation or external support.

2. One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design

In this design, a single group is measured before and after a treatment or intervention.
This allows for a comparison of the pre- and post-treatment results, providing some
indication of change over time. However, without a control group, other factors like
maturation, testing effects, or external influences could affect the outcome.

 Example: A fitness instructor measures participants' weight before and after a


six-week exercise program. The difference in weight could suggest the program's
effectiveness, but other factors like diet changes or seasonal variations could also
play a role.

3. Static Group Comparison (Posttest Only with Nonequivalent


Groups)

This design involves two groups, where one group receives the treatment and the other
does not (control group). However, the groups are not randomly assigned, which means
they might not be equivalent at the start. This design allows for some level of
comparison, but any observed differences could be due to pre-existing disparities rather
than the treatment itself.

 Example: In a study on the effectiveness of a new teaching technique, one class


uses the new method, while another class (from a different school) uses
traditional methods. The comparison of test scores between the two groups
could suggest the impact of the new technique, but the groups might differ in
background, skill level, or other characteristics, confounding the results.

Limitations of Pre-Experimental Designs

 Lack of Control: These designs typically have fewer controls in place to isolate
the treatment effect, leading to a greater risk of confounding variables.
 Limited Internal Validity: The inability to randomize groups or control for other
factors makes it difficult to establish causality.
 Subject to Bias: Pre-experimental designs can be influenced by researcher bias
or participant expectations, affecting the outcomes.
True experimental design is the gold standard in experimental research due to its ability
to establish cause-and-effect relationships with high internal validity. A key feature of
true experimental design is random assignment, where participants are randomly
allocated to either the experimental group(s) or the control group(s). This randomization
helps ensure that the groups are comparable at the start of the experiment, minimizing
the risk of confounding variables. Let's discuss the main types of true experimental
design, along with examples for each.

1. Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design

In this design, participants are randomly assigned to either the experimental group
(which receives the treatment) or the control group (which does not). Both groups are
measured before and after the treatment, allowing for comparison between them and
within each group.

 Example: To test the effectiveness of a new drug on reducing blood pressure,


participants are randomly assigned to two groups: one receiving the drug and
the other receiving a placebo. Blood pressure is measured before and after the
treatment, allowing researchers to assess the drug's effect by comparing the
changes in both groups.

2. Posttest-Only Control Group Design


Similar to the pretest-posttest design, this type involves random assignment of
participants, but it does not include a pretest measurement. The lack of a pretest can
reduce testing effects or reactivity but also means that any baseline differences between
groups might not be accounted for.

 Example: To evaluate a new teaching method, students are randomly assigned to


two groups: one group is taught with the new method, and the other uses
traditional methods. At the end of the term, their performance on a final exam is
compared to assess the impact of the teaching method.
3. Solomon four-group Design: This is the combination of the pretest-only and the
pretest-posttest control groups. In this case, the randomly selected subjects are
placed into 4 groups.
 The first two of these groups are tested using the posttest-only method,
while the other two are tested using the pretest-posttest method.
Quasi-experimental design is a research approach that shares some characteristics with
true experimental design but lacks the key element of random assignment. In quasi-
experimental designs, participants are assigned to groups based on non-random
criteria, often due to practical or ethical constraints. This makes these designs more
prone to bias and confounding factors, but they are valuable in settings where true
experimental designs are not feasible.

Here are the main types of quasi-experimental designs, along with examples for each:

1. Nonequivalent Control Group Design

In this design, there are experimental and control groups, but participants are not
randomly assigned to these groups. Instead, they are selected based on existing
conditions or non-random criteria. This design allows for comparison between groups,
but the lack of random assignment can introduce bias.

 Example: A study examining the impact of a new educational program might


involve two classrooms, one using the new program (experimental group) and
another using a traditional curriculum (control group). Because the classrooms
were not randomly assigned, the groups might differ in other ways, like student
ability or socio-economic background.

2. Interrupted Time Series Design


This design involves repeated observations or measurements before and after a
treatment or intervention. It is used to examine trends over time, allowing researchers to
determine whether an observed change coincides with the implementation of the
treatment. This design helps establish causality in the absence of random assignment by
analyzing patterns and trends.

 Example: A study investigating the impact of a new traffic law on road safety
might examine accident rates over several years before and after the law's
implementation. If there's a noticeable change in the trend after the law is
enacted, it could suggest a causal effect.

3. Regression Discontinuity Design

In this design, participants are assigned to groups based on a cutoff score on a pretest
or some other continuous variable. Those above the cutoff are placed in the
experimental group, while those below are in the control group. This design allows
researchers to examine the effect of an intervention on participants close to the cutoff.

 Example: A study assessing the impact of a scholarship program on student


outcomes might use a cutoff based on a standardized test score. Students
scoring above a certain threshold receive the scholarship (experimental group),
while those scoring below do not (control group). This design examines the effect
of the scholarship by comparing outcomes near the cutoff.

4. Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design

Similar to the nonequivalent control group design, this approach includes a pretest
measurement, allowing researchers to examine changes over time. While this provides a
baseline for comparison, the lack of random assignment means that other factors could
influence the results.

 Example: A study evaluating the effectiveness of a workplace wellness program


might involve two departments within a company—one that participates in the
program and one that doesn't. Employees are measured before and after the
program to assess changes in health metrics, but differences between the
departments could affect the outcomes.

Limitations of Quasi-Experimental Designs


 Lack of Random Assignment: Without randomization, quasi-experimental
designs are more prone to bias and confounding factors.
 Reduced Internal Validity: The absence of random assignment makes it harder
to establish clear cause-and-effect relationships.
 Greater Potential for Confounding Variables: Since participants are not
randomly assigned, other variables may influence the observed effects.

You might also like