Table of Contents

1. True Experimental Design...........................................................................................................3

1.1 Types of True Experimental Design:.....................................................................................3

1.2 Advantages of true experimental design...............................................................................5

1.3 Disadvantages of true experimental design...........................................................................6

2. Quasi-Experimental Design.........................................................................................................7

2.1 Types of Quasi-Experimental Design:...................................................................................8

2.2 Advantages of a Quasi-Experimental Design…………………………………………..…..9

2.3 Disadvantages of a Quasi-Experimental Design....................................................................9

3. Differences Between True Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design..............................10

4. Conclusion:................................................................................................................................10

5. References:................................................................................................................................11

1
1. True Experimental Design

True experimental design is a type of research where the investigator manipulates one or more
independent variables and controls for extraneous variables to observe the effect on a dependent
variable. It involves random assignment of participants to different groups or conditions,
ensuring that the groups are comparable at the start of the experiment. This design is considered
the gold standard for determining cause-and-effect relationships.

Key Features:

 Random Assignment: Participants are randomly allocated to different experimental

groups or conditions, which minimizes biases.
 Control Group: A group that does not receive the experimental treatment is compared to
the group that does, to assess the effect of the independent variable.
 Manipulation of Independent Variable: The researcher actively manipulates the
independent variable and observes the effect on the dependent variable.

Examples:

1. Clinical Trials for New Drugs: In medical research, participants are randomly assigned
to either receive a new drug (experimental group) or a placebo (control group). This helps
in determining whether the drug is effective.
2. Education Intervention: A study where students are randomly assigned to either use a
new learning method (experimental group) or continue with traditional methods (control
group) to assess the effectiveness of the new method on academic performance.

1.1 Types of True Experimental Design:

1. Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design:

o Description: In this design, participants are randomly assigned to either the
experimental group or the control group. Both groups are measured before
(pretest) and after (posttest) the experimental treatment.

2
 o Example: A study assessing the effectiveness of a new diet plan might test the
participants' weight before and after the program, comparing those on the diet
(experimental group) with those not on it (control group).
o Strength: It allows the measurement of changes over time due to the intervention.

2. Posttest-Only Control Group Design:

o Description: In this design, participants are assigned randomly to the
experimental or control group, but only the post-intervention measurements are
taken. There is no pretest.
o Example: Researchers might introduce a new teaching strategy to one group of
students and compare their performance on a post-lesson exam with a control
group that used a traditional method.
o Strength: Reduces potential pretest effects (e.g., participants becoming aware of
the study's focus).

3
 3. Solomon Four-Group Design:
o Description: This design combines both pretest-posttest and posttest-only
designs, using four groups: two that receive a pretest (one control, one
experimental) and two that do not (one control, one experimental).
o Example: In a drug trial, one pair of groups might be pretested before treatment
(experimental drug or placebo), while another pair receives only post-tests. This
allows for testing whether pretesting itself affects the results.
o Strength: Controls for pretest sensitization, giving a more accurate picture of the
intervention’s effects.

1.2 Advantages of true experimental design

Let’s take a look at some advantages that make this research design conclusive and accurate
research.

4
1. Concrete method of research:

The statistical nature of the experimental design makes it highly credible and accurate. The data
collected from the research is subjected to statistical tools.

This makes the results easy to understand, objective and actionable. This makes it a better
alternative to observation-based studies that are subjective and difficult to make inferences from.

2. Easy to understand and replicate:

Since the research provides hard figures and a precise representation of the entire process, the
results presented become easily comprehensible for any stakeholder.

Further, it becomes easier for future researchers conducting studies around the same subject to
get a grasp of prior takes on the same and replicate its results to supplement their own research.

3. Establishes comparison:

The presence of a control group in true experimental research allows researchers to compare and
contrast. The degree to which a methodology is applied to a group can be studied with respect to
the end result as a frame of reference.

4. Conclusive:

The research combines observational and statistical analysis to generate informed conclusions.
This directs the flow of follow-up actions in a definite direction, thus, making the research
process fruitful.

1.3 Disadvantages of true experimental design

1. Expensive:

This research design is costly. It takes a lot of investment in recruiting and managing a large
number of participants which is necessary for the sample to be representative.

5
The high resource investment makes it highly important for the researcher to plan each aspect of
the process to its minute details.

2. Too idealistic:

The research takes place in a completely controlled environment. Such a scenario is not
representative of real-world situations and so the results may not be authentic.

This is one of the main limitation why open-field research is preferred over lab research, wherein
the researcher can influence the study.

3. Time-consuming:

Setting up and conducting a true experiment is highly time-consuming. This is because of the
processes like recruiting a large enough sample, gathering respondent data, random distribution
into groups, monitoring the process over a span of time, tracking changes, and making
adjustments.

The amount of processes, although essential to the entire model, is not a feasible option to go for
when the results are required in the near future.

2. Quasi-Experimental Design
Definition:

A quasi-experimental design is similar to a true experimental design but lacks random

assignment of participants to conditions or groups. These designs are used when random
assignment is impractical or unethical, making them less rigorous in terms of establishing cause
and effect. However, quasi-experimental designs still allow researchers to observe the impact of
an intervention or treatment.

Key Features:

 No Random Assignment: Participants are not randomly assigned to groups, which

increases the risk of confounding variables.

6
  Comparison Group: Like in true experiments, there is often a control or comparison
group, but participants are pre-assigned or self-selected into these groups.
 Manipulation of Independent Variable: The researcher still manipulates or observes
the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, but with less control
over other variables.

Examples:

1. Evaluating the Impact of Educational Policy: A school district implements a new

teaching method in some schools but not others. The researcher compares student
outcomes between schools but cannot randomly assign students or schools to the
conditions.
2. Public Health Studies: Researchers might study the effects of a public health
intervention (like a smoking cessation program) by comparing participants in a specific
city (treatment group) with those in another city where the intervention was not applied
(control group).

2.1 Types of Quasi-Experimental Design:

1. Non-equivalent Control Group Design:

o Description: This design involves comparing two or more groups that are not
randomly assigned. Instead, groups are pre-existing or formed based on
characteristics, and the researcher introduces the independent variable to one
group.
o Example: A study comparing two schools where one implements a new
curriculum while the other follows the traditional method, with student
performance measured at the end of the school year.
o Strength: Useful in real-world settings where randomization is impractical.

2. Time-Series Design:
o Description: In a time-series design, multiple measurements are taken from a
single group over time, both before and after an intervention. This design helps
observe trends or patterns over a period.

7
 o Example: A city’s accident rates are tracked for months before and after
introducing new traffic regulations to evaluate their impact.
o Strength: Allows for examination of trends and long-term effects of the
intervention.

3. Regression Discontinuity Design:

o Description: Participants are assigned to groups based on a cutoff score (e.g., test
scores). The intervention is applied to those above or below a particular threshold,
and outcomes are compared between groups near the cutoff.
o Example: A program offers scholarships to students scoring above a certain
grade point average (GPA), and researchers compare the academic outcomes of
those just above and just below the threshold.
o Strength: Can provide strong causal inference without randomization.

2.2 Advantages of a Quasi-Experimental Design

A quasi-experimental design has several advantages, including:

1. Higher external validity: Quasi-experimental research designs tend to have more real-world
applications, especially within the social sciences.

2. Higher control over targeted hypotheses: Because the participants in the control group or
comparison group are not randomized, the nonequivalent dependent variables in your study
design can be more controlled, targeted, and efficient.

3. Can be combined with other methodologies: Quasi-experiments can lean on statistical

analysis and alternative explanations from other true experiments, which cuts down on the time
needed to determine your outcome of interest.

2.3 Disadvantages of a Quasi-Experimental Design

The disadvantages of a quasi-experimental design are as follows:

8
1. Lower internal validity: Because the researchers control the variables, it’s hard to know if
they have included all confounding variables.

2. Risk of inaccurate data: Because a quasi-experimental design often borrows information

from other experimental methods, there’s a chance that the data is not complete or accurate.

3. Risk of bias: Because researchers choose baseline elements and eligibility, there’s a risk of
human bias in selection.

3. Differences Between True Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design

Feature True Experimental Design Quasi-Experimental Design

Random Yes (random assignment of No (groups are pre-existing or non-

Assignment participants to groups) random)

Control Over High (researcher controls Lower (no random assignment, harder to
Variables extraneous variables) control confounding factors)

Causal Inference Strong (due to random Weaker (potential confounding

assignment and control) variables)

Examples Clinical trials, psychological Policy evaluations, public health studies

experiments

Internal Validity High Moderate to Low

External Variable (depends on study Often higher (real-world settings)

Validity design)

4. Conclusion:

True experimental designs are the most robust for establishing cause-and-effect relationships due
to the use of random assignment and control over extraneous variables. However, they may not
always be feasible, especially in real-world settings where random assignment is impractical or
unethical. In such cases, quasi-experimental designs offer a valuable alternative. Although quasi-

9
experimental designs lack the rigorous control of true experiments, they are often more
applicable to field research and policy evaluation, balancing practicality with scientific rigor.

5. References:
 https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/quasi-experimental-design/
 Experiments and Quasi-Experiments | Research Connections. (n.d.).
https://researchconnections.org/research-tools/experiments-and-quasi-experiments
 Section 5.3: True Experiments. (2024, October 1). Doc’s Things and Stuff.
https://docmckee.com/oer/section-5-research/section-5-3-true-experiments-research/
 Voxco. (2021b, October 1). What is a True Experimental Design? - Voxco. Voxco.
https://www.voxco.com/blog/true-experimental-design/
 https://www.masterclass.com/articles/quasi-experimental
 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
 Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for
Research. Houghton Mifflin.

 Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin

10