noting specific advantages of using a systematic approach to work through research problems. Ask at least one question in response to an original peer post that you would like the author to explore further. no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please use the references below
Research studies often utilize experimental designs in order to explain the cause(s) of behavior (Malec and Newman, 2013). Pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, and true experimental designs each include participants and confounding variables in varying degrees of control. The amount of control is least present in a pre-experimental model, with the highest amount of control in a true experiment model. Somewhere in between these two designs, you will find the quasi-experimental design.
Malec and Newman state that quasi-experimental designs “offer some control and may or may not include a control group, but the participants are not randomly assigned to groups” (2013, 5.4). The four most common types of these experiments are the nonequivalent pretest-posttest control-group design, single-group interrupted time series design, control-group interrupted time series design, and the reversal time series design.
I have actually conducted a single-group interrupted time series experiment. Leedy and Armrod (2010) describe this design as making observations over time, both before and after an intervention is introduced. I advise a student organization at the college campus where I work, and I observed the team struggling to complete their tasks in the allotted amount of time. They were so unproductive that they ended up having to have 2 – 3 extra meetings a week to get everything done. After witnessing this behavior for approximately 4 weeks, I implemented a new rule that cell phones were not allowed to be out during meeting times. Following that intervention, I observed their efficiency slowly start to increasing, eventually getting to the point where they would finish tasks ahead of time. Now, a disadvantage to this “research”, and a characteristic of the single-group interrupted time series design, is that I could not fully attribute their productively as a result of the intervention. The absence of cell phones may have helped, but I cannot say with certainty that was the only factor in their improvement. A conclusion such as that would require a true experimental design.
This particular study could be changed to a true experiment model by utilizing the pretest-posttest control group design. This design uses randomly assigned participants into an experimental and control group, both groups are observed, then an intervention is introduced to the experimental group, and then both groups are observed again (Newman and Malec, 2013, 5.4). If I had two groups presented with a task, and the experimental group did not have access to their cell phones, a better cause and effect relationship could be determined.
Some research is better supported through a true experimental design. In this case, a quasi-experimental method is more appropriate for the group I was observing—a student organization. In a true experiment design, participants are randomly selected and grouped, which would increase the difficulty of evaluating my specific group performance inhibitors. I truly believe the best design relies on what it is the research is trying to answer, prove, or disprove.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Malec, T. & Newman, M. (2013). Research methods: Building a knowledge base. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.