TOPIC 1

WHAT IS A CORRELATIONAL STUDY?

A correlational study is a type of research design that looks at the relationships between two or
more variables. Correlational studies are non-experimental, which means that the experimenter
does not manipulate or control any of the variables.

A correlation refers to a relationship between two variables.1 Correlations can be strong or

weak and positive or negative. Sometimes, there is no correlation.

There are three possible outcomes of a correlation study: a positive correlation, a negative
correlation, or no correlation. Researchers can present the results using a numerical value called
the correlation coefficient.2

 Positive correlations: Both variables increase or decrease at the same time. A correlation
coefficient close to +1.00 indicates a strong positive correlation.
 Negative correlations: As the amount of one variable increases, the other decreases (and
vice versa). A correlation coefficient close to -1.00 indicates a strong negative
correlation.
 No correlation: There is no relationship between the two variables. A correlation
coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation.

Characteristics of a Correlational Study

Correlational studies are a type of research often used in psychology, as well as other fields like
medicine.3 Correlational research is a preliminary way to gather information about a topic. The
method is also useful if researchers are unable to perform an experiment.

Researchers use correlations to see if a relationship between two or more variables exists, but the
variables themselves are not under the control of the researchers.

While correlational research can demonstrate a relationship between variables, it cannot prove
that changing one variable will change another. In other words, correlational studies cannot
prove cause-and-effect relationships.4
When you encounter research that refers to a "link" or an "association" between two things, they
are most likely talking about a correlational study.
Types of Correlational Research

There are three types of correlational research: naturalistic observation, the survey method, and
archival research. Each type has its own purpose, as well as its pros and cons.

Naturalistic Observation
The naturalistic observation method involves observing and recording variables of interest in a
natural setting without interference or manipulation.1
Advantages
  Can inspire ideas for further research
 Option if lab experiment not available
 View variables in natural setting
Disadvantages

 Can be time-consuming and expensive

 Extraneous variables can't be controlled
 No scientific control of variables
 Subjects might behave differently if aware of being observed
This method is well-suited to studies where researchers want to see how variables behave in their
natural setting or state.4 Inspiration can then be drawn from the observations to inform future
avenues of research.
In some cases, it might be the only method available to researchers; for example, if lab
experimentation would be precluded by access, resources, or ethics. It might be preferable to not
being able to conduct research at all, but the method can be costly and usually takes a lot of
time.4
Naturalistic observation presents several challenges for researchers. For one, it does not allow
them to control or influence the variables in any way nor can they change any possible external
variables.

However, this does not mean that researchers will get reliable data from watching the variables,
or that the information they gather will be free from bias.

For example, study subjects might act differently if they know that they are being watched. The
researchers might not be aware that the behavior that they are observing is not necessarily the
subject's natural state (i.e., how they would act if they did not know they were being watched).

Researchers also need to be aware of their biases, which can affect the observation and
interpretation of a subject's behavior.1
Surveys
Surveys and questionnaires are some of the most common methods used for psychological
research. The survey method involves having a random sample of participants complete a
survey, test, or questionnaire related to the variables of interest. 1 Random sampling is vital to the
generalizability of a survey's results.
Advantages

 Cheap, easy, and fast

 Can collect large amounts of data in a short amount of time
 Flexible
Disadvantages

 Results can be affected by poor survey questions

 Results can be affected by unrepresentative sample
 Outcomes can be affected by participants
If researchers need to gather a large amount of data in a short period of time, a survey is likely to
be the fastest, easiest, and cheapest option.1
It's also a flexible method because it lets researchers create data-gathering tools that will help
ensure they get the information they need (survey responses) from all the sources they want to
use (a random sample of participants taking the survey).

Survey data might be cost-efficient and easy to get, but it has its downsides. For one, the data is
not always reliable—particularly if the survey questions are poorly written or the overall design
or delivery is weak.2 Data is also affected by specific faults, such as unrepresented or
underrepresented samples.
The use of surveys relies on participants to provide useful data. Researchers need to be aware of
the specific factors related to the people taking the survey that will affect its outcome.

For example, some people might struggle to understand the questions. A person might answer a
particular way to try to please the researchers or to try to control how the researchers perceive
them (such as trying to make themselves "look better").

Sometimes, respondents might not even realize that their answers are incorrect or misleading
because of mistaken memories.
Archival Research
Many areas of psychological research benefit from analyzing studies that were conducted long
ago by other researchers, as well as reviewing historical records and case studies.1
For example, in an experiment known as "The Irritable Heart," researchers used digitalized
records containing information on American Civil War veterans to learn more about post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).5
Advantages

 Large amount of data

 Can be less expensive
 Researchers cannot change participant behavior
Disadvantages

 Can be unreliable
 Information might be missing
 No control over data collection methods

Using records, databases, and libraries that are publically accessible or accessible through their
institution can help researchers who might not have a lot of money to support their research
efforts.

Free and low-cost resources are available to researchers at all levels through academic
institutions, museums, and data repositories around the world.
Another potential benefit is that these sources often provide an enormous amount of data that
was collected over a very long period of time, which can give researchers a way to view trends,
relationships, and outcomes related to their research.1

While the inability to change variables can be a disadvantage of some methods, it can be a
benefit of archival research. That said, using historical records or information that was collected
a long time ago also presents challenges. For one, important information might be missing or
incomplete and some aspects of older studies might not be useful to researchers in a modern
context.

A primary issue with archival research is reliability. 4 When reviewing old research, little
information might be available about who conducted the research, how a study was designed,
who participated in the research, as well as how data was collected and interpreted.
Researchers can also be presented with ethical quandaries—for example, should modern
researchers use data from studies that were conducted unethically or with questionable ethics? 6
Potential Pitfalls
You've probably heard the phrase, "correlation does not equal causation." This means that while
correlational research can suggest that there is a relationship between two variables, it cannot
prove that one variable will change another.7

For example, researchers might perform a correlational study that suggests there is a relationship
between academic success and a person's self-esteem. However, the study cannot show that
academic success changes a person's self-esteem.

To determine why the relationship exists, researchers would need to consider and experiment
with other variables, such as the subject's social relationships, cognitive abilities, personality, and
socioeconomic status.

CROSS-SECTIONAL

A cross-sectional study is a type of observational study, or descriptive research, that involves

analyzing information about a population at a specific point in time.
Typically, these studies are used to measure the prevalence of health outcomes and describe
characteristics of a population. In this type of study, researchers are simply examining a group of
participants and depicting what already exists in the population without manipulating any
variables or interfering with the environment.
Cross-sectional studies aim to describe a variable, not measure it. They can be beneficial for
describing a population, or “taking a snapshot” of a group of individuals, at a single moment in
time.
In epidemiology and public health research, cross-sectional studies are used to assess exposure
(cause) and a disease (effect) and compare the rates of diseases and symptoms of an exposed
group with an unexposed group.
Cross-sectional studies are also unique because researchers are able to look at numerous
characteristics at once.
For example, a cross-sectional study could be used to investigate whether exposure to certain
factors, such as overeating, might correlate to particular outcomes, such as obesity.
While this study cannot prove that overeating caused obesity, it can draw attention to a
relationship that might be worth investigating.

Types of Cross-Sectional Studies

1. Analytical Studies
1. In analytical cross-sectional studies, researchers investigate an association
between two parameters. They collect data for exposures and outcomes at one
specific point in time in order to measure an association between an exposure and
a condition within a defined population.
2. The purpose of this type of study is to compare health outcome differences
between exposed and unexposed individuals.
2. Descriptive Studies
1. Descriptive cross-sectional studies are purely used to characterize and assess the
prevalence and distribution of one or many health outcomes in a defined
population.
2. They can assess how frequently, widely, or severely a specific variable occurs
throughout a specific demographic.

Advantages
Simple and Inexpensive
These studies are quick, cheap, and easy to conduct as they do not require any follow-up with
subjects and can be done through self-report surveys.
Minimal room for error
Because all of the variables are analyzed at once and data does not need to be collected multiple
times, there will likely be fewer mistakes as a higher level of control is obtained.
Multiple variables and outcomes can be researched and compared at once
Researchers are able to look at numerous characteristics (ie: age, gender, ethnicity, education
level) in one study.
The data can be a starting point for future research
The information obtained from cross-sectional studies enables researchers to conduct further data
analyses to explore any causal relationships in more depth.

Limitations
Does not help determine cause and effect
Cross-sectional studies can be influenced by antecedent consequent bias which occurs when it
cannot be determined whether exposure preceded disease. (Alexander et al.)
Report bias is probable
Cross-sectional studies rely on surveys and questionnaires which might not result in accurate
reporting as there is no way to verify the information presented.
Timing of the snapshot is not always representative
Cross-sectional studies do not provide information from before or after the report was recorded
and only offer a single snapshot of a point in time.
Cannot be used to analyze behavior over a period to time
Cross-sectional studies are designed to look at a variable at a particular moment, while
longitudinal studies are more beneficial for analyzing relationships over extended periods.

Examples

 Evaluating the COVID-19 positivity rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated

adolescents
 Investigating the prevalence of dysfunctional breathing in patients treated for asthma in
primary care (Wang & Cheng, 2020)

LONGITUDINAL
A longitudinal study is a type of observational and correlational study that involves monitoring a
population over an extended period of time.
In longitudinal studies, researchers do not manipulate any variables or interfere with the
environment. Instead, they simply conduct observations on the same group of subjects over a
period of time.
These research studies can last as short as a week or as long as multiple years, or even decades.
Unlike cross-sectional studies that measure a moment in time, longitudinal studies last beyond a
single moment, enabling researchers to discover cause and effect relationships between
variables.
They are beneficial for recognizing any changes, developments, or patterns in the characteristics
of a target population. Longitudinal studies are often used in clinical and developmental
psychology to study shifts in behaviors, thoughts, and emotions as well as trends throughout a
lifetime.
For example, a longitudinal study could be used to examine the progress and well-being of
children at critical age periods from birth to adulthood.
The Harvard Study of Adult Development is one of the longest longitudinal studies to date.
Researchers in this study have been following the same group of men for over 80 years,
observing psychosocial variables and biological processes for healthy aging and well-being in
late life (see Harvard Second Generation Study).

TYPES OF LONGITUDINAL STUDIES

Panel Study

 A panel study is a type of longitudinal study involves sampling a cross-section of

individuals at specific intervals for an extended period.
 These studies measure people’s behaviors over time, specifically their opinions, feelings,
emotions and thoughts. Panel studies are a type of prospective study.

Cohort Study

 A cohort study is a type of longitudinal study that samples a group of people who share a
common characteristic.
 Researchers observe a population based on the shared experience of a specific event such
as birth, geographic location, or historical experience. These studies are typically used
among medical researchers.

Retrospective Study

 In a retrospective study, researchers either collect data on events that have already
occurred or use existing data that already exists in databases, medical records, or
interviews to gain insights about a population.

Advantages
Allows researchers to look at changes overtime
Because longitudinal studies observe variables over extended periods of time, researchers can
use their data to study developmental shifts and understand how certain things change as we age.
High validation
Since objectives and rules for long-term studies are established before data collection, these
studies are authentic and have high levels of validity.
Eliminates recall bias
Recall bias occurs when participants do not remember past events accurately or omit details from
previous experiences.
Flexibility
The variables in longitudinal studies can change throughout the study. Even if the study was
created to study a specific pattern or characteristic, the data collection could show new data
points or relationships that are unique and worth investigating further.

Limitations
Costly and time consuming
Longitudinal studies can take months or years to complete, rendering them expensive and time
consuming. Because of this, researchers tend to have difficulty recruiting participants, leading to
smaller sample sizes
Large sample size needed
Longitudinal studies tend to be challenging to conduct because large samples are needed for any
relationships or patterns to be meaningful. Researchers are unable to generate results if there is
not enough data.
Participants tend to drop out
Not only is it a struggle to recruit participants, but subjects also tend to leave or drop out of the
study due to a variety of reasons such as illness, relocation, or a lack of motivation to complete
the full study. This tendency is known as selective attrition and can threaten the validity of an
experiment. For this reason, researchers using this approach typically recruit many participants
fully expecting that a substantial number will drop out before the end.
Report bias is possible
Longitudinal studies will sometimes rely on surveys and questionnaires which could result in
inaccurate reporting as there is no way to verify the information presented.

Examples

 LeMare and Audet (2006) carried out a longitudinal study on the physical growth and
health of 36 Romanian orphans adopted by Canadian families and compared them to a
group of children raised in normal Canadian families.

Data were collected for each child at three time points: at 11 months after adoption, at 4.5
years of age and at 10.5 years of age.
The first two sets of results showed that the adoptees were behind the non-
institutionalised group however by 10.5 years old there was no difference between the
two groups. The Romanian orphans had caught up with the children raised in normal
Canadian families.
  The role of positive psychology constructs in predicting mental health and academic
achievement in children and adolescents (Marques Pais-Ribeiro, & Lopez, 2011)

SUCCESSIVE INDEPENDENT SAMPLES DESIGN

A successive independent samples design draws multiple random samples from a
population at one or more times.. This design can study changes within a population, but
not changes within individuals because the same individuals are not surveyed more than
once. Such studies cannot, therefore, identify the causes of change over time necessarily.
For successive independent samples designs to be effective, the samples must be drawn
from the same population, and must be equally representative of it. If the samples are not
comparable, the changes between samples may be due to demographic characteristics
rather than time. In addition, the questions must be asked in the same way so that
responses can be compared directly.

TOPIC 2:

BETWEEN AND WITHIN SUBJECT DESIGN IN EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

In experiments, a different independent variable treatment or manipulation is used in

each condition to assess whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship with a dependent
variable.

In a within-subjects design, or a within-groups design, all participants take part in every

condition. It’s the opposite of a between-subjects design, where each participant experiences
only one condition.
A within-subjects design is also called a dependent groups or repeated measures
design because researchers compare related measures from the same participants between
different conditions.

All longitudinal studies use within-subjects designs to assess changes within the same
individuals over time.

Using a within-subjects design

In a within-subjects design, all participants in the sample are exposed to the same treatments.
The goal is to measure changes over time or changes resulting from different treatments for
outcomes such as attitudes, learning, or performance.

Example: Within-subjects design for different treatmentsYou’re studying the effects of different
messaging styles (your independent variable) on generosity (your dependent variable). Every participant
is presented with 5 different short stories about climate change.

Each story uses a different tone and style. After each story, participants are asked how they feel
about it and their willingness to donate to a related cause.

Other unrelated questions are also asked to make sure participants don’t guess the aim of the
study. To test the effects of messaging styles on generosity, you compare the willingness to
donate across conditions within subjects.
When comparing different treatments within subjects, you
should randomize or counterbalance the order in which every condition is presented across the
group of participants. This prevents the effects of earlier treatments from spilling over onto later
ones.

Randomization means using many different possible sequences for treatments, while
counterbalancing means using a limited number of sequences across the group.

Counterbalancing is sometimes more convenient for researchers because an even portion of the
sample undergoes each sequence of conditions selected by researchers. Each treatment ideally
appears equally often in each position (e.g., third) of the sequence. This helps balance out the
effects of treatment sequence on the outcomes.

Example: Counterbalancing vs randomization of treatment orderIn your study, you have 5 short stories
(labelled A, B, C, D, E) as your treatments.

To counterbalance treatment order, you first decide on a few fixed sequences for these
treatments: A-B-C-D-E, B-E-A-C-D, and D-A-B-E-C, etc. Then you divide your participants
into sub-groups that each receive only one sequence of treatments.

To randomize treatment order, the order of the short stories is completely randomized between
participants using a computer program. Every possible sequence can be presented to participants
across the group, but in complete randomization, you can’t control how often each sequence is
used in the participant group.
In longitudinal studies, time is an independent variable. Because researchers can’t prevent the
effects of time, longitudinal studies usually study correlations between time and other
(dependent) variables.

Example: Within-subjects design over timeAs a social researcher, you’re studying the effects of time (the
independent variable) on perceptions of the pandemic and coronavirus (the dependent variable). You
gathered a large sample of participants early in 2020 and have repeatedly sent them an online survey
every two to three months since then.

An important question in the Likert scale survey asks participants to rate their fear of getting
COVID-19 on a scale from 1–7.

To assess changes in perception, you compare differences in survey responses over time within
subjects.

Within-subjects versus between-subjects design

The opposite of a within-subjects design is a between-subjects design, where each participant
only experiences one condition, and different treatment groups are compared.

Between-subjects designs usually have a control group (e.g., no treatment) and an experimental
group, or multiple groups that differ on a variable (e.g., gender, ethnicity, test score etc).
Researchers compare the outcomes of different groups with each other.

In within-subjects designs, participants serve as their own control by providing baseline scores
across different conditions.

The word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group or
individual, while the word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between
groups.
Example: Within-subjects design vs between-subjects design. You’re planning to study whether the
college course learning environment (your independent variable) affects test scores (your dependent
variable). You can use either a between-subjects or a within-subjects design.

If you use a between-subjects design, you would split your sample into two groups of
participants:

 a control group that takes a college course on campus,

 an experimental group that takes the same college course online.

You would administer the same test to all participants and compare test scores between the
groups.

If you use a within-subjects design, everyone in your sample would take part in every condition:

 Half of the college course is administered on campus before a test.

 Half of the college course is given online before a comparable test.

You would randomize the order of the learning environment across the participants: some
participants would first take the course on campus before switching to online learning, while the
others would take the course online first before taking it in person. Then, you compare test scores
within subjects between the two conditions.
In factorial designs, two or more independent variables are tested at the same time. Every level
of one independent variable is combined with each level of every other independent variable to
create different conditions.

In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within
subjects.
Some longitudinal studies can be experimental when they use a mixed design to study two or
more independent variables. If you can directly manipulate one of the independent variables, and
participant assignment to conditions, you’re using an experimental approach.

Example: Experimental longitudinal studyAs an education researcher, you’re investigating whether

different teaching methods impact second language learning outcomes. Your participants are students in
the 8th grade taking an introductory course of a second language.

In a mixed design, you experimentally vary teaching methods between subjects, and you
measure language knowledge at multiple time points within subjects.

Each participant is randomly assigned to one of two groups:

 A control group that receives standard teaching methods,

 Another group that receives experimental teaching methods.

All participants are tested before, midway and after taking the course, and their scores are
statistically tested for differences across time and between groups.

Pros and cons of a within-subjects design

 Smaller sample
Within-subjects designs help you detect causal or correlational relationships between variables
with relatively small samples. It’s easier to recruit a sample for a within-subjects design than a
between-subjects design because you need fewer participants. Every participant provides
repeated measures, making the study more cost effective.

 Removes effects of individual differences between conditions

In a between-subjects design, different participants take part in each condition, so participant
characteristics (e.g., intelligence or memory capacity) often vary between groups. This means it’s
hard to say whether the outcomes are truly the result of the independent variable or individual
differences between groups.

In contrast, there are no variations in individual differences between conditions in a within-

subjects design because the same individuals participate in all conditions. Participant
characteristics are controlled for.

 Statistically powerful
A within-subjects design is more statistically powerful than a between-subjects design, because
individual variation is removed. To achieve the same level of power, a between-subjects design
often requires double the number of participants (or more) that a within-subjects design does.

 Time-related effects
There are many time-related threats to internal validity that only apply to within-subjects design
because it’s hard to control the effects of time on the outcomes of the study.
Some examples:

 History: an unrelated event (e.g., a lockdown) may influence the outcomes.

 Maturation: the natural physical or psychological changes (e.g., growth or aging) in the
participants over time may cause the outcomes.
 Subject attrition: more participants drop out at every subsequent step of the study, leaving you
with a potentially biased sample at the end because only participants with strong motivations stay
in the study.

 Carryover effects
Carryover effects are a broad category of internal validity threats that occur when an earlier
treatment alters the outcomes of a later treatment.

Some examples:

 Practice effects (learning): familiarity with the study based on earlier conditions leads to better
performance in later conditions.
 Order effects: the placement of a condition in a number of conditions changes the outcomes—
for example, participants pay less attention in the last condition because of boredom and fatigue.
 Sequence effects: the interaction between conditions (based on their sequence) affects the
outcomes; for instance, participants in an ad rating survey may compare later ads to earlier ones
and base their decisions on the sequence of items.

Randomization and counterbalancing of the order of conditions can help reduce carryover effec

Between-Subjects Design | Examples, Pros & Cons

In experiments, you test the effect of an independent variable by creating conditions where
different treatments (e.g. a placebo pill vs a new medication) are applied.

In a between-subjects design, or a between-groups design, every participant experiences only

one condition, and you compare group differences between participants in various conditions.
It’s the opposite of a within-subjects design, where every participant experiences every
condition.

A between-subjects design is also called an independent measures or independent-groups

design because researchers compare unrelated measurements taken from separate groups.

Using a between-subjects design

In a between-subjects design, there is usually at least one control group and one experimental
group, or multiple groups that differ on a variable (e.g., gender, ethnicity, test score etc.)

Every experimental group is given an independent variable treatment that the researcher believes
will have some effect on the outcomes, while control groups are given no treatment, a standard
unrelated treatment, or a fake treatment.
You compare the dependent variable measures between groups to see whether the independent
variable manipulation is effective. If the groups differ significantly, you can conclude that your
independent variable manipulation likely caused the differences.

Example: Between-subjects designTo test out whether displaying a new slogan (your independent
variable) will increase sign-ups on a website newsletter (your dependent variable), you gather a sample
with 138 participants.

You use a between-subjects design to divide the sample into two groups:

 A control group where the participants see the current business slogan on the website,
 An experimental group where the participants see the new slogan on the website.

Then, you compare the percentage of newsletter sign-ups between the two groups using
statistical analysis.
Ideally, your participants should be randomly assigned to one of the groups to ensure that the
baseline participant characteristics are comparable across the groups.

You should also use masking to make sure that participants aren’t able to figure out whether they
are in an experimental or control group. If they know their group assignment, they may
unintentionally or intentionally alter their responses to meet the researchers’ expectations, and
this would lead to biased results.

A between-subjects design is also useful when you want to compare groups that differ on a key
characteristic. This characteristic would be your independent variable, with varying levels of the
characteristic differentiating the groups from each other. There would be no experimental or
control groups because all participants undergo the same procedures.

Example: Between-subjects designYou’re interested in studying whether age influences reaction times in
a new cognitive task. You gather a sample and assign participants to groups based on their age:

 the first group is aged between 21–30,

 the second group is aged between 31–40,
 the third group is aged between 41–50.

The procedure for all participants is the same: they arrive at the lab individually and perform the
reaction time task. Then, you assess age group differences in reaction times.

Between-subjects versus within-subjects design

The alternative to a between-subjects design is a within-subjects design, where each
participant experiences all conditions. Researchers test the same participants repeatedly to assess
differences between conditions.

There are no control groups in within-subjects designs because participants are tested before and
after independent variable treatments. The pretest is similar to a control condition where no
independent variable treatment is given yet, while the posttest takes place after all treatments are
administered.

The word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while
the word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.
Example: Between-subjects versus within-subjects designYou’re planning to study whether taking a nap
(your independent variable) after a learning session can improve test scores (your dependent variable).
You can use either a between-subjects or a within-subjects design.
If you use a between-subjects design, you would split your sample into two groups of
participants:

 a control group that has a learning session and does an unrelated task for 20 minutes as a
counterbalance
 an experimental group that has the learning session, followed by a 20-minute nap.

Then, you would administer the same test to all participants and compare test scores between the
groups.

If you use a within-subjects design, everyone in your sample would undergo the same
procedures:

1. First, they would all have learning sessions, followed by pretests.

2. Then, they would each take a 20-minute nap.
3. Finally, a posttest would assess their knowledge at the end of the study.

You would compare the pretest and posttest scores statistically.

These two types of designs can also be combined in a single study when you have two or more
independent variables.

In factorial designs, multiple independent variables are tested simultaneously. Each level of one
independent variable is combined with each level of every other independent variable to create
different conditions.

In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within
subjects.

Pros and cons of a between-subjects design

It’s important to consider the pros and cons of between-subjects versus within-subjects designs
when deciding on your research strategy. While a between-subjects design has fewer threats
to internal validity, it also requires more participants for high statistical power compared to a
within-subjects design.

 Prevents carryover effects

Carryover effects are the lingering effects of being in one experimental condition on a
subsequent condition in within-subjects designs. These include practice or learning effects,
where exposure to a treatment makes participants’ reactions faster or better in subsequent
treatments.

Between-subjects designs also prevent fatigue effects, which occur when participants become
tired or bored of multiple treatments in a row in within-subjects designs. Carryover effects
threaten the internal validity of a study.
  Shorter duration for the study
In a between-subjects design, each participant is only given one treatment, so every session can
be fairly quick.

In contrast, data collection in a within-subjects design takes longer because every participant is
given multiple treatments. However, despite the data collection duration per participant taking
longer, you need fewer participants compared to between-subjects design.

 Requires more participants and resources

Between-subjects designs require more participants for each condition to match the high
statistical power of within-subjects designs.

That means that they also require more resources to recruit a larger sample, administer sessions,
and cover costs etc.

 Individual differences may threaten validity

Because different participants provide data for each condition, it’s possible that the groups differ
in important ways between conditions, and these differences can be alternative explanations for
the results.

To counter this in a between-subjects design, you can use matching to pair specific individuals or
groups in your sample. That way, the groups are matched on specific variables (e.g.,
demographic characteristics or ability level) that may affect the results.
TOPIC 3:

QUASI EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS

The prefix quasi means “resembling.” Thus quasi-experimental research is research that
resembles experimental research but is not true experimental research. Although the independent
variable is manipulated, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of
conditions (Cook & Campbell, 1979).[1] Because the independent variable is manipulated before
the dependent variable is measured, quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality
problem. But because participants are not randomly assigned—making it likely that there are
other differences between conditions—quasi-experimental research does not eliminate the
problem of confounding variables. In terms of internal validity, therefore, quasi-experiments are
generally somewhere between correlational studies and true experiments.

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment
is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment—
perhaps a type of psychotherapy or an educational intervention. There are many different kinds
of quasi-experiments, but we will discuss just a few of the most common ones here.

Nonequivalent Groups Design

Recall that when participants in a between-subjects experiment are randomly assigned to

conditions, the resulting groups are likely to be quite similar. In fact, researchers consider them
to be equivalent. When participants are not randomly assigned to conditions, however, the
resulting groups are likely to be dissimilar in some ways. For this reason, researchers consider
them to be nonequivalent. A nonequivalent groups design, then, is a between-subjects design in
which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions.

Imagine, for example, a researcher who wants to evaluate a new method of teaching fractions to
third graders. One way would be to conduct a study with a treatment group consisting of one
class of third-grade students and a control group consisting of another class of third-grade
students. This design would be a nonequivalent groups design because the students are not
randomly assigned to classes by the researcher, which means there could be important
differences between them. For example, the parents of higher achieving or more motivated
students might have been more likely to request that their children be assigned to Ms. Williams’s
class. Or the principal might have assigned the “troublemakers” to Mr. Jones’s class because he
is a stronger disciplinarian. Of course, the teachers’ styles, and even the classroom environments,
might be very different and might cause different levels of achievement or motivation among the
students. If at the end of the study there was a difference in the two classes’ knowledge of
fractions, it might have been caused by the difference between the teaching methods—but it
might have been caused by any of these confounding variables.

Of course, researchers using a nonequivalent groups design can take steps to ensure that their
groups are as similar as possible. In the present example, the researcher could try to select two
classes at the same school, where the students in the two classes have similar scores on a
standardized math test and the teachers are the same sex, are close in age, and have similar
teaching styles. Taking such steps would increase the internal validity of the study because it
would eliminate some of the most important confounding variables. But without true random
assignment of the students to conditions, there remains the possibility of other important
confounding variables that the researcher was not able to control.

Pretest-Posttest Design

In a pretest-posttest design, the dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is
implemented and once after it is implemented. Imagine, for example, a researcher who is
interested in the effectiveness of an antidrug education program on elementary school students’
attitudes toward illegal drugs. The researcher could measure the attitudes of students at a
particular elementary school during one week, implement the antidrug program during the next
week, and finally, measure their attitudes again the following week. The pretest-posttest design is
much like a within-subjects experiment in which each participant is tested first under the control
condition and then under the treatment condition. It is unlike a within-subjects experiment,
however, in that the order of conditions is not counterbalanced because it typically is not possible
for a participant to be tested in the treatment condition first and then in an “untreated” control
condition.

If the average posttest score is better than the average pretest score, then it makes sense to
conclude that the treatment might be responsible for the improvement. Unfortunately, one often
cannot conclude this with a high degree of certainty because there may be other explanations for
why the posttest scores are better. One category of alternative explanations goes under the name
of history. Other things might have happened between the pretest and the posttest. Perhaps an
antidrug program aired on television and many of the students watched it, or perhaps a celebrity
died of a drug overdose and many of the students heard about it. Another category of alternative
explanations goes under the name of maturation. Participants might have changed between the
pretest and the posttest in ways that they were going to anyway because they are growing and
learning. If it were a yearlong program, participants might become less impulsive or better
reasoners and this might be responsible for the change.

Another alternative explanation for a change in the dependent variable in a pretest-posttest

design is regression to the mean. This refers to the statistical fact that an individual who scores
extremely on a variable on one occasion will tend to score less extremely on the next occasion.
For example, a bowler with a long-term average of 150 who suddenly bowls a 220 will almost
certainly score lower in the next game. Her score will “regress” toward her mean score of 150.
Regression to the mean can be a problem when participants are selected for further
study because of their extreme scores. Imagine, for example, that only students who scored
especially low on a test of fractions are given a special training program and then retested.
Regression to the mean all but guarantees that their scores will be higher even if the training
program has no effect. A closely related concept—and an extremely important one in
psychological research—is spontaneous remission. This is the tendency for many medical and
psychological problems to improve over time without any form of treatment. The common cold
is a good example. If one were to measure symptom severity in 100 common cold sufferers
today, give them a bowl of chicken soup every day, and then measure their symptom severity
again in a week, they would probably be much improved. This does not mean that the chicken
soup was responsible for the improvement, however, because they would have been much
improved without any treatment at all. The same is true of many psychological problems. A
group of severely depressed people today is likely to be less depressed on average in 6 months.
In reviewing the results of several studies of treatments for depression, researchers Michael
Posternak and Ivan Miller found that participants in waitlist control conditions improved an
average of 10 to 15% before they received any treatment at all (Posternak & Miller, 2001) [2].
Thus one must generally be very cautious about inferring causality from pretest-posttest designs.

Interrupted Time Series Design

A variant of the pretest-posttest design is the interrupted time-series design. A time series is a
set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time. For example, a manufacturing
company might measure its workers’ productivity each week for a year. In an interrupted time
series-design, a time series like this one is “interrupted” by a treatment. In one classic example,
the treatment was the reduction of the work shifts in a factory from 10 hours to 8 hours (Cook &
Campbell, 1979)[5]. Because productivity increased rather quickly after the shortening of the work
shifts, and because it remained elevated for many months afterward, the researcher concluded
that the shortening of the shifts caused the increase in productivity. Notice that the interrupted
time-series design is like a pretest-posttest design in that it includes measurements of the
dependent variable both before and after the treatment. It is unlike the pretest-posttest design,
however, in that it includes multiple pretest and posttest measurements.

Combination Designs

A type of quasi-experimental design that is generally better than either the nonequivalent groups
design or the pretest-posttest design is one that combines elements of both. There is a treatment
group that is given a pretest, receives a treatment, and then is given a posttest. But at the same
time there is a control group that is given a pretest, does not receive the treatment, and then is
given a posttest. The question, then, is not simply whether participants who receive the treatment
improve but whether they improve more than participants who do not receive the treatment.

Imagine, for example, that students in one school are given a pretest on their attitudes toward
drugs, then are exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a posttest. Students in a
similar school are given the pretest, not exposed to an antidrug program, and finally are given a
posttest. Again, if students in the treatment condition become more negative toward drugs, this
change in attitude could be an effect of the treatment, but it could also be a matter of history or
maturation. If it really is an effect of the treatment, then students in the treatment condition
should become more negative than students in the control condition. But if it is a matter of
history (e.g., news of a celebrity drug overdose) or maturation (e.g., improved reasoning), then
students in the two conditions would be likely to show similar amounts of change. This type of
design does not completely eliminate the possibility of confounding variables, however.
Something could occur at one of the schools but not the other (e.g., a student drug overdose), so
students at the first school would be affected by it while students at the other school would not.
Finally, if participants in this kind of design are randomly assigned to conditions, it becomes a
true experiment rather than a quasi experiment. In fact, it is the kind of experiment that Eysenck
called for—and that has now been conducted many times—to demonstrate the effectiveness of
psychotherapy.
 TOPIC 4 :

RESEARCH DESIGN USED IN CASE STUDY METHOD

Case study research is a type of qualitative research design. It’s often used in the social sciences
because it involves observing subjects, or cases, in their natural setting, with minimal
interference from the researcher.
In the case study method, researchers pose a specific question about an individual or group to
test their theories or hypothesis. This can be done by gathering data from interviews with key
informants.
Here’s what you need to know about case study research design.
What Is The Case Study Method?

Case study research is a great way to understand the nuances of a matter that can get lost in
quantitative research methods. A case study is distinct from other qualitative studies in the
following ways:
 It’s Interested In The Effect Of A Set Of Circumstances On An Individual Or Group.
 It Begins With A Specific Question About One Or More Cases.
 It Focuses On Individual Accounts And Experiences.
Here are the primary features of case study research:

1. Case Study Research Methods Typically Involve The Researcher Asking A Few Questions Of One
Person Or A Small Number Of People—Known As Respondents—To Test One Hypothesis.
2. Case Study In Research Methodology May Apply Triangulation To Collect Data, In Which The
Researcher Uses Several Sources, Including Documents And Field Data. This Is Then Analyzed And
Interpreted To Form A Hypothesis That Can Be Tested Through Further Research Or Validated By
Other Researchers.
3. The Case Study Method Requires Clear Concepts And Theories To Guide Its Methods. A Well-
Defined Research Question Is Crucial When Conducting A Case Study Because The Results Of The
Study Depend On It. The Best Approach To Answering A Research Question Is To Challenge The
Existing Theories, Hypotheses Or Assumptions.
4. Concepts Are Defined Using Objective Language With No Reference To Preconceived Notions That
Individuals Might Have About Them. The Researcher Sets Out To Discover By Asking Specific
Questions On How People Think Or Perceive Things In Their Given Situation.
They commonly use the case study method in business, management, psychology, sociology,
political science and other related fields.

Main Approaches To Data Collection

A fundamental requirement of qualitative research is recording observations that provide an
understanding of reality. When it comes to the case study method, there are two major
approaches that can be used to collect data: document review and fieldwork.

A case study in research methodology also includes literature review, the process by which the
researcher collects all data available through historical documents. These might include books,
newspapers, journals, videos, photographs and other written material. The researcher may also
record information using video cameras to capture events as they occur. The researcher can also
go through materials produced by people involved in the case study to gain an insight into their
lives and experiences.

Field research involves participating in interviews and observations directly. Observation can be
done during telephone interviews, events or public meetings, visits to homes or workplaces, or
by shadowing someone for a period of time. The researcher can conduct one-on-one interviews
with individuals or group interviews where several people are interviewed at once.

Let’s look now at case study methodology.

Case Study Research Methods

The case study method can be divided into three stages: formulation of objectives; collection of
data; and analysis and interpretation. The researcher first makes a judgment about what should
be studied based on their knowledge. Next, they gather data through observations and interviews.
Here are some of the common case study research methods:

1. Survey
One of the most basic methods is the survey. Respondents are asked to complete a questionnaire
with open-ended and predetermined questions. It usually takes place through face-to-face
interviews, mailed questionnaires or telephone interviews. It can even be done by an online
survey.
2. Semi-Structured Interview
For case study research a more complex method is the semi-structured interview. This involves
the researcher learning about the topic by listening to what others have to say. This usually
occurs through one-on-one interviews with the sample. Semi-structured interviews allow for
greater flexibility and can obtain information that structured questionnaires can’t.
3. Focus Group Interview
Another method is the focus group interview, where the researcher asks a few people to take part
in an open-ended discussion on certain themes or topics. The typical group size is 5–15 people.
This method allows researchers to delve deeper into people’s opinions, views and experiences.
4. Participant Observation
Participant observation is another method that involves the researcher gaining insight into an
experience by joining in and taking part in normal events. The people involved don’t always
know they’re being studied, but the researcher observes and records what happens through field
notes.
Case study research design can use one or several of these methods depending on the context.
How Case Studies Are Used

Case studies are widely used in the social sciences. To understand the impact of socio-economic
forces, interpersonal dynamics and other human conditions, sometimes there’s no other way than
to study one case at a time and look for patterns and data afterward.
It’s for the same reasons that case studies are used in business. Here are a few uses:
 Case Studies Can Be Used As Tools To Educate And Give Examples Of Situations And Problems
That Might Occur And How They Were Resolved. They Can Also Be Used For Strategy Development
And Implementation.
 Case Studies Can Evaluate The Success Of A Program Or Project. They Can Help Teams Improve
Their Collaboration By Identifying Areas That Need Improvements, Such As Team Dynamics,
Communication, Roles And Responsibilities And Leadership Styles.
 Case Studies Can Explore How People’s Experiences Affect The Working Environment. Because The
Study Involves Observing And Analyzing Concrete Details Of Life, They Can Inform Theories On
How An Individual Or Group Interacts With Their Environment.
 Case Studies Can Evaluate The Sustainability Of Businesses. They’re Useful For Social,
Environmental And Economic Impact Studies Because They Look At All Aspects Of A Business Or
Organization. This Gives Researchers A Holistic View Of The Dynamics Within An Organization.
 We Can Use Case Studies To Identify Problems In Organizations Or Businesses. They Can Help Spot
Problems That Are Invisible To Customers, Investors, Managers And Employees.
 Case Studies Are Used In Education To Show Students How Real-World Issues Or Events Can Be
Sorted Out. This Enables Students To Identify And Deal With Similar Situations In Their Lives.
And that’s not all. Case studies are incredibly versatile, which is why they’re used so widely.

Case Study Model

Human beings are complex and they interact with each other in their everyday life in various
ways. The researcher observes a case and tries to find out how the patterns of behavior are
created, including their causal relations. Case studies help understand one or more specific
events that have been observed. Here are some common methods:
1. Illustrative Case Study

This is where the researcher observes a group of people doing something. Studying an event or
phenomenon this way can show cause-and-effect relationships between various variables.
2. Cumulative Case Study
A cumulative case study is one that involves observing the same set of phenomena over a period.
Cumulative case studies can be very helpful in understanding processes, which are things that
happen over time. For example, if there are behavioral changes in people who move from one
place to another, the researcher might want to know why these changes occurred.
3. Exploratory Case Study
An exploratory case study collects information that will answer a question. It can help
researchers better understand social, economic, political or other social phenomena.
There are several other ways to categorize case studies. They may be chronological case studies,
where a researcher observes events over time. In the comparative case study, the researcher
compares one or more groups of people, places, or things to draw conclusions about them. In an
intervention case study, the researcher intervenes to change the behavior of the subjects. The
study method depends on the needs of the research team.

Deciding how to analyze the information at our disposal is an important part of effective
management. An understanding of the case study model can help. With Harappa’s Thinking
Critically course, managers and young professionals receive input and training on how to level
up their analytic skills. Knowledge of frameworks, reading real-life examples and lived wisdom
of faculty come together to create a dynamic and exciting course that helps teams leap to the next
level.