limitations to quasi experimental designs

The Limitations of Quasi-Experimental Studies, and Methods for Data Analysis When a Quasi-Experimental Research Design Is Unavoidable

Affiliation.

• 1 Dept. of Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neurotoxicology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
• PMID: 34584313
• PMCID: PMC8450731
• DOI: 10.1177/02537176211034707

A quasi-experimental (QE) study is one that compares outcomes between intervention groups where, for reasons related to ethics or feasibility, participants are not randomized to their respective interventions; an example is the historical comparison of pregnancy outcomes in women who did versus did not receive antidepressant medication during pregnancy. QE designs are sometimes used in noninterventional research, as well; an example is the comparison of neuropsychological test performance between first degree relatives of schizophrenia patients and healthy controls. In QE studies, groups may differ systematically in several ways at baseline, itself; when these differences influence the outcome of interest, comparing outcomes between groups using univariable methods can generate misleading results. Multivariable regression is therefore suggested as a better approach to data analysis; because the effects of confounding variables can be adjusted for in multivariable regression, the unique effect of the grouping variable can be better understood. However, although multivariable regression is better than univariable analyses, there are inevitably inadequately measured, unmeasured, and unknown confounds that may limit the validity of the conclusions drawn. Investigators should therefore employ QE designs sparingly, and only if no other option is available to answer an important research question.

Keywords: Quasi-experimental study; confounding variables; multivariable regression; research design; univariable analysis.

© 2021 Indian Psychiatric Society - South Zonal Branch.

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Research Methods in Healthcare Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Stewardship – Quasi-Experimental Designs

Marin l schweizer , phd, barbara i braun , phd, aaron m milstone , md mhs.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author: Marin L. Schweizer, PhD, Iowa City VA Health Care System (152), 601 Hwy 6 West, Iowa City, IA 52246, [email protected] , 319-338-0581 x3831

Issue date 2016 Oct.

Quasi-experimental studies evaluate the association between an intervention and an outcome using experiments in which the intervention is not randomly assigned. Quasi-experimental studies are often used to evaluate rapid responses to outbreaks or other patient safety problems requiring prompt non-randomized interventions. Quasi-experimental studies can be categorized into three major types: interrupted time series designs, designs with control groups, and designs without control groups. This methods paper highlights key considerations for quasi-experimental studies in healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship including study design and analytic approaches to avoid selection bias and other common pitfalls of quasi-experimental studies.

Introduction

The fields of healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship (HE&AS) frequently apply interventions at a unit-level (e.g. intensive care unit [ICU]). These are often rapid responses to outbreaks or other patient safety problems requiring prompt non-randomized interventions. Quasi-experimental studies evaluate the association between an intervention and an outcome using experiments in which the intervention is not randomly assigned. 1 , 2 Quasi-experimental studies can be used to measure the impact of large scale interventions or policy changes where data are reported in aggregate and multiple measures of an outcome over time (e.g., monthly rates) are collected.

Quasi-experimental studies vary widely in methodological rigor and can be categorized into three types: interrupted time series designs, designs with control groups, and designs without control groups. The HE&AS literature contains many uncontrolled before-and-after studies (also called pre-post studies), but advanced quasi-experimental study designs should be considered to overcome the biases inherent in uncontrolled before-and-after studies. 3 In this article, we highlight methods to improve quasi-experimental study design including use of a control group that does not receive the intervention 2 and use of the interrupted time series study design, in which multiple equally spaced observations are collected before and after the intervention. 4

Advantages and Disadvantages ( Table 1 )

Advantages, disadvantages, and important pitfalls in using quasi-experimental designs in healthcare epidemiology research.

Note: RCT, randomized controlled trial.

The greatest advantages of quasi-experimental studies are that they are less expensive and require fewer resources compared with individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster randomized trials. Quasi-experimental studies are appropriate when randomization is deemed unethical (e.g., effectiveness of hand hygiene studies). 1 Quasi-experimental studies are often performed at a population-level not an individual-level, and thus they can include patients who are often excluded from RCTs, such as those too ill to give informed consent or urgent surgery patients, with IRB approval as appropriate. 5 Quasi-experimental studies are also pragmatic because they evaluate the real-world effectiveness of an intervention implemented by hospital staff, rather than efficacy of an intervention implemented by research staff under research conditions. 5 Therefore, quasi-experimental studies may also be more generalizable and have better external validity than RCTs.

The greatest disadvantage of quasi-experimental studies is that randomization is not used, limiting the study’s ability to conclude a causal association between an intervention and an outcome. There is a practical challenge to quasi-experimental studies that may arise when some patients or hospital units are encouraged to introduce an intervention, while other units retain the standard of care and may feel excluded. 2 Importantly, researchers need to be aware of the biases that may occur in quasi-experimental studies that may lead to a loss of internal validity, especially selection bias in which the intervention group may differ from the baseline group. 2 Types of selection bias that can occur in quasi-experimental studies include maturation bias, regression to the mean, historical bias, instrumentation bias, and the Hawthorne effect. 2 Lastly, reporting bias is prevalent in retrospective quasi-experimental studies, in which researchers only publish quasi-experimental studies with positive findings and do not publish null or negative findings.

Pitfalls and Tips

Key study design and analytic approaches can help avoid common pitfalls of quasi-experimental studies. Quasi-experimental studies can be as small as an intervention in one ICU or as large as implementation of an intervention in multiple countries. 6 Multisite studies generally have stronger external validity. Subtypes of quasi-experimental study designs are shown in Table 2 and the Supplemental Figure. 1 , 2 , 7 In general, the higher numbers assigned to the designs in the table are associated with more rigorous study designs. Quasi-experimental studies meet some requirements for causality including temporality, strength of association and dose response. 1 , 8 The addition of concurrent control groups, time series measurements, sensitivity analyses and other advanced design elements can further support the hypothesis that the intervention is causally associated with the outcome. These design elements aid in limiting the number of alternative explanations that could account for the association between the intervention and the outcome. 2

Major Quasi-experimental design types and subtypes

Note: Classification types adapted prior publications 1 , 2 ; A, B = Groups; 1,2,3, etc.= observations for a Group; X= intervention; removeX = remove intervention; v =variable of interest; n =non-equivalent dependent variable; t=treatment group; c=control group. Time moves from left to right. Citations are published examples from the literature.

Quasi-experimental studies can use observations that were collected retrospectively, prospectively, or a combination thereof. Prospective quasi-experimental studies use baseline measurements that are calculated prospectively for the purposes of the study, then an intervention is implemented and more measurements are collected. It is often necessary to use retrospective data when the intervention is outside of the researcher’s control (e.g. natural disaster response) or when hospital epidemiologists are encouraged to intervene quickly in response to external pressure (e.g. high central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI] rates). 2 However, retrospective quasi-experimental studies have a higher risk of bias compared with prospective quasi-experimental studies. 2

The first major consideration in quasi-experimental studies is the addition of a control group that does not receive the intervention ( Table 2 subtype 6–9, 11, 15). Control groups can assist in accounting for seasonal and historical bias. If an effect is seen among the intervention group but not the control group, then causal inference is strengthened. Careful selection of the control group can also strengthen causal inference. Detection bias can be avoided by blinding those who collect and analyze the data to which group received the intervention. 2

The second major consideration is designing the study in a way to reduce bias, either by including a non-equivalent dependent variable or by using a removed-treatment design, a repeated treatment design or a switching replications design. Non-equivalent dependent variables should be similar to the outcome variable except that the non-equivalent dependent variable is not expected to be influenced by the outcome ( Table 2 subtypes 3, 12). In a removed-treatment design the intervention is implemented then taken away and observations are made before, during and after implementation ( Table 2 subtypes 4, 5, 13). This design can only be used for interventions that do not have a lasting effect on the outcome that could contaminate the study. For example, once staff have been educated, that knowledge cannot be removed. 2 Researchers must clearly explain before implementation that the intervention will be removed, otherwise this can lead to frustration or demoralization by the hospital staff implementing the intervention. 2 In the repeated treatment design ( Table 2 subtypes 5, 14) interventions are implemented, removed, then implemented again. Similar to the removed-treatment design, the repeated treatment design should only be used if the intervention does not have a lasting effect on the outcome. In a switching replications design, which is also known as a cross-over design, one group implements the intervention while the other group serves as the control. Then, the intervention is stopped in the first group and implemented in the second group ( Table 2 subtypes 9, 15). The cross-overs can occur multiple times. If the outcomes are only impacted during intervention observations, but not in the control observations, then there is support for causality. 2

A third key consideration for quasi-experimental studies with the interrupted time series design is to collect many evenly spaced observations in both the baseline and intervention periods. Multiple observations are used to estimate and control for underlying trends in data, such as seasonality and maturation. 2 The frequency of the observations (e.g. weekly, monthly, quarterly) should have clinical or seasonal meaning so that a true underlying trend can be established. There are conflicting recommendations as to the minimum number of observations needed for a time series design but they range from 20 observations before and 20 after intervention implementation to 100 observations overall. 2 – 4 , 9 The interrupted time series design is the most effective and powerful quasi-experimental design, particularly when supplemented by other design elements. 2 However, time series designs are still subject to biases and threats to validity.

The final major consideration is ensuring an appropriate analysis plan. Time series study designs collect multiple observations of the same population over time, which result in autocorrelated observations. 2 For instance, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) counts collected one month apart are more similar to one another than CRE counts collected two months apart. 4 Basic statistics (e.g. chi-square test) should not be used to analyze time series data because they cannot take into account trends over time and they rely on an independence assumption. Time series data should be analyzed using either regression analysis or interrupted time-series analysis (ITSA). 4 Linear regression models or generalized linear models can be used to evaluate the slopes of the observed outcomes before and during implementation of an intervention. However, unlike regression models, ITSA relaxes the independence assumption by combining a correlation model and a regression model to effectively remove seasonality effects before addressing the impact of the intervention. 2 , 4 ITSA assesses the impact of the intervention by evaluating the changes in the intercept and slope before and after the intervention. ITSA can also include a lag effect if the intervention is not expected to have an immediate result, and additional sensitivity analyses can be performed to test the robustness of the findings. We recommend statistician consultation while designing the study in order to determine which model may be appropriate and to help perform power calculations that account for correlation.

Key considerations for designing, analyzing and writing a quasi-experimental study can be found in the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) statement and are summarized in Table 3 . 10

Checklist of key considerations when developing a quasi-experimental study

Examples of Published Quasi-Experimental Studies in HE&AS

Recent quasi-experimental studies illustrated strengths and weaknesses that require attention when employing this study design.

A recent prospective quasi-experimental study ( Table 2 subtype 10) implemented a multicenter bundled intervention to prevent complex Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections. 11 The study exemplified strengths of quasi-experimental design using a pragmatic approach in a real-world setting that even enabled identification of a dose response to bundle compliance. To optimize validity, the authors included numerous observation points before and after the intervention and used time series analysis. This study did not include a concurrent control group, and outcomes were collected retrospectively for the baseline group and prospectively for the intervention group which may have led to ascertainment bias.

Quach and colleagues performed a quasi-experimental study ( Table 2 subtype 11) to evaluate the impact of an infection prevention and quality improvement intervention of daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing to reduce CLABSI rates in the neonatal ICU. 12 The primary strength of this study was the authors used a non-bathed concurrent control group. Given that the baseline rates of CLABSI exceed the National Healthcare Surveillance Network (NHSN) pooled mean and the observation that the concurrent control group did not see a reduction in rates post-intervention suggest that the treatment effect was more likely due to the treatment than to regression to the mean, seasonal effects, or secular trends.

Yin and colleagues performed a quasi-experimental study ( Table 2 subtype 14) to determine whether universal gloving reduced HAIs in hospitalized children. 13 This retrospective study compared the winter respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season during which healthcare workers (HCW) were required to wear gloves for all patient contact and the non-winter, non-RSV season when HCWs were not required to wear gloves. Because the study period extended many calendar years, the design enabled for multiple crossovers removing the intervention and use of time series analysis. This study did not have a control group (another hospital or unit that did not require universal gloving during RSV season) nor did it have a non-equivalent dependent variable.

Major Points

Quasi-experimental studies are less resource intensive than RCTs, test real world effectiveness, and can support a hypothesis that an intervention is causally associated with an outcome. These studies are subject to biases that can be limited by carefully planning the design and analysis. Consider key strategies to limit bias, such as including a control group, including a non-equivalent variable or removed-treatment design, collecting adequate observations before and during the intervention, and using appropriate analytic methods (i.e. interrupted time series analysis).

Quasi-experimental studies are important for HE&AS because practitioners in those fields often need to perform non-randomized studies of interventions at the unit level of analysis. Quasi-experimental studies should not always be considered methodologically inferior to RCTs because quasi-experimental studies are pragmatic and can evaluate interventions that cannot be randomized due to ethical or logistic concerns. 10 Currently, too many quasi-experimental studies are uncontrolled before-and-after studies using suboptimal research methods. Advanced techniques such as use of control groups and non-equivalent dependent variables, as well as interrupted time series design and analysis should be used in future research.

Acknowledgments

Financial support. MLS is supported through VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Career Development Award (CDA 11-215)

Potential conflicts of interest. None.

• 1. Harris AD, Bradham DD, Baumgarten M, Zuckerman IH, Fink JC, Perencevich EN. The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in infectious diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1586–91. doi: 10.1086/420936. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Grimshaw J, Campbell M, Eccles M, Steen N. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for evaluating guideline implementation strategies. Fam Pract. 2000;17(Suppl 1):S11–6. doi: 10.1093/fampra/17.suppl_1.s11. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Shardell M, Harris AD, El-Kamary SS, Furuno JP, Miller RR, Perencevich EN. Statistical analysis and application of quasi experiments to antimicrobial resistance intervention studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:901–7. doi: 10.1086/521255. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:464–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Lee AS, Cooper BS, Malhotra-Kumar S, et al. Comparison of strategies to reduce meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rates in surgical patients: a controlled multicentre intervention trial. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003126. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003126. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Harris AD, Lautenbach E, Perencevich E. A systematic review of quasi-experimental study designs in the fields of infection control and antibiotic resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:77–82. doi: 10.1086/430713. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Hill AB. The Environment And Disease: Association Or Causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295–300. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Crabtree BF, Ray SC, Schmidt PM, O'Connor PJ, Schmidt DD. The individual over time: time series applications in health care research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:241–60. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90005-a. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361–6. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.361. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Schweizer ML, Chiang HY, Septimus E, et al. Association of a bundled intervention with surgical site infections among patients undergoing cardiac, hip, or knee surgery. JAMA. 2015;313:2162–71. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.5387. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Quach C, Milstone AM, Perpete C, Bonenfant M, Moore DL, Perreault T. Chlorhexidine bathing in a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit: impact on central line-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:158–63. doi: 10.1086/674862. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Yin J, Schweizer ML, Herwaldt LA, Pottinger JM, Perencevich EN. Benefits of universal gloving on hospital-acquired infections in acute care pediatric units. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e1515–20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3389. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Popoola VO, Colantuoni E, Suwantarat N, et al. Active Surveillance Cultures and Decolonization to Reduce Staphylococcus aureus Infections in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:381–7. doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.316. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Waters TM, Daniels MJ, Bazzoli GJ, et al. Effect of Medicare's nonpayment for Hospital-Acquired Conditions: lessons for future policy. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:347–54. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5486. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (79.4 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

Quasi-Experimental Design: Rigor Meets Real-World Conditions

Experimental designs provide researchers with a powerful tool to infer cause-and-effect relationships, ensuring external variables are controlled, and thereby enhancing the reliability and validity of the results. But what happens when a purely experimental setup is neither feasible nor ethical? This is where the quasi-experimental design comes into play.

Just as architects use different blueprints for buildings based on their purpose and location, researchers employ various methodologies tailored to their study's needs. Many consider the Completely Randomized Design , a type of "true experimental design," as the gold standard. In this approach, the randomization of variables is paramount to ensure that underlying differences between groups don't obscure causality conclusions.

To simplify, researchers tweak certain factors (independent variables) intentionally to observe changes in another variable (the dependent one) . By randomizing these independent variables across participant groups, potential biases are minimized, and the study's validity is bolstered. But, what if randomizing isn't an option?

In situations where it's impractical or unethical to randomize, such as evaluating the impact of a new health policy on specific demographics, the quasi-experimental design shines. The pivotal difference? Quasi-experimental designs do not hinge on randomization. They're the go-to when randomization isn't feasible.

As we delve into the intricacies of experimental and quasi-experimental designs, it's important to understand the distinction between "random assignment" and "random sampling." While both terms involve randomization, they serve different purposes in research.

• Random Assignment: This refers to the random allocation of participants into different groups, such as treatment and comparison groups. It ensures that any pre-existing differences among participants are evenly distributed across groups, thus enhancing the validity of causal inferences.
• Random Sampling: This pertains to how participants are selected from a larger population for inclusion in a study. A random sample is drawn such that every individual in the population has an equal chance of being chosen, which bolsters the generalizability of the study results to the larger population.

While random sampling influences who is in a study, random assignment affects the group to which a participant is allocated once they are in the study. It's essential to distinguish between these two to appreciate the methodologies' nuances discussed.

Quasi-experimental designs, by nature, often lack the component of random assignment, which is a cornerstone in true experiments for making strong causal inferences. This absence can render the conclusions from quasi-experiments less definitive regarding cause and effect. However, it's important to note that while they might not involve random assignment to groups, quasi-experimental designs can still utilize random sampling when selecting participants from a larger population. This ensures that the sample represents the broader group, even if the allocation to specific conditions within the study isn't randomized.

Quasi-experiments across fields

The versatility of quasi-experimental design extends across numerous disciplines, each leveraging its flexibility and adaptability to explore a variety of complex issues. Here are some key areas where this design proves invaluable:

• Education: Gauging the effectiveness of new teaching techniques, curriculum shifts, or education-centric interventions.
• Healthcare: In healthcare, this design is used especially when it's unethical or impractical to randomize patients into treatment groups. For instance, certain National Institutes of Health clinical trials deploy this method .
• Economics: Analyzing the intricate dynamics of real-world economic scenarios.
• Psychology: Investigating subjects that defy random assignment, like the influence of specific traumas or inherent personality traits on behavior.
• Environmental Science: Ideal for scenarios where controlled experiments on ecosystems or organic processes aren't feasible.
• Public Policy: Assessing the efficacy of governmental policies and programs, from housing initiatives to justice system reforms.
• Business and Marketing: Delving into the intricate factors influencing consumer behaviors.
• Developmental Studies: Employed when the welfare of child subjects is paramount and they can't be subjected to detrimental conditions.
• Criminal Justice: Evaluating a multifaceted system deeply interwoven with socio-political constructs.

While the hard sciences might seldom turn to quasi-experimental designs, the landscape is quite different in social sciences. There, they are invaluable, providing a window into human behavior patterns unattainable with strict, randomized experimental designs. According to UNICEF's Research Office , quasi-experimental designs are ideal for studying the post-implementation effects of programs or policies. In essence, when assessing policy impacts, quasi-experimental design is your best bet.

Types of quasi-experimental designs

When choosing the most appropriate research approach, you'll come across three primary quasi-experimental designs:

• Nonequivalent Groups Design: This design involves comparing two groups that aren't formed through random assignment.
• Time-Series Design: In this approach, measurements are taken at various intervals before and after an intervention.
• Pretest-Posttest Design: As the name indicates, measurements are taken both before and after the intervention to determine its impact.

Illustrative scenarios

To better understand the practical applications of various quasi-experimental designs, let's delve into a few real-world scenarios spanning different fields.

• Education: Suppose you're evaluating a new educational program. While it might seem logical to randomly assign it to different student groups, this could inadvertently offer an advantage or disadvantage to some. A more balanced method is the nonequivalent groups design. Select two comparable schools within a district: implement the new program in one, while the other retains the conventional curriculum. A comparison of scores before and after this quasi-experiment can demonstrate the new program's effectiveness.
• Healthcare: Consider public health interventions, such as vaccination campaigns. Ethical dilemmas emerge when deciding who receives potentially life-saving medicine purely for research. In this context, a time-series design is suitable. Documenting disease incidence rates in the population before and after vaccination sheds light on the campaign's effectiveness. This design captures changes in the dependent variable over a prolonged period.
• Workplace: When evaluating a stress-reduction program at work, the pretest-posttest design is ideal. Assess the dependent variable (employee stress levels) before and after participation in the program. Unlike the time-series design, which observes changes over a longer duration, this approach focuses on immediate impacts or reactions.

Participant selection steps

In any quasi-experimental design, the careful selection of participants is crucial to ensure the study's validity and reliability . Given the importance of this aspect, selecting the right participants becomes pivotal for the success and validity of the quasi-experiment. Let's break down the steps involved in this process.

• Sample Size: Ensure your sample adequately represents the target population, while minimizing potential confounding variables.
• Comparison Group: Despite the absence of randomization in quasi-experiments, it's crucial to identify a suitable comparison group. Ideally, experimental and comparison groups should be as similar as feasible.
• Selecting Variables: Choose variables that closely relate to your study's objectives, can be reliably measured, and can be controlled as much as possible.

Reflecting on the educational example, utilizing the nonequivalent groups design necessitates that chosen schools bear resemblances in demographics, policies, and overall structure. Comparing a K-5 elementary school with a K-12 mixed school isn't as insightful as juxtaposing two schools catering to identical grades. While you can control this discrepancy by focusing solely on K-5 students in the mixed school, the overarching objective remains: to achieve as much group equivalency as practical . It's imperative to recognize that, unlike controlled lab experiments, achieving total control isn't always feasible.

Advantages of quasi-experimental design

In many situations, a quasi-experimental design can be as effective as, or even more so than, a true experimental design. Its ability to infer causality without the need for a randomly assigned comparison group makes it a versatile alternative. The primary strengths of quasi-experimental designs include:

• Applicability in Real-world Settings: Quasi-experimental designs are particularly suited for real-world environments. Unlike true experiments that may require artificial conditions, these designs yield results that more closely reflect real-life situations. For instance, consider a city planning to implement a new traffic management system to reduce congestion. Directly altering traffic patterns in various parts of the city simultaneously could disrupt daily commutes and cause confusion. However, with a quasi-experimental design, areas where the new traffic system has been implemented can be compared with areas still using the older system. This approach offers valuable insights into the effectiveness of the new system without causing widespread disruption to city residents.
• Cost and Time Efficiency: Conducting research in strictly controlled settings can be both time-consuming and costly. By sidestepping the strict requirements of true experimental designs, quasi-experimental methods offer researchers more flexibility, often leading to savings in time and money. For instance, a company looking to assess a new training program's effect on employee performance might find a traditional controlled experiment too expensive and disruptive. A quasi-experimental design could compare productivity levels before and after the training, saving both time and resources.
• Ethical Sensitivity: Traditional experimental approaches sometimes pose ethical challenges , especially when random assignment could harm participants. Quasi-experimental designs, by using existing groups or conditions, avoid these ethical concerns. To illustrate, a health researcher studying the benefits of exercise for heart surgery patients would face ethical issues if some patients were randomly prevented from exercising. A quasi-experimental approach could compare the recovery of patients who choose to exercise with those who don't, ensuring no one is forced into or denied any treatment.

By capitalizing on these strengths, quasi-experimental designs provide researchers with a balance of rigor and adaptability, proving invaluable across various research areas.

Limitations of quasi-experimental design

Despite the valuable insights offered by quasi-experimental designs, they come with certain limitations that researchers should be wary of. Chief among these are the potential for confounding variables and concerns related to internal validity.

• Potential for Confounding Variables: Confounding variables are external factors that can influence the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, thereby obscuring genuine causality. These are neither the variables being manipulated nor the outcomes being measured, but they can interfere with the interpretation of results. For example, consider a study investigating the link between coffee consumption and heart disease risk. If the study doesn't account for other lifestyle habits like smoking or exercise patterns, these factors can act as confounding variables. In such a scenario, it becomes challenging to determine whether heart disease is influenced by coffee intake or these other habits. Therefore, without controlling for confounding variables, drawing valid conclusions about causality is problematic.
• Concerns about Internal Validity: Internal validity reflects the degree to which the observed effects in a study are solely attributed to changes in the independent variable and not by external interferences. In essence, it ensures that the study accurately measures what it intends to without distortions from outside factors. Quasi-experimental designs sometimes struggle with ensuring high internal validity because they lack random assignment, which can make results less reliable or valid. For instance, a municipality decides to implement a new policy where they increase the frequency of garbage collection in an effort to reduce litter on the streets. After the policy change, they observe a noticeable decrease in street litter. However, during the same period, a major environmental awareness campaign was launched by a local NGO, urging residents to reduce, reuse, and recycle. In this context, it becomes challenging to determine if the decrease in street litter is primarily due to the increased garbage collection frequency or influenced significantly by the environmental campaign.

In understanding quasi-experimental designs, it's imperative to weigh these limitations against the method's inherent strengths, ensuring a comprehensive perspective on its applicability in research scenarios.

Case studies illustrating quasi-experimental designs

Let's look at a few real-world quasi-experimental case studies. These case studies highlight the nuanced applications of quasi-experimental designs in understanding real-world scenarios. While these designs may not always offer the rigorous causality of true experiments, their findings are often instrumental in shaping policies, interventions, and strategies across sectors.

Nonequivalent groups design

• The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment : In 2008, Oregon used a lottery system to distribute limited Medicaid slots to uninsured residents, leading to the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (OHIE). This quasi-experimental design compared the outcomes of those who received Medicaid via the lottery with those who didn't, offering insights into the effects of Medicaid. Results showed Medicaid recipients used more healthcare services, experienced reduced financial strain, reported better self-perceived health, and saw a significant reduction in depression occurrence. However, certain physical health measures didn't show significant improvements over the study's two-year span, and the study's findings, though robust, were specific to Oregon's context.
• Moving to Opportunity Experiment : In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development initiated the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment to understand the effects of residential relocation on families from high-poverty urban settings. Families selected via a lottery system were given the opportunity to move to lower-poverty neighborhoods, establishing a quasi-experimental design where their progress in areas like employment, income, education, and health was compared to those who remained in high-poverty areas. The results from MTO indicated significant improvements in mental and physical well-being among the relocators, especially in women and younger children. Additionally, young adults who moved exhibited higher incomes and greater college attendance rates compared to their counterparts who didn't move. This landmark study underscored the profound long-term impact of neighborhood environments on socio-economic and health outcomes, bolstering the case for housing mobility programs as a policy tool for breaking cycles of urban poverty.
• Operation Peacemaker Fellowship : In Richmond, California, policymakers took a unique stance to curb gun violence with the introduction of a program that provided financial stipends to individuals deemed likely to engage in gun-related offenses. This wasn't just a straightforward financial transaction; in exchange for the stipend, recipients were required to participate in mentorship and personal development initiatives aimed at promoting behavioral change and community integration. The effectiveness of this innovative strategy was evaluated by researchers who tracked the outcomes of the program's participants, focusing on metrics such as their involvement in subsequent shootings or any re-arrests. For a more comprehensive analysis, they contrasted these results with those from a comparable group of at-risk individuals who did not enroll in the program. This juxtaposition offered insights into whether the combined approach of financial incentives and structured mentorship could effectively deter potential offenders from engaging in gun violence.

Time-series design

• London Congestion Charging Impact : In 2003, London introduced a congestion charge, requiring motorists to pay a fee when driving in central London during certain hours. Using a Time-Series Design, researchers observed traffic volumes, air quality, and public transportation usage before and after the implementation of the charge. The data showed not only a substantial reduction in traffic volumes within the charging zone but also improvements in air quality and increased public transportation use. This served as empirical evidence for the benefits of congestion pricing both in reducing traffic and potentially in improving urban air quality.
• Impact of Public Smoking Bans : As concerns over the health implications of passive smoking grew globally, numerous countries and cities proactively instituted bans on public smoking. In an effort to discern the tangible impacts of these bans, researchers turned to Time-Series Designs to examine hospital admission trends related to smoking-associated illnesses both before and after the introduction of the prohibitions. A consistent pattern that emerged from multiple studies was a marked reduction in hospitalizations for conditions like heart attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and asthma post-implementation of the bans. Beyond just establishing a correlation, these findings presented compelling evidence of the immediate and tangible health benefits derived from such policies, effectively underlining the crucial role of legislative interventions in enhancing public health and reducing healthcare burdens.
• Los Angeles Air Quality Analysis : In response to rising concerns over deteriorating air quality and its subsequent health implications, Los Angeles instituted a series of stringent emission-reducing policies spanning several decades. The city, once notorious for its smog and pollution, became a focal point for scientists aiming to quantify the results of these environmental strategies. Leveraging Time-Series Designs, researchers have charted the levels of various pollutants over extended periods, juxtaposing periods before and after the implementation of specific policies. For instance, a detailed study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District showcased that from the 1980s to recent years, there has been a notable decrease in the concentration of ground-level ozone, particulate matter, and other harmful pollutants.

Pretest-posttest design

• Head Start Program Evaluation : The Head Start program, initiated in the 1960s, is a U.S. federal program that aims to promote school readiness of children under 5 from low-income families through education, health, social, and other services. To assess the effectiveness of the program, researchers often use a Pretest-Posttest Design. Before entering the program (pretest), children are assessed on various cognitive, social, and health measures. After participating in the program, they are assessed again (posttest). Over the years, evaluations of the program have shown mixed results. Some studies find significant short-term cognitive and social gains for children in the program, but many of these gains diminish by the time the children reach elementary school.
• D.A.R.E. Program Evaluation : D.A.R.E. is a school-based drug use prevention program that was widely implemented in schools across the U.S. starting in the 1980s. The program's curriculum aims to teach students good decision-making skills to help them lead safe and healthy lives. To assess its effectiveness, numerous evaluations have been conducted using a Pretest-Posttest Design. Before participating in the D.A.R.E. program (pretest), students are surveyed regarding their attitudes toward drugs and their self-reported drug use. After completing the program, students are surveyed again (posttest). Over the years, the evaluations have yielded mixed results. While some studies suggest the program improves students' knowledge and attitudes about drugs, other research indicates limited or no long-term impact on actual drug use.
• Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders : Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is a common treatment approach for individuals with anxiety disorders. To evaluate its effectiveness, many studies employ a Pretest-Posttest Design. Before undergoing CBT (pretest), individuals' levels of anxiety are assessed using standardized measures, such as the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) . After completing a series of CBT sessions, these individuals are reassessed (posttest) to measure any changes in their anxiety levels. Numerous studies have consistently shown that CBT can lead to significant reductions in symptoms of anxiety, highlighting its efficacy as a treatment modality.

Analyzing data from quasi-experiments

Quasi-experimental designs, by nature, present inherent constraints that make data analysis particularly challenging. In response, researchers utilize a range of techniques designed to enhance the accuracy and relevance of their findings. These techniques encompass specific statistical methods to control for bias, supplementary research to corroborate initial results, and cross-referencing with external data to validate causality.

Statistical methods

Several key statistical methods are particularly relevant for quasi-experimental research. These methods play a pivotal role in refining and enhancing the quality of the findings.

• Regression Analysis : This technique identifies relationships between variables. It involves plotting data points from these variables and drawing a line of best fit. By examining the patterns revealed by this line, researchers can discern trends and make predictions.
• Matching : Here, control groups are paired with experimental groups for comparison. Participants are grouped based on specific criteria, such as age or profession, to account for potential confounding variables. This enhances the internal validity of the study. However, this method can sometimes introduce selection bias.
• Interrupted Time Series Analysis : This method examines statistical differences observed before and after an intervention. Particularly useful when evaluating multiple data sets before and after an intervention, it helps determine the intervention's effectiveness and potential lasting effects. This is achieved by plotting data points over time, covering the period before, during, and after the intervention, which aids in assessing the intervention's impact on observed patterns.

By leveraging these methods in the appropriate contexts, researchers can achieve a deeper understanding and more robust conclusions from their quasi-experimental data.

Interpretation of results

Interpreting the results of quasi-experimental research is as critical as the data collection process itself. A proper understanding and interpretation can bridge the gap between raw data and actionable insights.

• Study Design and Data Collection Review: Researchers should begin with a thorough examination of the research design . Consider how effectively it controls for potential confounding variables. Studies that employ techniques such as randomization or matching to equate groups often yield more reliable results. It's equally important to assess the methods used for data collection. The use of standardized and validated instruments, along with appropriate data collection protocols, lends credibility to the results.
• Internal Validity: This pertains to the degree to which the results of the study accurately represent the true relationship between the variables in the absence of confounding factors. High internal validity indicates that the observed effects can confidently be attributed to the intervention or treatment, rather than external influences.
• External Validity: This concerns the generalizability of the study's results. While a study might have strong internal validity, its findings might not necessarily apply to wider or different populations or settings. Researchers should reflect on the boundaries of their study and the contexts in which their findings can be generalized.
• Balance Between Internal and External Validity: Navigating the balance between internal and external validity is pivotal. While ensuring rigorous controls boosts internal validity, it might restrict the findings' broader applicability. Conversely, focusing on external validity might compromise the accuracy of the causal relationships being studied. Researchers must be aware of this delicate balance, ensuring results are both reliable and applicable. This involves a conscious evaluation of trade-offs and tailoring the research design to meet study objectives.
• Statistical Significance vs. Practical Significance: While a result may be statistically significant, its practical, real-world impact might not always be meaningful. Researchers should differentiate between these two to avoid over- or underestimating the implications of their findings.
• Multicollinearity: In research models involving multiple independent variables, multicollinearity arises when two or more variables are closely correlated with each other. This can make it challenging to determine the individual effect of each variable on the outcome. For instance, in a study examining the factors affecting a student's academic performance, if many students who spend more hours studying also attend additional tutoring sessions, it becomes difficult to isolate which factor—study hours or tutoring—is having a more pronounced impact on their grades.
• Avoiding the Ecological Fallacy: When interpreting group-level data, researchers must be careful not to infer that relationships observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals within those groups. The ecological fallacy arises when conclusions about individuals are drawn based on group-level data. For instance, if a study finds a relationship between average income levels in a region and average educational attainment, it would be fallacious to conclude that every individual with higher income in that region has a higher educational attainment. Researchers must be cautious and ensure they do not overextend their conclusions beyond the data's scope.
• Bias and Limitations Acknowledgment: No study is without its limitations. Recognizing and addressing potential biases, shortcomings, or areas of improvement in the research design and execution is essential for a comprehensive interpretation. Transparent communication of these elements not only enhances the credibility of the study but also provides a roadmap for future research.

The interpretation phase is where data is transformed into knowledge. Researchers must approach this stage with a blend of rigor, skepticism, and openness to ensure their findings are both trustworthy and valuable to the broader scientific community and real-world applications.

Understanding bias in quasi-experimental design

Bias in quasi-experimental studies refers to the distortion of results. It can manifest in various ways, potentially skewing the conclusions drawn from the research. It's crucial to recognize and mitigate these biases to ensure that the findings of a study are reliable and valid.

• Definition: Measurement bias arises from systematic errors in the measurement process, leading to skewed or inaccurate results. This can happen if the instruments or methods used for measuring deviate consistently from the true value of what's being measured.
• Example: Suppose a researcher is evaluating a new teaching technique by comparing student test scores before and after its application. If the post-test is inherently easier than the pre-test, the post-test scores may be artificially high. This scenario would inaccurately suggest that the new teaching method is highly effective.
• Mitigation: To counteract measurement bias, researchers should employ standardized tools and ensure that the same equipment and procedures are used consistently across all participants.
• Definition: Selection bias is introduced when the sample selected for a study doesn't accurately represent the broader population. This can result in findings that are not generalizable.
• Example: Consider a study assessing the efficacy of a new medication. If participants who receive the medication are self-selected and inherently more motivated to recover, the results might overstate the drug's effectiveness.
• Mitigation: To reduce selection bias, it's essential to carefully choose participants who accurately reflect the population under investigation.
• Definition: Recall bias occurs when participants' memories of past events or experiences aren't consistent or accurate, leading to skewed data based on these recollections.
• Example: In a study examining the impact of a specific diet on weight loss, if participants are asked to recall their food consumption over the past week, those following the diet might be more conscious and thus recall their intake more accurately than those not on the diet. This could exaggerate the perceived effectiveness of the diet.
• Mitigation: To minimize recall bias, researchers should rely more on objective behavioral or outcome measures rather than solely on self-reported data. Regular check-ins with participants can also help ensure that their recall remains consistent and reliable.
• Definition: Confounding bias occurs when an external factor, not considered in the study, affects both the independent and dependent variables. This can lead to mistaken conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationship.
• Example: In a study examining the impact of exercise on mood improvement, if participants who exercised also spent more time outdoors, and exposure to natural light is a mood enhancer, then the mood improvement might be wrongly attributed entirely to exercise without considering the impact of natural light.
• Mitigation: To address confounding bias, researchers can use techniques like stratification or multivariate analysis to account for potential confounding variables.

By recognizing and addressing these biases, researchers can increase the validity of their quasi-experimental studies, ensuring that the conclusions drawn are both accurate and meaningful.

Quasi-experimental research offers a valuable approach for investigating complex real-world phenomena in their natural settings. This method's flexibility allows for variable manipulation within authentic contexts, proving especially beneficial when ethical or logistical constraints rule out true experimental studies. This approach is crucial for establishing causal relationships and garnering insights from practical situations. It also holds significant value across various fields, including education, healthcare, business, and marketing. The adaptability of quasi-experimental research makes it a favored alternative when traditional experimental designs are impractical.

However, as with all research methods, quasi-experimental designs have their limitations. A primary concern is their susceptibility to confounding variables that can inadvertently influence results. Furthermore, drawing causal inferences becomes more challenging due to the reduced rigor and control, compared to traditional experimental designs. Thus, when considering this approach, researchers must remain cognizant of these limitations.

For those diving into quasi-experimental research, it's essential to thoughtfully match experimental groups and utilize rigorous statistical analyses. This attention to detail aids in minimizing biases and potential errors, ensuring more dependable data and conclusions.

In summary, quasi-experimental methods provide researchers with robust tools for gauging intervention efficacy and deciphering the intricate dynamics of variables. These methods remain a vital component of the research arsenal, guiding informed decision-making.

Header image by Krakenimages .