Tag: quasi-experimental

Experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental comparative designs

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental comparative designs regularly include multiple groups between which one must differentiate one or more variables. This assignment will provide you with the experience toward developing those skills. Using the data set provided, practice and demonstrate the skills of developing a problem statement, purpose statement, research question, and hypotheses. You will then conduct the appropriate statistical analysis to differentiate scores between the modality groups to determine if and to what extent there is a difference in English scores.
General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
• Locate and download the attached data set called SchoolData.sav.
• Doctoral learners are required to use APA 7th style for their writing assignments.
• The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
• Refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for specific guidelines related to doctoral level writing. The manual contains essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.
• You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Directions
Write a problem statement, purpose statement, research question, and hypothesis that require one to test for differences of English scores (English) between learning modalities (Learning_Modality).
Complete the tests of assumptions for the selected statistical analysis. You must identify each assumption, describe how it was tested, and describe the outcome of that test.
Complete the appropriate statistical analysis to determine if there is a difference in English scores between learning modalities. Complete all post hoc tests, if appropriate.
Write up the conduct of the analysis and the results. In a narrative format, do the following:

  1. Describe the problem statement, purpose statement, research question, and hypotheses.
  2. Describe the testing of assumptions and the outcomes of those tests.
  3. Report the results of the appropriate statistical test(s). Include all tables and figures that demonstrate the results.

Design experimental, quasi-experimental, or nonexperimental

Posted on | by

 

Was the design experimental, quasi-experimental, or nonexperimental? What specific design was used? Was this a cause-probing study? Given the type of question (Therapy, Prognosis, etc.), was the most rigorous possible design used?
What type of comparison was called for in the research design? Was the comparison strategy effective in illuminating key relationships?
If the study involved an intervention, were the intervention and control conditions adequately described? Was blinding used, and if so, who was blinded? If not, is there a good rationale for failure to use blinding?
If the study was nonexperimental, why did the researcher opt not to intervene? If the study was cause-probing, which criteria for inferring causality were potentially compromised? Was a retrospective or prospective design used, and was such a design appropriate?
Was the study longitudinal or cross-sectional? Was the number and timing of data collection points appropriate?
What did the researcher do to control confounding participant characteristics, and were the procedures effective? What are the threats to the study’s internal validity? Did the design enable the researcher to draw causal inferences about the relationship between the independent variable and the outcome?
What are the major limitations of the design used? Were these limitations acknowledged by the researcher and taken into account in interpreting results? What can be said about the study’s external validity?
Did the report describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for the study? If not, does the absence of a framework detract from the study’s conceptual integration?
Did the report adequately describe the major features of the theory or model so that readers could understand the conceptual basis of the study?
Is the theory or model appropriate for the research problem? Does the purported link between the problem and the framework seem contrived?
Was the theory or model used for generating hypotheses, or is it used as an organizational or interpretive framework? Do the hypotheses (if any) naturally flow from the framework?