See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/325847047

RESEARCH DESIGN

Chapter · July 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 40,548

1 author:

Syed Muhammad Sajjad Kabir

Curtin University
107 PUBLICATIONS   357 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Others Writings View project

PhD Candidate in Health Sciences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Syed Muhammad Sajjad Kabir on 25 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Page 111

Chapter – 6
Research Design
Topics Covered
6.1 Concept of Research Design
6.2 Features of A Good Design
6.3 Need for Research Design
6.4 Important Concepts Related to Research Design
6.5 Different Types of Research Designs
6.5.1 Historical Research Design
6.5.2 Philosophical Research Design
6.5.3 Sequential Research Design
6.5.4 Case Study Design
6.5.5 Field Research Design
6.5.6 Ethnographic Research Design
6.5.7 Descriptive Research Design
6.5.8 Correlational or Prospective Research Design: Observational; Cohort; Longitudinal; Cross-
Sectional
6.5.9 Casual Research Design
6.5.10 Experimental Research Design: True Experimental; Double Blind; Independent Measures
Design; Repeated Measures Design; Matched Pairs Design
6.5.11 Two Matched Groups Design
6.5.12 Between Subjects Design
6.5.13 Factorial Design
6.5.14 Semi-Experimental Research Design: Quasi-Experimental; Identical Twins Study
6.5.15 Latin Square Design
6.5.16 Exploratory Research Design
6.5.17 Reviewing Other Research: Literature Review; Systematic Reviews; Meta Analysis
6.5.18 Mixed-Methods Research Design
6.6 Others Research Designs:Solomon Four Group Design; Multiple – Baseline Design; A-B-A
and A-B-A-B Designs; Bayesian Probability; Changing – Criterion Design
Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 112

6.1 CONCEPT OF RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design is an overall formulation of a research problem. It refers to the overall
strategy that you choose to integrate the different components of the study in a coherent and
logical way. It is a framework or blueprint for conducting the research. In simple words it is the
general plan of how you will go about your research. According to Smith (1976) – “A design is a
carefully arranged scheme regarding how to conduct an experiment. The design of an experiment
refers to the selection and arrangement of conditions”. According to Kerlinger – “Research design is
the plan, structure and strategy of investigation conceived so as to obtain answers to research
questions and to control variance”. The design of a study defines the study type (descriptive,
correlational, semi-experimental, experimental, review, meta-analytic) and sub-type (e.g., descriptive
- longitudinal case study), research question, hypotheses, independent and dependent variables,
experimental design, and, if applicable, data collection methods and a statistical analysis plan. A
research design will typically include how data is to be collected, what instruments will be employed,
how the instruments will be used and the intended means for analyzing data collected.
Research design provides the glue that holds the research project together. A design is used to
structure the research, to show how all of the major parts of the research project - the samples or
groups, measures, treatments or programs, and methods of assignment - work together to try to
address the central research questions. The function of a research design is to ensure that
requisite data in accordance with the problem at hand is collected accurately and economically. The
research design, depending upon the needs of the researcher may be a very detailed statement or
only furnish the minimum information required for planning the research project.
To be effective, a research design should furnish at least the following details -
 A statement of objectives of the study or the research output.
 A statement of the data inputs required on the basis of which the research problem is to be
solved.
 The methods of analysis which shall be used to treat and analyze the data inputs.
More explicitly, the design design should be able to provide answers to the following queries-
 What is the study about?
 Why is the study being made?
 Where will the study be carried out?
 What type of data is required?
 Where can the required data be found?
 What periods of time will the study include?
 What will be the sample design?
 What techniques of data collection will be used?
 How will the data be analyzed?
 In what style will the report be prepared?

Advantages of research design are –

 Helps researcher to prepare himself/herself to carry out research in a proper and a systematic
way.
 Ensures project time schedule.
 Consumes less time.
 Better documentation of the various activities while the project work is going on.
 Provides satisfaction and confidence, accompanied with a sense of success from the beginning of
the work of the research project.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 113

 Helps in proper planning of the resources and their procurement in right time.
Hence, a research design is the outline, plan, or strategy that you are going to use to obtain an
answer to your research question.

6.2 FEATURES OF A RESEARCH DESIGN

Generally a good research design minimizes bias and maximizes the reliability of the data collected
and analyzed. A good research design should satisfy the following four conditions namely objectivity,
reliability, validity and generalization of the findings.
Objectivity: It refers to the findings related to the method of data collection and scoring of the
responses. The research design should permit the measuring instrument which are fairly objective in
which every observer or judge scoring the performance must precisely give the same report. In
other words, the objectivity of the procedure may be judged by the degree of agreement between
the final scores assigned to different individuals by more than one independent observer. This
ensures the objectivity of the collected data which shall be capable of analysis and drawing
generalizations.
Reliability: Reliability refers to consistency through out a series of measurements. If a respondent
gives out a response to a particular item, s/he is expected to give the same response to that item
even if s/he is asked repeatedly. If s/he is changing his/her response to the same item, the
consistency will be lost. So the researcher should frame the items in a questionnaire in such a way
that it provides consistency or reliability.
Validity: Any measuring device or instrument is said to be valid when it measures what it is expected
to measure. For example an intelligence test concucted for measuring the IQ should measure only
the intelligence and nothing else, and the questionnaire shall be framed accordingly.
Generalizability: It means how best the data collected from the samples can be utilized for drawing
certain generalisations applicable to a large group from which sample is drawn. Thus a research
design helps an investigator to generalize his/her findings provided s/he has taken due care in
defining the population, selecting the sample, deriving appropriate statistical analysis etc. while
preparing the research design. Thus a good research design is one which is methodologically
prepared and should ensure that –
 The measuring instrument can yield objective, reliable and valid data.
 The population is clearly defined.
 Most appropriate techniques of sample selection is used to form an appropriate sample.
 Appropriate statical analysis has been carried out, and
 The findings of the study is capable of generalizations.

Some other features of a good research design are -

Situational: Good research designs reflect the settings of the investigation.
Feasible: Good designs can be implemented. The sequence and timing of events are carefully thought
out. Potential problems in measurement, adherence to assignment, database construction and the
like, are anticipated. Where needed, additional groups or measurements are included in the design to
explicitly correct for such problems.
Redundant: Good research designs have some flexibility built into them. Often, this flexibility
results from duplication of essential design features. For example, multiple replications of a
treatment help to insure that failure to implement the treatment in one setting will not invalidate
the entire study.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 114

Efficient: Good designs strike a balance between redundancy and the tendency to overdesign.
Where it is reasonable, other, less costly, strategies for ruling out potential threats to validity are
utilized.

6.3 NEED FOR RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design is needed because it facilitates the smooth sailing of the various research
operations. It makes the research as efficient as possible by giving maximum information with
minimal expenditure of effort, time and money. For construction of a house, we need to have a
proper blueprint prepared by an expert architect. Similarly, we need a proper research design or
plan prior to data collection and analysis of our research project. Preparation of research design
should be done carefully as even a minute error might ruin the purpose of the entire project. The
design helps the researcher to organize his/her ideas, which helps to identify and correct his/her
flaws, if any. In a good research design, all the components with each other or go together with
each other in a coherent manner. The theoretical and conceptual framework must with the research
goals and purposes. Likewise, the data collection strategy must fit with the research purposes,
conceptual and theoretical framework and approach to data analysis.
In short, the need for research design is as follows –
 Provides firm foundation to the endeavor.
 It reduces inaccuracy.
 Helps to get maximum efficiency and reliability.
 Eliminates bias and marginal errors.
 Minimizes wastage of time.
 Reduce uncertainty, confusion and practical haphazard related to any research problem.
 Helpful for collecting research materials.
 Helpful for testing of hypothesis.
 Gives an idea regarding the type of resources required in terms of money, manpower, time, and
efforts.
 Provides an overview to other experts.
 Guides the research in the right direction.
 Smooth & efficient sailing (sets boundaries & helps prevent blind search).
Efficient research is dependent first upon the considerate statements of purpose and objectives,
and associated research questions. These essential preliminary steps in turn drive important choices
regarding study type, plans for analyzes and competent implementation within bounded timeframes
and budgets. The research endeavour materializes by picking suitable study types according to
coherent research questions, appropriate data collection, and eventually concludes by drawing
inferences based on correctly planned analyzes.

6.4 IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RELATED TO RESEARCH DESIGN

In order to facilitate a clear and better understanding of the different research designs, it is
initially necessary to define all the various important concepts of research design itself.
Dependent and Independent Variables: A variable is a concept that can take on different
quantitative values. E.g., weight, height, income, etc. A dependent variable can be defined as the
variable, which depends upon or is a consequence of the other variable. On the other hand, an
independent variable can be defined as the variable that is antecedent to the dependent variable.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 115

E.g., if height depends upon age, then height is a dependent variable, while age is an independent
variable.
Extraneous Variable: Independent variables that are not related to the purpose of the study, but
may affect the dependent variable are termed as extraneous variables. Suppose the researcher
wants to test the hypothesis that there is a relationship between children’s gains in social studies
achievement and their self-concepts. In this case self-concept is an independent variable and social
studies achievement is a dependent variable. Intelligence may as well affect the social studies
achievement, but since it is not related to the purpose of the study undertaken by the researcher,
it will be termed as an extraneous variable. Whatever effect is noticed on dependent variable as a
result of extraneous variable(s) is technically described as an ‘experimental error’. A study must
always be so designed that the effect upon the dependent variable is attributed entirely to the
independent variable(s), and not to some extraneous variable or variables.
Control: The most significant quality of a good research design is to reduce the influence/effect of
extraneous variable(s). Control is a technical term, which is used while designing the study, by
reducing the effects of extraneous independent variables. Besides, in experimental studies, the
term control refers to the restraining of experimental conditions.
Confounded Relationship: When the dependent variable is not free from the influence of
extraneous variable(s), the relationship between the dependent and independent variables is said to
be confounded by an extraneous variable(s).
Research Hypothesis: When a prediction or a hypothesised relationship is to be tested by scientific
methods, it is termed as research hypothesis. The research hypothesis is a predictive statement
that relates an independent variable to a dependent variable. Usually a research hypothesis must
contain, at least, one independent and one dependent variable. Predictive statements which are not
to be objectively verified or the relationships that are assumed but not to be tested, are not
termed research hypotheses.
Experimental and Non-experimental Hypothesis-testing Research: When the purpose of research
is to test a research hypothesis, it is termed as hypothesis-testing research. It can be of the
experimental design or of the non-experimental design. Research in which the independent variable
is manipulated is termed ‘experimental hypothesis-testing research’ and a research in which an
independent variable is not manipulated is called ‘non-experimental hypothesis-testing research’. For
instance, suppose a researcher wants to study whether intelligence affects reading ability for a
group of students and for this purpose he randomly selects 50 students and tests their intelligence
and reading ability by calculating the coefficient of correlation between the two sets of scores. This
is an example of non-experimental hypothesis-testing research because herein the independent
variable, intelligence, is not manipulated. But now suppose that our researcher randomly selects 50
students from a group of students who are to take a course in statistics and then divides them into
two groups by randomly assigning 25 to Group A, the usual studies program, and 25 to Group B, the
special studies program. At the end of the course, he administers a test to each group in order to
judge the effectiveness of the training program on the student’s performance-level. This is an
example of experimental hypothesis-testing research because in this case the independent variable,
viz., the type of training program, is manipulated.
Experimental and Control Groups: In an experimental hypothesis-testing research when a group is
exposed to usual conditions, it is termed a ‘control group’, but when the group is exposed to some
novel or special condition, it is termed an ‘experimental group’. In the above illustration, the Group A
can be called a control group and the Group B an experimental group. If both groups A and B are

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 116

exposed to special studies programs, then both groups would be termed ‘experimental groups’. It is
possible to design studies which include only experimental groups or studies which include both
experimental and control groups.
Treatments: This can be defined as the different types of conditions under which the experimental
and control groups are put. In the illustration taken above, the two treatments are the usual studies
program and the special studies program. Similarly, if we want to determine through an experiment
the comparative impact of three varieties of fertilizers on the yield of wheat, in that case the
three varieties of fertilizers will be treated as three treatments.
Experiment: The process of examining the truth of a statistical hypothesis, relating to some
research problem, is known as an experiment. For example, we can conduct an experiment to examine
the usefulness of a certain newly developed drug. Experiments can be of two types viz., absolute
experiment and comparative experiment. If we want to determine the impact of a fertilizer on the
yield of a crop, it is a case of absolute experiment; but if we want to determine the impact of one
fertilizer as compared to the impact of some other fertilizer, our experiment then will be termed as
a comparative experiment. Often, we undertake comparative experiments when we talk of designs of
experiments.
Experimental Unit(s): The pre-determined plots or the blocks, where different treatments are
used, are known as experimental units. Such experimental units must be selected (defined) very
carefully.
Scientific Control Group: A scientific control group is an essential part of most research designs,
allowing researchers to eliminate and isolate variables. Normal biological variation, researcher bias
and environmental variation are all factors that can skew data, so scientific control groups provide a
baseline. As well as eliminating other variables, scientific control groups help the researcher to show
that the experimental design is capable of generating results. A researcher must only measure one
variable at a time, and using a scientific control group gives reliable baseline data to compare their
results with. For example, a medical study will use two groups, giving one set of patients the real
medicine and the other a placebo, in order to rule out the placebo effect. In this particular type of
research, the experiment is double blind. Neither the doctors nor the patients are aware of which
pill they are receiving, curbing potential research bias. In the social sciences, control groups are the
most important part of the experiment, because it is practically impossible to eliminate all of the
confounding variables and bias. For example, the placebo effect for medication is well documented,
and the Hawthorne Effect is another influence where, if people know that they are the subjects of
an experiment, they automatically change their behavior.
There are two main types of control, positive and negative, both providing researchers with ways of
increasing the statistical validity of their data. Positive Scientific Control groups are where the
control group is expected to have a positive result, and allows the researcher to show that the set-
up was capable of producing results. Generally, a researcher will use a positive control procedure,
which is similar to the actual design with a factor that is known to work. For example, a researcher
testing the effect of new antibiotics upon Petri dishes of bacteria, may use an established antibiotic
that is known to work. If all of the samples fail, except that one, it is likely that the tested
antibiotics are ineffective. However, if the control fails too, there is something wrong with the
design. Positive scientific control groups reduce the chances of false negatives. Negative Scientific
Control is the process of using the control group to make sure that no confounding variable has
affected the results, or to factor in any likely sources of bias. It uses a sample that is not expected
to work. In the antibiotic example, the negative control group would be a Petri dish with no

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 117

antibiotic, allowing the researcher to prove that the results are valid and that there are no
confounding variables. If all of the new medications worked, but the negative control group also
showed inhibition of bacterial growth, then some other variable may have had an effect, invalidating
the results. A negative control can also be a way of setting a baseline.
Pilot Study: A pilot study is a standard scientific tool for ‘soft’ research, allowing scientists to
conduct a preliminary analysis before committing to a full-blown study or experiment. A small
chemistry experiment in a college laboratory, for example, costs very little, and mistakes or validity
problems easily rectified. At the other end of the scale, a medical experiment taking samples from
thousands of people from across the world is expensive, often running into the millions of dollars. To
test the feasibility, equipment and methods, researchers will often use a pilot study, a small-scale
rehearsal of the larger research design. Generally, the pilot study technique specifically refers to a
smaller scale version of the experiment, although equipment tests are an increasingly important part
of this sub-group of experiments. For example, the medical researchers may conduct a smaller
survey upon a hundred people, to check that the protocols are fine. Pilot studies are also excellent
for training inexperienced researchers, allowing them to make mistakes without fear of losing their
job or failing the assignment. Pilots can be an important part of attracting grants for research as
the results can be placed before the funding body. Unfortunately, there are seldom paper reporting
the preliminary pilot study, especially if problems were reported, is often stigmatized and sidelined.
This is unfair, and punishes researchers for being methodical, so these attitudes are under a period
of re-evaluation. Discouraging researchers from reporting methodological errors, as found in pilot
studies, means that later researchers may make the same mistakes. Pilots are rapidly becoming an
essential pre-cursor to many research projects, especially when universities are constantly striving
to reduce costs. Whilst there are weaknesses, they are extremely useful for driving procedures in
an age increasingly dominated by technology, much of it untested under field conditions.

6.5 DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESEARCH DESIGNS

Before beginning research, you need to decide how you plan to design the study. The research
design refers to the overall strategy that you choose to integrate the different components of the
study in a coherent and logical way, thereby, ensuring you will effectively address the research
problem; it constitutes the blueprint for the collection, measurement, and analysis of data. The
design is the structure of any scientific work. It gives direction and systematizes the research.
Different types of research designs have different advantages and disadvantages. The method you
choose will affect your results and how you conclude the findings. Most scientists are interested in
getting reliable observations that can help the understanding of a phenomenon.
There are various designs which are used in research, all with specific advantages and
disadvantages. Which one the scientist uses, depends on the aims of the study and the nature of the
phenomenon. Listed below is the whole range of research designs that you could use for your
research.
 Historical Research Design: The purpose is to collect, verify, synthesize evidence to establish
facts that defend or refute your hypothesis. It uses primary sources, secondary sources, and
lots of qualitative data sources such as logs, diaries, official records, reports, etc. The
limitation is that the sources must be both authentic and valid.
 Case and Field Research Design: Also called ethnographic research, it uses direct observation to
give a complete snapshot of a case that is being studied. It is useful when not much is known
about a phenomenon. Uses few subjects.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 118

 Descriptive or Survey Research Design: It attempts to observe, describe and explain conditions
of the present by using many subjects and questionnaires to fully describe a phenomenon.
Survey; Naturalistic Observation; Case Study etc. are the most popular for research. There are
many advantages of them.
 Correlational or Prospective Research Design: It attempts to explore relationships to make
predictions. It uses one set of subjects with two or more variables for each. Case Control
Study; Observational Study; Cohort Study; Longitudinal Study; Cross Sectional Study; and
Correlational Studies in general are important research designs.
 Causal Comparative or Ex Post Facto Research Design: This research design attempts to explore
cause and affect relationships where causes already exist and cannot be manipulated. It uses
what already exists and looks backward to explain why.
 Developmental or Time Series Research Design: Data are collected at certain points in time
going forward. There is an emphasis on time patterns and longitudinal growth or change.
 Experimental Research Design: This design is most appropriate in controlled settings such as
laboratories. The design assumes random assignment of subjects and random assignment to
groups. It attempts to explore cause and effect relationships where causes can be manipulated
to produce different kinds of effects. Because of the requirement of random assignment, this
design can be difficult to execute in the real world (non laboratory) setting. True Experimental
Design; Double-Blind Experiment are frequently used in scientific research.
 Semi-Experimental Designs: This research design determines causes. Field Experiment; Quasi-
Experimental Design and Twin Studies are also used in scientific research.
 Reviewing Other Research: For explain reviewing other research is essential in research.
Literature Review; Meta-analysis; Systematic Reviews are important techniques for this.
Pilot Study is essential before conducting a ‘Full-Scale Study’. What design you choose depends on
different factors - What information do you want? The aims of the study. The nature of the
phenomenon - Is it feasible to collect the data, and if so, would it be valid/reliable? How reliable
should the information be? Is it ethical to conduct the study? The cost of the design. Is there little
or much current scientific theory and literature on the topic?

6.5.1 HISTORICAL RESEARCH DESIGN

The purpose of a historical research design is to collect, verify, and synthesize evidence from the
past to establish facts that defend or refute a hypothesis. It uses secondary sources and a variety
of primary documentary evidence, such as, diaries, official records, reports, archives, and non-
textual information (maps, pictures, audio and visual recordings). The limitation is that the sources
must be both authentic and valid.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 119

Advantages
 The historical research design is unobtrusive; the act of research does not affect the results of
the study.
 The historical approach is well suited for trend analysis.
 Historical records can add important contextual background required to more fully understand
and interpret a research problem.
 There is often no possibility of researcher-subject interaction that could affect the findings.
 Historical sources can be used over and over to study different research problems or to
replicate a previous study.
Weaknesses
 The ability to fulfill the aims of your research are directly related to the amount and quality of
documentation available to understand the research problem.
 Since historical research relies on data from the past, there is no way to manipulate it to
control for contemporary contexts.
 Interpreting historical sources can be very time consuming.
 The sources of historical materials must be archived consistentally to ensure access. This may
especially challenging for digital or online-only sources.
 Original authors bring their own perspectives and biases to the interpretation of past events
and these biases are more difficult to ascertain in historical resources.
 Due to the lack of control over external variables, historical research is very weak with regard
to the demands of internal validity.
 It is rare that the entirety of historical documentation needed to fully address a research
problem is available for interpretation, therefore, gaps need to be acknowledged.

6.5.2 PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH DESIGN

This approach uses the tools of argumentation derived from philosophical traditions, concepts,
models and theories to critically explore and challenge. For example, the relevance of logic and
evidence in academic debates, to analyze arguments about fundamental issues, or to discuss the root
of existing discourse about a research problem. These overarching tools of analysis can be framed
in three ways –
Ontology - the study that describes the nature of reality; for example, what is real and what is not,
what is fundamental and what is derivative?
Epistemology - the study that explores the nature of knowledge; for example, by what means does
knowledge and understanding depend upon and how can we be certain of what we know?
Axiology - the study of values; for example, what values does an individual or group hold and why?
How are values related to interest, desire, will, experience, and means-to-end? And, what is the
difference between a matter of fact and a matter of value?
Advantages
 Can provide a basis for applying ethical decision-making to practice.
 Functions as a means of gaining greater self-understanding and self-knowledge about the
purposes of research.
 Brings clarity to general guiding practices and principles of an individual or group.
 Philosophy informs methodology.
 Refine concepts and theories that are invoked in relatively unreflective modes of thought and
discourse.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 120

 Beyond methodology, philosophy also informs critical thinking about epistemology and the
structure of reality (metaphysics).
 Offers clarity and definition to the practical and theoretical uses of terms, concepts, and ideas.
Weaknesses
 Limited application to specific research problems (answering the ‘So What?’ question in social
science research).
 Analysis can be abstract, argumentative, and limited in its practical application to real-life
issues.
 While a philosophical analysis may render problematic that which was once simple or taken-for-
granted, the writing can be dense and subject to unnecessary jargon, overstatement, and/or
excessive quotation and documentation.
 There are limitations in the use of metaphor as a vehicle of philosophical analysis.
 There can be analytical difficulties in moving from philosophy to advocacy and between abstract
thought and application to the phenomenal world.

6.5.3 SEQUENTIAL RESEARCH DESIGN

Sequential research is that which is carried out in a deliberate, staged approach (i.e. serially) where
one stage will be completed, followed by another, then another, and so on, with the aim that each
stage will build upon the previous one until enough data is gathered over an interval of time to test
your hypothesis. The sample size is not predetermined. After each sample is analyzed, the
researcher can accept the null hypothesis, accept the alternative hypothesis, or select another pool
of subjects and conduct the study once again. This means the researcher can obtain a limitless
number of subjects before making a final decision whether to accept the null or alternative
hypothesis. Using a quantitative framework, a sequential study generally utilizes sampling techniques
to gather data and applying statistical methods to analze the data. Using a qualitative framework,
sequential studies generally utilize samples of individuals or groups of individuals (cohorts) and use
qualitative methods, such as interviews or observations, to gather information from each sample.
Advantages
 The researcher has a limitless option when it comes to sample size and the sampling schedule.
 Due to the repetitive nature of this research design, minor changes and adjustments can be
done during the initial parts of the study to correct and hone the research method.
 This is a useful design for exploratory studies.
 There is very little effort on the part of the researcher when performing this technique. It is
generally not expensive, time consuming, or workforce intensive.
 Because the study is conducted serially, the results of one sample are known before the next
sample is taken and analyzed. This provides opportunities for continuous improvement of
sampling and methods of analysis.
Weaknesses
 The sampling method is not representative of the entire population. The only possibility of
approaching representativeness is when the researcher chooses to use a very large sample size
significant enough to represent a significant portion of the entire population. In this case,
moving on to study a second or more specific sample can be difficult.
 Because the sampling technique is not randomized, the design cannot be used to create
conclusions and interpretations that pertain to an entire population. Generalizability from
findings is limited.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 121

 Difficult to account for and interpret variation from one sample to another over time,
particularly when using qualitative methods of data collection.

6.5.4 CASE STUDY DESIGN

A case study is an in-depth study of a particular research problem rather than a sweeping statistical
survey or comprehesive comparative inquiry. It is often used to narrow down a very broad field of
research into one or a few easily researchable examples. The case study research design is also
useful for testing whether a specific theory and model actually applies to phenomena in the real
world. It is a useful design when not much is known about an issue or phenomenon.
Advantages
 Approach excels at bringing us to an understanding of a complex issue through detailed
contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships.
 A researcher using a case study design can apply a variety of methodologies and rely on a variety
of sources to investigate a research problem.
 Design can extend experience or add strength to what is already known through previous
research.
 Social scientists, in particular, make wide use of this research design to examine contemporary
real-life situations and provide the basis for the application of concepts and theories and the
extension of methodologies.
 The design can provide detailed descriptions of specific and rare cases.

Weaknesses
 A single or small number of cases offers little basis for establishing reliability or to generalize
the findings to a wider population of people, places, or things.
 Intense exposure to the study of a case may bias a researcher’s interpretation of the findings.
 Design does not facilitate assessment of cause and effect relationships.
 Vital information may be missing, making the case hard to interpret.
 The case may not be representative or typical of the larger problem being investigated.
 If the criteria for selecting a case is because it represents a very unusual or unique phenomenon
or problem for study, then your intepretation of the findings can only apply to that particular
case.

6.5.5 FIELD RESEARCH DESIGN

Field research or fieldwork is the collection of information outside a laboratory, library or
workplace setting. The approaches and methods used in field research vary across disciplines. For
example, biologists who conduct field research may simply observe animals interacting with their
environments, whereas social scientists conducting field research may interview or observe people in
their natural environments to learn their languages, folklore, and social structures. Field research
involves a range of well-defined, although variable, methods: informal interviews, direct observation,
participation in the life of the group, collective discussions, analyses of personal documents
produced within the group, self-analysis, results from activities undertaken off- or on-line, and life-
histories. Although the method generally is characterized as qualitative research, it may (and often
does) include quantitative dimensions. Field Research deals with creation and collection of actual and
authentic information by field of operation in any organization. The process involves determining
what precise data is necessary and from where this information needs to be obtained. After
determining this information the data is actually gathered. Thus this research technique is treated

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 122

as the primary research approach because the determined data is specific to the purpose of
gathering that data.
Advantages
 It yields very detailed data.
 It emphasizes the role and relevance of social context.
 It can uncover social facts that may not be immediately obvious or of which research
participants may be unaware.
Weaknesses
 It may lack breadth; gathering very detailed information means being unable to gather data
from a very large number of people or groups.
 It may be emotionally taxing.
 Documenting observations may be more challenging than with other methods.

6.5.6 ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH DESIGN

Anthropologists, ethnographers, and other social scientists may engage in something called
ethnography. Ethnography, simply stated, is the study of people in their own environment through
the use of methods such as participant observation and face-to-face interviewing. Sidky (2004)
suggests ethnography documents cultural similarities and differences through empirical fieldwork
and can help with scientific generalizations about human behavior and the operation of social and
cultural systems. Because anthropology as a discipline is holistic (meaning it looks at the past,
present and future of a community across time and space), ethnography as a first hand, detailed
account of a given community or society attempts to get a comprehensive understanding of the
circumstances of the people being studied. Ethnographers, then, look at and record a people’s way of
life as seen by both the people and the anthropologist; they take an emic (folk or inside) and etic
(analytic or outside) approach to describing communities and cultures. Classic ethnographic research
involves a detailed description of the whole of a culture outside of the country of origin of the
researcher. Contemporary ethnographic research has the added dimension of not only looking at
people outside of the county of origin of the researcher, but also seeks to better understand those
who reside within the county of origin. Contemporary ethnographic research looks at what may be
considered ordinary or mundane to those living within a community, for example shopping malls,
corporations, towns, cities, cyberspace, garbage, libraries, parks, etc. A researcher who has been
trained in ethnographic field methods and theoretical perspectives, then, carries out ethnographic
research. Before going to the actual place of study, those engaging in ethnographic studies conduct
library and other archival research to learn some of what is already known about the place and
people they are interested in so as not to enter the ‘field’ unprepared. The researcher then spends
time with the group of people under study to get a sense of how they live, their beliefs and rituals,
and their interactions with each other and those around them. Traditional ethnographic research
usually requires at least a year in the field to get a clear understanding of the group.
Emic and etic, in anthropology, folkloristics, and the social and behavioral sciences, refer to two
kinds of field research done and viewpoints obtained; from within the social group (from the
perspective of the subject) and from outside (from the perspective of the observer). The terms
originated in linguistics and anthropology in the 1950’s and 1960’s; over the following decades
researchers in numerous fields and disciplines, including education, have found the concepts useful
(Headland, 1990). The words emic and etic were coined by Kenneth L. Pike in 1954 by truncation of
terms like phonemic vs. phonetic. The pair applies not only to the sound level of language, but equally

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 123

to the other levels of language and even to other domains of culture. Although emics and etics are
sometimes regarded as inherently in conflict and one can be preferred to the exclusion of the
other, the complementarity of emic and etic approaches to anthropological research has been widely
recognized, especially in the areas of interest concerning the characteristics of human nature as
well as the form and function of human social systems.
The words emic and etic refer to two different approaches to researching human beings. An emic
approach (sometimes referred to as ‘insider’, ‘inductive’, or ‘bottom-up’) takes as its starting point
the perspectives and words of research participants. The emic approach investigates how local
people think - How they perceive and categorize the world, their rules for behavior, what has
meaning for them, and how they imagine and explain things (Kottak, 2006). An etic approach
(sometimes referred to as ‘outsider’, ‘deductive’, or ‘top-down’) uses as its starting point theories,
hypothesis, perspectives, and concepts from outside of the setting being studied. The etic
(scientist-oriented) approach shifts the focus from local observations, categories, explanations, and
interpretations to those of the anthropologist. The etic approach realizes that members of a
culture often are too involved in what they are doing to interpret their cultures impartially. When
using the etic approach, the ethnographer emphasizes what s/he considers important. Emic and Etic
approaches of understanding behavior and personality fall under the study of cultural anthropology.
Cultural anthropology states that people are shaped by their cultures and their subcultures, and we
must account for this in the study of personality. An ‘emic’ account is a description of behavior or a
belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes
from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account.
An ‘etic’ account is a description of a behavior or belief by a social analyst or scientific observer (a
student or scholar of anthropology or sociology, for example), in terms that can be applied across
cultures; that is, an etic account attempts to be ‘culturally neutral’, limiting any ethnocentric,
political, and/or cultural bias or alienation by the observer. When these two approaches are
combined, the ‘richest’ view of a culture or society can be understood. On its own, an emic approach
would struggle with applying overarching values to a single culture. The etic approach is helpful in
preventing researchers from seeing only one aspect of one culture and then applying it to cultures
around the world.
Table 6.1
Emic Versus Etic Perspective in Ethnographic Research
Perspective Emic Etic
Located Intrinsic Extrinsic
Necessary for Understanding the working of a Comparison and universal
particular culture generalization
Views phenomenon as Constituent of a particular (culture- Universal possibility
specific) system
Role of phenomenon Functional (i.e. significative or Term of a universal theory
distinctive) for the user

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 124

6.5.7 DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

Descriptive research designs help provide answers to the questions of who, what, when, where, and
how associated with a particular research problem; a descriptive study cannot conclusively ascertain
answers to why. Descriptive research is used to obtain information concerning the current status of
the phenomena and to describe ‘what exists’ with respect to variables or conditions in a situation.
Advantages
 The subject is being observed in a completely natural and unchanged natural environment.
 Descriptive research is often used as a pre-cursor to more quantitative research designs.
 If the limitations are understood, they can be a useful tool in developing a more focused study.
 Descriptive studies can yield rich data that lead to important recommendations in practice.
 Appoach collects a large amount of data for detailed analysis.

Weaknesses
 The results from a descriptive research cannot be used to discover a definitive answer or to
disprove a hypothesis.
 Because descriptive designs often utilize observational methods (as opposed to quantitative
methods), the results cannot be replicated.
 The descriptive function of research is heavily dependent on instrumentation for measurement
and observation.

6.5.8 CORRELATIONAL OR PROSPECTIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

A correlational study determines whether or not two variables are correlated. This means to study
whether an increase or decrease in one variable corresponds to an increase or decrease in the other
variable. It is very important to note that correlation doesn’t imply causation. There are four types
of correlations that are identified. Positive Correlation between two variables is when an increase in
one variable leads to an increase in the other and a decrease in one leads to a decrease in the other.
For example, the amount of money that a person possesses might correlate positively with the
number of cars he owns. Negative Correlation is when an increase in one variable leads to a decrease
in another and vice versa. For example, the level of education might correlate negatively with crime.
This means if by some way the education level is improved in a country, it can lead to lower crime.
Note that this doesn’t mean that a lack of education causes crime. It could be, for example, that
both lack of education and crime have a common reason - poverty. A Curvilinear Relationship is a
type of relationship between two variables in which as one variable increases, so does the other
variable. However, this works only up to a certain point. This means that as one variable continues to
increase, the other decreases. If you were to graph this kind of curvilinear relationship, you will
come up with the shape of an inverted-U. For example, as stress increases, performance also
increases but only until a certain point – at some point, performance will start to decrease. The
other possibility is when one variable increases, the other starts decreasing but only until a certain
point before it begins rising, the non-inverted-U curve. No Correlation - two variables are
uncorrelated when a change in one doesn’t lead to a change in the other and vice versa. For example,
among millionaires, happiness is found to be uncorrelated to money. This means an increase in money
doesn’t lead to happiness. A correlation coefficient is usually used during a correlational study. It
varies between +1 and -1. A value close to +1 indicates a strong positive correlation while a value
close to -1 indicates strong negative correlation. A value near zero shows that the variables are
uncorrelated. It is very important to remember that correlation doesn’t imply causation and there is

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 125

no way to determine or prove causation from a correlational study. This is a common mistake made
by people in almost all spheres of life.
In a correlational design you simply measure variables (without manipulating them) and then analyze
the data to see whether the variables are related. The statistical tools you use are those that
measure the strength and direction of the relationship (i.e. correlation coefficients). A correlational
design is part of the non-experimental research design. The reason it is non-experimental is because
it does not involve manipulating the variable of interest. The correlational design simply aims to
determine the relationship between two variables, as well as how strongly these variables relate to
one another.
Contexts for performing a correlational study -
 Some independent variables (particularly biographical variables) cannot be manipulated - gender,
age, personality types, ethnic background, height, etc. We have used gender as an independent
variable in a static group design (a type of independent groups design) in which we used the ‘t-
test’ for independent means to analyze the data. But in many ways a correlational design is
essentially because the independent variable is measured, not manipulated. In fact, it will make
no difference whether you perform the ‘t-test’ for independent means (treating the design as a
static group design) or perform the ‘t-test’ for ‘r’ (treating the design as correlational), in either
case you get the same value for ‘t’.
 Some independent variables would be unethical to manipulate - for example, examining the
effects of smoking or pollution levels on cancer rates; examining the effects of exposure to
pornography on sexual deviancy; examining the effects of lowering funding levels for school
systems on student performance; or examining the effects of brain damage in various areas of
the brain on speech production. In all cases you would not be allowed to go in as an experimenter
and manipulate the independent variable. You will have to, instead, examine various levels of the
independent variable as they already exist in the population.
 Surveys - the nature of surveys is to measure variables, rather than to manipulate them. Unless
the survey has a manipulation build into it (e.g. manipulating the way a question is worded to see
if it influences how it is answered) the survey is essentially a correlational design with many
variables (one for each question). Your analysis will consist of describing the data generated by
each question and of the relationships between those variables.
Tools for measuring the relationship between variables (resulting in a value between -1 and 1) -
 Two cardinal variables: ‘Pearson r’.
 Two rank variables: ‘Spearman rho’. Actually you get the same answer with Pearson r but
Spearman rho is easier to compute because the Mean and SD (Standard Deviation) is dependent
upon N (e.g. if you are using rank scores and their are 5 participants than their Mean score will
be 3). This is a carryover from the days before computers. If you are using a computer there is
no reason to use Spearman rho rather than Pearson r.
 One cardinal and one dichotomous variable: Point biserial. A dichotomous variable is one that can
take on only one of two values (e.g. ‘male’ or ‘female’, ‘true’ or ‘false’, ‘present’ or ‘absent’). This
ends up just being another way of doing the ‘t-test’ on a static group design (the dichotomous
variable is the independent variable).
 Two ordinal variables: various choices (gamma, tau, Somer’s d). Most work by counting the
number of ‘concordant’ and ‘discordant’ pairs of observations. Take any two participants, if one
participant is lower than the other on one variable and also lower on the other variable that that
is ‘concordant’, or if the participant is higher on one variable and also higher on the other than

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 126

that is ‘concordant’. But it the participant is lower on one variable and higher on the other than
that is ‘discordant’.
 Two nominal or one nominal and one ordinal variables: Cramer’s V is the measure of association,
Chi-Square is the test for the statistical significance of the association.
Measures of correlation and association measure the stregnth of the relationship between the
variables, but as pointed out several times that does not prove that X causes Y. Another way of
thinking about the situation is you are trying to determine what is the independent variable in the
experiment and what is the dependent variable. If you find a correlation between fear of math (X)
and success in math classes (Y), then you don’t know if the fear influences performance (i.e. that X
is the independent variable), if the performance influences the fear level (i.e. that Y is the
independent variable), if X and Y influence each other (i.e. both X and Y are independent and
dependent variables), or if there is some other variable (Z) that is influencing both X and Y (i.e.
both X and Y are dependent variables). The situation can be a bit clearer when one of the variables
is biographical. For example if one variable is ‘gender’ and the other variable is ‘income level’ then it
is clear that gender would be the independent variable, as it is reasonable to think that gender
might influence income level but it would be silly to think that income level influences what gender
you are.
If the study is based on a correlational design (with no variable manipulation), there are generally
three things to consider – (a) No cause-and-effect can be determined. This means that just because
two variables share a relationship does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. For example,
just because a correlational study determines that the amount of time studied and grades are
related does not mean that time spent studying contributed to higher grades. (b) There could be
other variables mediating the relationship. Using the same example above, it can not be concluded
for certain that studying more made the difference in the grades. Perhaps, people who study more
are also receiving more help from teachers or tutors or are just inherently more student type to
begin with. There are so many possibilities that cannot be ruled out when using a correlational
design. As such, an experimental design is needed in order to determine a cause-and-effect
relationship. (c) The direction of the effects cannot be determined. This does not refer to whether
the relationship is positive or negative. It refers to the idea that a correlational design cannot
conclude which variable is causing the change in the other variable. It could be that studying more
can possibly lead to higher grades, or higher grades can lead to studying more. Furthermore, there
is also a possibility that these effects have a bidirectional meaning in which they contribute to one
another. However, none of this can be fully concluded with just a correlational design. An
experimental design is needed to determine the direction.
Observational Design
This type of research design draws a conclusion by comparing subjects against a control group, in
cases where the researcher has no control over the experiment. There are two general types of
observational designs. In direct observations, people know that you are watching them. Unobtrusive
measures involve any method for studying behavior where individuals do not know they are being
observed. An observational study allows a useful insight into a phenomenon and avoids the ethical
and practical difficulties of setting up a large and cumbersome research project.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 127

Advantages
 Observational studies are usually flexible and do not necessarily need to be structured around a
hypothesis about what you expect to observe (data is emergent rather than pre-existing).
 The researcher is able to collect in-depth information about a particular behavior.
 Can reveal interrelationships among multifaceted dimensions of group interactions.
 You can generalize your results to real life situations.
 Observational research is useful for discovering what variables may be important before
applying other methods like experiments.
 Observation research designs account for the complexity of group behaviors.

Weaknesses
 Reliability of data is low because seeing behaviors occur over and over again may be a time
consuming task and are difficult to replicate.
 In observational research, findings may only reflect a unique sample population and, thus, cannot
be generalized to other groups.
 There can be problems with bias as the researcher may only ‘see what they want to see’.
 There is no possiblility to determine ‘cause and effect’ relationships since nothing is manipulated.
 Sources or subjects may not all be equally credible.
 Any group that is knowingly studied is altered to some degree by the presence of the
researcher, therefore, potentionally skewing any data collected.
Cohort Design
Often used in the medical sciences, but also found in the applied social sciences, a cohort study
generally refers to a study conducted over a period of time involving members of a population which
the subject or representative member comes from, and who are united by some commonality or
similarity. Using a quantitative framework, a cohort study makes note of statistical occurrence
within a specialized subgroup, united by same or similar characteristics that are relevant to the
research problem being investigated, rather than studying statistical occurrence within the general
population. Using a qualitative framework, cohort studies generally gather data using methods of
observation. Cohorts can be either ‘open’ or ‘closed’. Open Cohort Studies (dynamic populations, such
as the population of Dhaka) involve a population that is defined just by the state of being a part of
the study in question (and being monitored for the outcome). Date of entry and exit from the study
is individually defined, therefore, the size of the study population is not constant. In open cohort
studies, researchers can only calculate rate based data, such as, incidence rates and variants
thereof. Closed Cohort Studies (static populations, such as patients entered into a clinical trial)
involve participants who enter into the study at one defining point in time and where it is presumed
that no new participants can enter the cohort. Given this, the number of study participants remains
constant (or can only decrease).
There are two main sub-types of cohort study, the retrospective and the prospective cohort study.
The major difference between the two is that the retrospective looks at phenomena that have
already happened, whilst the prospective type starts from the present. The Retrospective Cohort
Study is historical in nature. Whilst still beginning with the division into cohorts, the researcher
looks at historical data to judge the effects of the variable. For example, it might compare the
incidence of bowel cancer over time in vegetarians and meat eaters, by comparing the medical
histories. It is a lot easier than the prospective, but there is no control, and confounding variables
can be a problem, as the researcher cannot easily assess the lifestyle of the subject. A
retrospective study is a very cheap and effective way of studying health risks or the effects of

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 128

exposure to pollutants and toxins. It gives results quickly, at the cost of validity, because it is
impossible to eliminate all of the potentially confounding variables from historical records and
interviews alone. In a Prospective Cohort Study, the effects of a certain variable are plotted over
time, and the study becomes an ongoing process. To maintain validity, all of the subjects must be
initially free of the condition tested for. For example, an investigation, over time, into the effects
of smoking upon lung cancer must ensure that all of the subjects are free of the disease. It is also
possible to subgroup and try to control variables, such as weight, occupation type or social status.
They are preferable to a retrospective study, but are expensive and usually require a long period of
time to generate useful results, so are very expensive and difficult. The prospective cohort study is
a great way to study long-term trends, allowing the researcher to measure any potential confounding
variables, but the potential cost of error is high, so pilot studies are often used to ensure that the
study runs smoothly. The Ambidirectional Cohort Study is the ultimate method, combining
retrospective and prospective aspects. The researcher studies and analyzes the previous history of
the cohorts and then continues the research in a prospective manner. This gives the most accurate
results, but is an extremely arduous undertaking, costing time and a great deal of money.
Advantages
 The use of cohorts is often mandatory because a randomized control study may be unethical.
 Because cohort studies measure potential causes before the outcome has occurred, they can
demonstrate that these ‘causes’ preceded the outcome, thereby avoiding the debate as to which
is the cause and which is the effect.
 Cohort analysis is highly flexible and can provide insight into effects over time and related to a
variety of different types of changes (e.g., social, cultural, political, economic, etc.).
 Either original data or secondary data can be used in this design.

Weaknesses
 In cases where a comparative analysis of two cohorts is made, a researcher cannot control for
all other factors that might differ between the two groups. These factors are known as
confounding variables.
 Cohort studies can end up taking a long time to complete if the researcher must wait for the
conditions of interest to develop within the group. This also increases the chance that key
variables change during the course of the study, potentially impacting the validity of the
findings.
 Due to the lack of randominization in the cohort design, its external validity is lower than that
of study designs where the researcher randomly assigns participants.
Longitudinal Design
A longitudinal study follows the same sample over time and makes repeated observations. For
example, with longitudinal surveys, the same group of people is interviewed at regular intervals,
enabling researchers to track changes over time and to relate them to variables that might explain
why the changes occur. Longitudinal research designs describe patterns of change and help establish
the direction and magnitude of causal relationships. Measurements are taken on each variable over
two or more distinct time periods. This allows the researcher to measure change in variables over
time. It is a type of observational study sometimes referred to as a panel study. Longitudinal studies
allow social scientists and economists to study long-term effects in a human population. A cohort
study is a subset of the longitudinal study because it observes the effect on a specific group of
people over time. Quite often, a longitudinal study is an extended case study, observing individuals
over long periods, and is a purely qualitative undertaking.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 129

Advantages
 Longitudinal data facilitate the analysis of the duration of a particular phenomenon.
 Enables survey researchers to get close to the kinds of causal explanations usually attainable
only with experiments.
 The design permits the measurement of differences or change in a variable from one period to
another (i.e., the description of patterns of change over time).
 Longitudinal studies facilitate the prediction of future outcomes based upon earlier factors.

Weaknesses
 The data collection method may change over time.
 Maintaining the integrity of the original sample can be difficult over an extended period of time.
 It can be difficult to show more than one variable at a time.
 This design often needs qualitative research data to explain fluctuations in the results.
 A longitudinal research design assumes present trends will continue unchanged.
 It can take a long period of time to gather results.
 There is a need to have a large sample size and accurate sampling to reach representativness.
Cross-Sectional Design
Cross-sectional research designs have three distinctive features - no time dimension; a reliance on
existing differences rather than change following intervention; and, groups are selected based on
existing differences rather than random allocation. The cross-sectional design can only measure
differences between or from among a variety of people, subjects, or phenomena rather than a
process of change. As such, researchers using this design can only employ a relatively passive
approach to making causal inferences based on findings. The cross sectional study looks at a
different aspect than the standard longitudinal study. The longitudinal study uses time as the main
variable, and tries to make an in depth study of how a small sample changes and fluctuates over time.
A cross sectional study, on the other hand, takes a snapshot of a population at a certain time,
allowing conclusions about phenomena across a wide population to be drawn. An example of a cross-
sectional study would be a medical study looking at the prevalence of breast cancer in a population.
The researcher can look at a wide range of ages, ethnicities and social backgrounds. If a significant
number of women from a certain social background are found to have the disease, then the
researcher can investigate further. This is a relatively easy way to perform a preliminary
experiment, allowing the researcher to focus on certain population groups and understand the wider
picture. Of course, researchers often use both methods, using a cross section to take the snapshot
and isolate potential areas of interest, and then conducting a longitudinal study to find the reason
behind the trend. This is called panel data, or time series cross-sectional data, but is generally a
complicated and expensive type of research, notoriously difficult to analyze. Such studies are rare,
but can give excellent data, allowing a long-term picture of phenomena to be ascertained.
Advantages
 Cross-sectional studies provide a clear ‘snapshot’ of the outcome and the characteristics
associated with it, at a specific point in time.
 Unlike an experimental design, where there is an active intervention by the researcher to
produce and measure change or to create differences, cross-sectional designs focus on studying
and drawing inferences from existing differences between people, subjects, or phenomena.
 Entails collecting data at and concerning one point in time. While longitudinal studies involve
taking multiple measures over an extended period of time, cross-sectional research is focused
on finding relationships between variables at one moment in time.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 130

 Groups identified for study are purposely selected based upon existing differences in the
sample rather than seeking random sampling.
 Cross-section studies are capable of using data from a large number of subjects and, unlike
observational studies, is not geographically bound.
 Can estimate prevalence of an outcome of interest because the sample is usually taken from the
whole population.
 Because cross-sectional designs generally use survey techniques to gather data, they are
relatively inexpensive and take up little time to conduct.
Weaknesses
 Finding people, subjects, or phenomena to study that are very similar except in one specific
variable can be difficult.
 Results are static and time bound and, therefore, give no indication of a sequence of events or
reveal historical or temporal contexts.
 Studies cannot be utilized to establish cause and effect relationships.
 This design only provides a snapshot of analysis so there is always the possibility that a study
could have differing results if another time-frame had been chosen.
 There is no follow up to the findings.

6.5.9 CASUAL RESEARCH DESIGN

Causality studies may be thought of as understanding a phenomenon in terms of conditional
statements in the form, ‘If X, then Y’. This type of research is used to measure what impact a
specific change will have on existing norms and assumptions. Most social scientists seek causal
explanations that reflect tests of hypotheses. Causal effect (nomothetic perspective) occurs when
variation in one phenomenon, an independent variable, leads to or results, on average, in variation in
another phenomenon, the dependent variable. Conditions necessary for determining causality –
 Empirical association - a valid conclusion is based on finding an association between the
independent variable and the dependent variable.
 Appropriate time order - to conclude that causation was involved, one must see that cases were
exposed to variation in the independent variable before variation in the dependent variable.
 Nonspuriousness - a relationship between two variables that is not due to variation in a third
variable.
Advantages
 Causality research designs assist researchers in understanding why the world works the way it
does through the process of proving a causal link between variables and by the process of
eliminating other possibilities.
 Replication is possible.
 There is greater confidence the study has internal validity due to the systematic subject
selection and equity of groups being compared.
Weaknesses
 Not all relationships are casual. The possibility always exists that, by sheer coincidence, two
unrelated events appear to be related.
 Conclusions about causal relationships are difficult to determine due to a variety of extraneous
and confounding variables that exist in a social environment. This means causality can only be
inferred, never proven.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 131

 If two variables are correlated, the cause must come before the effect. However, even though
two variables might be causally related, it can sometimes be difficult to determine which
variable comes first and, therefore, to establish which variable is the actual cause and which is
the actual effect.

6.5.10 EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH DESIGN

A blueprint of the procedure that enables the researcher to maintain control over all factors that
may affect the result of an experiment. In doing this, the researcher attempts to determine or
predict what may occur. Experimental research is often used where there is time priority in a causal
relationship (cause precedes effect), there is consistency in a causal relationship (a cause will always
lead to the same effect), and the magnitude of the correlation is great. The classic experimental
design specifies an experimental group and a control group. The independent variable is administered
to the experimental group and not to the control group, and both groups are measured on the same
dependent variable. Subsequent experimental designs have used more groups and more
measurements over longer periods. True experiments must have control, randomization, and
manipulation.
Advantages
 Experimental research allows the researcher to control the situation. In so doing, it allows
researchers to answer the question, ‘What causes something to occur?’
 Permits the researcher to identify cause and effect relationships between variables and to
distinguish placebo effects from treatment effects.
 Experimental research designs support the ability to limit alternative explanations and to infer
direct causal relationships in the study.
 Approach provides the highest level of evidence for single studies.

Weaknesses
 The design is artificial, and results may not generalize well to the real world.
 The artificial settings of experiments may alter the behaviors or responses of participants.
 Experimental designs can be costly if special equipment or facilities are needed.
 Some research problems cannot be studied using an experiment because of ethical or technical
reasons.
 Difficult to apply ethnographic and other qualitative methods to experimentally designed
studies.
True Experimental Design
True experimental design is regarded as the most accurate form of experimental research, in that
it tries to prove or disprove a hypothesis mathematically, with statistical analysis. For some of the
physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry and geology, they are standard and commonly used. For
social sciences, psychology and biology, they can be a little more difficult to set up. For an
experiment to be classed as a true experimental design, it must fit all of the following criteria -The
sample groups must be assigned randomly; There must be a viable control group; Only one variable
can be manipulated and tested (It is possible to test more than one, but such experiments and their
statistical analysis tend to be cumbersome and difficult);The tested subjects must be randomly
assigned to either control or experimental groups. Whilst they can be a little artificial and
restrictive, they are the only type of research that is accepted by all disciplines as statistically
provable.
Advantages

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 132

 The results of a true experimental design can be statistically analyzed and so there can be little
argument about the results.
 It is also much easier for other researchers to replicate the experiment and validate the
results.
 For physical sciences working with mainly numerical data, it is much easier to manipulate one
variable, so true experimental design usually gives a yes or no answer.
Weaknesses
 It can be almost too perfect, with the conditions being under complete control and not being
representative of real world conditions.
 For psychologists and behavioral biologists, for example, there can never be any guarantee that
a human or living organism will exhibit ‘normal’ behavior under experimental conditions.
 True experiments can be too accurate and it is very difficult to obtain a complete rejection or
acceptance of a hypothesis because the standards of proof required are so difficult to reach.
 True experiments are also difficult and expensive to set up. They can also be very impractical.
 While for some fields, like physics, there are not as many variables so the design is easy, for
social sciences and biological sciences, where variations are not so clearly defined it is much
more difficult to exclude other factors that may be affecting the manipulated variable.
Double Blind Experimental Design
A double blind experiment is an experimental method used to ensure impartiality, and avoid errors
arising from bias. It is very easy for a researcher, even subconsciously, to influence experimental
observations, especially in behavioral science, so this method provides an extra check. For example,
imagine that a company is asking consumers for opinions about its products, using a survey. There is
a distinct danger that the interviewer may subconsciously emphasize the company’s products when
asking the questions. This is the major reason why market research companies generally prefer to
use computers, and double blind experiments, for gathering important data. The blind experiment is
the minimum standard for any test involving subjects and opinions, and failure to adhere to this
principle may result in experimental flaws. The idea is that the groups studied, including the control,
should not be aware of the group in which they are placed. In medicine, when researchers are
testing a new medicine, they ensure that the placebo looks and tastes, the same as the actual
medicine. There is strong evidence of a placebo effect with medicine, where, if people believe that
they are receiving a medicine, they show some signs of improvement in health. A blind experiment
reduces the risk of bias from this effect, giving an honest baseline for the research, and allowing a
realistic statistical comparison. Ideally, the subjects would not be told that a placebo was being
used at all, but this is regarded as unethical.
This always gives a chance that a scientist might manipulate results, and try to show the research in
a better light. Proving that the researcher carried out a double blind experiment reduces the
chance of criticism. Whilst better known in medicine, double blind experiments are often used in
other fields. Surveys, questionnaires and market research all use this technique to retain
credibility. If you wish to compare two different brands of washing powder, the samples should be
in the same packaging. A consumer might have an inbuilt brand identity awareness, and preference,
which will lead to favoritism and bias. An example of the weakness of single blind techniques is in
police line-ups, where a witness picks out a suspect from a group. Many legal experts are advocating
that these line-ups should be unsupervised, and unprompted. If the police are fixed on bringing a
particular subject to justice, they may consciously, or subconsciously, tip off the witness. Humans

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 133

are very good at understanding body language and unconscious cues, so the chance of observer’s bias
should be minimized.
There are three basic experimental designs - (1) Independent Measures (or Group) Design; (2)
Repeated Measures Design; and (3) Matched Pairs Design.
1. Independent Measures Design
If two groups in an experiment consist of different individuals then this is an independent measures
design. For example, if we are trying to discover if girls are less aggressive than boys, then we
obviously need 2 separate groups, namely boys and girls. Participants (Ps) may be allocated to the
conditions randomly in an independent measures design.
Here different participants are used between the different For example -
experimental conditions. If for example you were testing how Allocation of participants in the
age affects memory recall you may have different groups of experimental design
people of specific age ranges from one group to another. One Condition A Condition B
group may have teenagers aged 12-19 while another group may P1 P3
have adults aged 25-35. Participants may be randomly selected P2 P5
based purely on age to insure fair allocation between the P4 P6.....and so on.
groups.
Advantages
 Participants can be randomly allocated to try address individual differences that may affect
results.
 There are no ‘order effects’ with the participants being exposed to the experimental condition;
only once unlike a repeated measures design where participants experience each condition one
after another. Participants are also unlikely to be bored or tired in this design which may affect
their results as they work through the different experimental conditions.
 More participants tend to be used overall compared to repeated measures meaning the results
may have more external validity to wider generalisation.
 Independent group designs only need participants to complete the conditions once and if the
different conditions are run at the same time this can result in a much quicker experiment than
a repeated measures design which may be more time consuming.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 134

Weaknesses
 The study requires more participants which may mean the study takes longer to gather them
compared to a repeated measures design where you can re-use a smaller sample.
 There may still be important significant individual differences between participants that may
not be randomly filtered out through allocation resulting in skewed results. This may reduce
internal validity and reliability of results.
2. Repeated Measures Design
A repeated-measures design is one in which multiple or repeated measurements are made on each
experimental unit. The experimental unit could be a person or an animal, and repeated measurements
might be taken serially in time, such as in weekly systolic blood pressures or monthly weights. The
repeated assessments might be measured under different experimental conditions. Repeated
measurements on the same experimental unit can also be taken at a point in time. For example, it
might be of interest to measure the diameter of each of several lesions within each person or animal
in a study. The dependency, or correlation, among responses measured in the same individual is the
defining feature of a repeated-measures design. This correlation necessitates a statistical analysis
that appropriately accounts for the dependency among measurements within the same experimental
unit, which results in a more precise and powerful statistical analysis.
Sometimes, we can use the same individuals and test them on two or more separate occasions.
Suppose, for example, we want to find out if people react more quickly to an auditory stimulus (like a
bell) or to a visual stimulus (like a light). We can use the same participants and try them out with
both types of stimulus. This is called a repeated measures design and is often more accurate than
the independent measures design. However, it introduces other confounding variables which we must
be careful to control; namely practice effects or fatigue (these are called order effects). Suppose
the participants in the above example were all asked to react as quickly as possible to a light, it may
be because they were unfamiliar with the procedure and they were quicker with the bell simply
because they had practice. On the other hand, if they were quicker with the light it may be because
they had become tired or bored by the time the second lot of trials were held. In order to control
the effects of fatigue/boredom and practice we would give half the participants the light condition
first, then the bell and reverse the order for the other half (also known as counterbalancing). The
term ‘repeated measures design’ is often interchanged with the term ‘within subjects design’,
although many researchers only class a subtype of the within subjects design, known as a crossover
study, as a repeated measures design. The repeated measures design uses the same subjects with
every condition of the research, including the control. This requires fewer participants and
resources and also decreases the effects of natural variation between individuals upon the results.
Repeated subject designs are commonly used in longitudinal studies, over the long term, and in
educational tests where it is important to ensure that variability is low.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 135

Each participant undertakes all conditions of the experiment. For example -

For example if you wish to test whether pictures and words Allocation of participants in the
help in recall vs only words alone. You have a group of 20 experimental design
participants and test them in the first condition which is Condition A Condition B
pictures and words and then you use the same group members P1 P1
to test them in the second condition which is words alone P2 P2
(different set of words but of similar difficulty/syllables etc). P3 P3.....and so on.
You then check the results.
Repeated measures designs provide an effective and efficient way to conduct an experiment by
administering all the conditions in the experiment to each participant. Repeated measures designs
are useful when only very few participants are available or when an independent variable can be
studied most efficiently by testing fewer participants several times. Particular areas of
psychological research (e.g., psychophysics) may also require the use of repeated measures designs.
Finally, repeated measures designs may be used when a more sensitive experiment is required.
Advantages
 More statistical power: Repeated measures designs can be very powerful because they control
for factors that cause variability between subjects.
 Fewer subjects: Thanks to the greater statistical power, a repeated measures design can use
fewer subjects to detect a desired effect size. Further sample size reductions are possible
because each subject is involved with multiple treatments. For example, if an independent groups
design requires 20 subjects per experimental group, a repeated measures design may only
require 20 total.
 Quicker and cheaper: Fewer subjects need to be recruited, trained, and compensated to
complete an entire experiment.
 Assess an effect over time: Repeated measures designs can track an effect overtime, such as
the learning curve for a task. In this situation, it’s often better to measure the same subject at
multiple times rather than different subjects at one point in time for each.
Weaknesses
 Order effects may occur where participants become better in the second condition due to
practice from the first leading to improve or biased results.
 Participants may also display demand characteristics if the experiment results in them guessing
what the purpose of the study is. The design can not be used where they may ‘learn’ from the
first condition which may affect the results in the second.
 Participants may become bored or tired between the two conditions possibly affecting the
results in the second condition.
Researchers use repeated measures design because-
– researchers don’t have to worry about balancing individual differences across conditions of the experiment because all
participants are their own control.
– these designs require fewer participants,
– they are convenient and efficient, and
– repeated measures designs are more sensitive. A ‘sensitive’ experiment is one that can detect the effect of the
independent variable, even when that effect is small.
Repeated Measures Designs - Crossover Studies
The crossover design is, by far, the most common type of repeated measures design, based around ensuring that all of the
subjects receive all of the treatments. In an experiment with two treatments, the subjects would be randomized into two
groups. The first group would be given treatment A followed by treatment B, the second would be given treatment B followed

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 136

by treatment A. It is also possible to test more than two conditions, if required, and this experiment meets the requirements
of randomization, manipulation and control.
Crossover – Repeated Measures Design

Group 1 Pretest Treatment Test Control Posttest

Group 2 Pretest Control Test Treatment Posttest

Or

Group 1 Pretest Treatment A Test Treatment B Posttest

Group 2 Pretest Treatment B Test Treatment A Posttest

Like all repeated measures designs, this reduces the chance of variation between individuals skewing the results and also
requires a smaller group of subjects. It also reduces the chance of practice or fatigue effects influencing the results because,
presumably, it will be the same for both groups and can be removed by statistical tests. The major pitfall is if the carryover
effects are asymmetrical, if B affects A more than A affects B, for example.
The main weakness of a crossover study is the possibility of carryover effects, where administration of the first condition
affects the results gained in the second. For example, imagine medical researchers testing the effects of two drugs upon
asthma sufferers. There is a chance that the first drug may remain in the subject’s system and affect the results of the
second, one of the reasons why medical researchers usually leave a ‘washout’ period between treatments. In addition, crossover
studies suffer badly if there is a high dropout rate amongst participants, which can adversely affect the validity by unbalancing
the groups and reducing the statistical validity. Despite this, crossover studies remain the most common repeated measures
design, due to the ease and practicality.
Repeated Measures ANOVA
Repeated measures ANOVA is the equivalent of the one-way ANOVA, but for related, not independent groups, and is the
extension of the dependent t-test. A repeated measures ANOVA is also referred to as a within-subjects ANOVA or ANOVA
for correlated samples. All these names imply the nature of the repeated measures ANOVA, that of a test to detect any
overall differences between related means. There are many complex designs that can make use of repeated measures, the most
simple case, that of a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. This particular test requires one independent variable and one
dependent variable. The dependent variable needs to be continuous (interval or ratio) and the independent variable categorical
(either nominal or ordinal).
We can analysis data using a repeated measures ANOVA for two types of study design. Studies that investigate either (1)
changes in mean scores over three or more time points, or (2) differences in mean scores under three or more different
conditions. For example, for (1), you might be investigating the effect of a 6-month exercise training program on blood pressure
and want to measure blood pressure at 3 separate time points (pre-, midway and post-exercise intervention), which would allow
you to develop a time-course for any exercise effect. For (2), you might get the same subjects to eat different types of cake
(chocolate, caramel and lemon) and rate each one for taste, rather than having different people flavour each different cake.
The important point with these two study designs is that the same people are being measured more than once on the same
dependent variable (i.e., why it is called repeated measures).
In repeated measures ANOVA, the independent variable has categories called levels or related groups. Where measurements
are repeated over time, such as when measuring changes in blood pressure due to an exercise-training program, the independent
variable is time. Each level (or related group) is a specific time point. Hence, for the exercise-training study, there would be
three time points and each time-point is a level of the independent variable. Where measurements are made under different
conditions, the conditions are the levels (or related groups) of the independent variable (e.g., type of cake is the independent
variable with chocolate, caramel, and lemon cake as the levels of the independent variable). It should be noted that often the
levels of the independent variable are not referred to as conditions, but treatments.
Which one you want to use is up to you. There is no right or wrong Time / Condition
naming convention. You will also see the independent variable more Subject T1 T2 T3
commonly referred to as the within-subjects factor. This S1 S1 S1 S1
particular table describes a study with six subjects (S1 to S6) S2 S2 S2 S2
performing under three conditions or at three time points (T1 to S3 S3 S3 S3
T3). The within-subjects factor could also have been labelled S4 S4 S4 S4
‘treatment’ instead of ‘time’ / ‘condition’. They all relate to the S5 S5 S5 S5
same thing: subjects undergoing repeated measurements at either S6 S6 S6 S6

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 137

different time points or under different conditions/treatments.

Hypothesis for Repeated Measures ANOVA
The repeated measures ANOVA tests for whether there are any differences between related population means. The null
hypothesis (H0) states that the means are equal -
H0: µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = … = µk; where µ = population mean and k = number of related groups.
The alternative hypothesis (HA) states that the related population means are not equal (at least one mean is different to
another mean)-
HA: at least two means are significantly different
For our exercise-training example, the null hypothesis (H0) is that mean blood pressure is the same at all time points (pre-, 3
months, and 6 months). The alternative hypothesis is that mean blood pressure is significantly different at one or more time
points. A repeated measures ANOVA will not inform you where the differences between groups lie as it is an omnibus
statistical test. The same would be true if you were investigating different conditions or treatments rather than time points,
as used in this example. If your repeated measures ANOVA is statistically significant, you can run post hoc tests that can
highlight exactly where these differences occur. How to run appropriate post-hoc tests for a repeated measures ANOVA in
SPSS can be found.
Logic of the Repeated Measures ANOVA
The logic behind a repeated measures ANOVA is very similar to that of a between-subjects ANOVA. Recall that a between-
subjects ANOVA partitions total variability into between-groups variability (SSb) and within-groups variability (SSw), as shown
below –

SST Error (SSerror)

Total Variability

Independent – Samples ANOVA

Between - Groups Variability Within - Groups Variability
(One Way)
SSb SSw

In this design, within-group variability (SSw) is defined as the error variability (SSerror). Following division by the appropriate
degrees of freedom, a mean sum of squares for between-groups (MSb) and within-groups (MSw) is determined and an F-statistic
is calculated as the ratio of MSb to MSw (or MSerror), as shown below –

A repeated measures ANOVA calculates an F-statistic in a similar way –

The advantage of a repeated measures ANOVA is that whereas within-group variability (SSw) expresses the error variability
(SSerror) in an independent (between-subjects) ANOVA, a repeated measures ANOVA can further partition this error term,
reducing its size, as is illustrated below –

Total Variability SST

Error (SSerror)
Same as SSb

Independent – Samples
ANOVA
Conditions Variability Within - Groups Variability
SSconditions SSw

Subject Variability Error Variability Repeated Measures

SSsubjects SSerror ANOVA

Partitioning of Subject Variability Leading to… Smaller Error (SSerror)

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 138

This has the effect of increasing the value of the F-statistic due to the reduction of the denominator and leading to an
increase in the power of the test to detect significant differences between means. Mathematically, and as illustrated above, we
partition the variability attributable to the differences between groups (SSconditions) and variability within groups (SSw) exactly
as we do in a between-subjects (independent) ANOVA. However, with a repeated measures ANOVA, as we are using the same
subjects in each group, we can remove the variability due to the individual differences between subjects, referred to as
SSsubjects, from the within-groups variability (SSw). Quite simply, we treat each subject as a block. That is, each subject
becomes a level of a factor called subjects. We then calculate this variability as we do with any between-subjects factor. The
ability to subtract SSsubjects will leave us with a smaller SSerror term, as highlighted below –

Now that we have removed the between-subjects variability, our new SSerror only reflects individual variability to each
condition. You might recognize this as the interaction effect of subject by conditions; that is, how subjects react to the
different conditions. Whether this leads to a more powerful test will depend on whether the reduction in SSerror more than
compensates for the reduction in degrees of freedom for the error term [as degrees of freedom go from (n - k) to (n - 1)(k -
1)].
Calculating a Repeated Measures ANOVA
In order to provide a demonstration of how to calculate a repeated measures ANOVA, we shall use the example of a 6-month
exercise-training intervention where six subjects had their fitness level measured on three occasions: pre-, 3 months, and post-
intervention. Their data is shown below along with some initial calculations –
Exercise Intervention
Subjects Pre- 3 Months 6 Months Subject Means:
1 45 50 55 50
2 42 42 45 43
3 36 41 43 40
4 39 35 40 38
5 51 55 59 55
6 44 49 56 49.7
Monthly Means: 42.8 45.3 49.7
Grand Means: 45.9
The repeated measures ANOVA, like other ANOVAs, generates an F-statistic that is used to determine statistical significance.
The F-statistic is calculated as below -

You will already have been familiarized with SSconditions but in some of the calculations in the preceding sections you will see
SSconditions sometimes referred to as SStime. They both represent the sum of squares for the differences between related
groups, but SStime is a more suitable name when dealing with time-course experiments, as we are in this example. In order to
calculate an F-statistic we need to calculate SSconditions and SSerror. SSconditions can be calculated directly quite easily (as you will
have encountered in an independent ANOVA as SSb). Although SSerror can also be calculated directly it is somewhat difficult in
comparison to deriving it from knowledge of other sums of squares which are easier to calculate, namely SSsubjects, and either
SST or SSw. SSerror can then be calculated in either of two ways -

Both methods to calculate the F-statistic require the calculation of SSconditions and SSsubjects but you then have the option to
determine SSerror by first calculating either SST or SSw. There is no right or wrong method, and other methods exist; it is
simply personal preference as to which method you choose. For the purposes of this demonstration, we shall calculate it using
the first method, namely calculating SSw.
Calculating SStime
The calculation of SStime is the same as for SSb in an independent ANOVA, and can be expressed as -

where k = number of conditions, ni = number of subjects under each (ith) condition, = mean score for each (ith) condition, =
grand mean. So, in our example, we have -

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 139

Calculating SSw
Within-subjects variation (SSw) is also calculated in the same way as in an independent ANOVA, expressed as follows -

where xi1 is the score of the ith subject in group 1, xi2 is the score of the ith subject in group 2, and xik is the score of the ith
subject in group k. In our case, this is:

Calculating SSsubjects
We treat each subject as its own block. In other words, we treat each subject as a level of an independent factor called
subjects. We can then calculate SSsubjects as follows -

where k = number of conditions, mean of subject i, and = grand mean. In our case, this is -

Calculating SSerror
We can now calculate SSerror by substitution -

which, in our case, is -

Determining MStime, MSerror and the F-statistic

To determine the mean sum of squares for time (MStime) we divide SStime by its associated degrees of freedom (k - 1), where k
= number of time points. In our case -

We do the same for the mean sum of squares for error (MSerror), this time dividing by (n - 1)(k - 1) degrees of freedom, where n
= number of subjects and k = number of time points. In our case:

Therefore, we can calculate the F-statistic as -

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 140

We can now look up (or use a computer programme) to ascertain the critical F-statistic for our F-distribution with our degrees
of freedom for time (dftime) and error (dferror) and determine whether our F-statistic indicates a statistically significant result.
Reporting the Result of a Repeated Measures ANOVA
We report the F-statistic from a repeated measures ANOVA as -
F(dftime, dferror) = F-value, p = p-value
Which for our example would be -
F (2, 10) = 12.53, p = .002
This means we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Hence, in general there was a statistically
significant effect of time on exercise-induced fitness, F(2, 10) = 12.53, p = .[Link] means the six-month exercise-training
program had a statistically significant effect on fitness levels, F(2, 10) = 12.53, p = .002.
Tabular Presentation of a Repeated Measures ANOVA
Normally, the result of a repeated measures ANOVA is presented in the written text, as above, and not in a tabular form when
writing a report. However, most statistical programs, such as SPSS, will report the result of a repeated measures ANOVA in
tabular form. Doing so allows the user to gain a fuller understanding of all the calculations that were made by the program. The
table below represents the type of table that you will be presented with and what the different sections mean.
Source SS df MS F
Conditions SSconditions (k - 1) MSconditions MSconditions
MSerror
Subjects SSsubjects (n - 1) MSsubjects MSsubjects
MSerror
Error SSerror (k - 1) (n - 1) MSerror
Total SST (N - 1)
Most often, the Subjects row is not presented and sometimes the Total row is also omitted. The F-statistic found on the first
row (time/conditions row) is the F-statistic that will determine whether there was a significant difference between at least
two means or not. For our results, omitting the Subjects and Total rows, we have –
Source SS df MS F
Time 143.44 2 71.72
Error 57.2 10 5.72 12.53
which is similar to the output produced by SPSS.
Increased Power in a Repeated Measures ANOVA
The major advantage with running a repeated measures ANOVA over an independent ANOVA is that the test is generally much
more powerful. This particular advantage is achieved by the reduction in MSerror (the denominator of the F-statistic) that
comes from the partitioning of variability due to differences between subjects (SSsubjects) from the original error term in an
independent ANOVA (SSw): i.e. SSerror = SSw - SSsubjects. We achieved a result of F(2, 10) = 12.53, p = .002, for our example
repeated measures ANOVA. How does this compare to if we had run an independent ANOVA instead? Well, if we ran through
the calculations, we would have ended up with a result of F(2, 15) = 1.504, p = .254, for the independent ANOVA. We can clearly
see the advantage of using the same subjects in a repeated measures ANOVA as opposed to different subjects. For our
exercise-training example, the result shows that after taking away SSsubjects from SSw we are left with an error term (SSerror)
that is only 8% as large as the independent ANOVA error term. This does not lead to an automatic increase in the F-statistic as
there are a greater number of degrees of freedom for SSw than SSerror. However, it is usual for SSsubjects to account for such a
large percentage of the within-groups variability that the reduction in the error term is large enough to more than compensate
for the loss in the degrees of freedom (as used in selecting an F-distribution).

3. Matched Pairs Design

If we cannot use a repeated measures design it is sometimes possible to match every subject in one
group with a very similar person in the other group. In order to get the pairing precise enough, it is
common to get one group of participants together and then look round for partners for everyone.
Participants can be matched on variables which are considered to be relevant to the experiment in

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 141

question. For example, pairs of participants might be matched for age, gender and their scores from
intelligence or personality tests. Although this design combines the key benefits of both an
independent and repeated measures design, achieving matched pairs of participants is a difficult and
time consuming task which may be too costly to undertake. Successful use of a matched pairs design
is heavily dependent on the use of reliable and valid procedures for pre-testing participants to
obtain matched the pairs.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 142

Pairs of participants are matched on appropriate variables For example -

relevant to the experiment; the members of each pair are then Allocation of participants in the
allocated to each condition (sometimes randomly). Separate experimental design
groups are used but participants are matched between one Condition A Condition B
another for similar characteristics or traits such as age, P1a P1b
gender, IQ, nationality etc. This is to try and control for P2a P2b
possible individual differences and stop them affecting the P3b P3a.....and so on.
results.
For example, if you have two groups both being tested on memory recall. Both groups have
participants that have been matched as closely to one another as possible based on relevant traits
such as age, gender, similar background etc. The different methods of testing recall such as words
only or words and pictures. The two groups would be tested with one group doing words only while
the other group does pictures and words. As each participant is believed to be accordingly ‘matched’
they compare the results to see which condition (words only or words and pictures) results in better
recall.
Advantages
 Matching participants as close as possible on measurable traits may help control for individual
differences affecting the results.
 This design is better suited when a repeated measures design may not work due to an order
effect occurring which may affect results.
Weaknesses
 Trying to match participants for similar traits is very time consuming.
 Trying to match people exactly is impossible as there will always be individual differences from
one person to another.
 The sample may be smaller as trying to find a large sample of people matching across similar
traits may be difficult. This may mean the findings may lack external validity.

6.5.11 TWO MATCHED GROUPS DESIGN

Matched group design (also known as matched subjects design) is used in experimental research in
order for different experimental conditions to be observed while being able to control for individual
difference by matching similar subjects or groups with each other. In a matched subjects designs,
researchers attempt to emulate some of the strengths of within subjects designs and between
subjects designs. A matched subject design uses separate experimental groups for each particular
treatment, but relies upon matching every subject in one group with an equivalent in another. The
idea behind this is that it reduces the chances of an influential variable skewing the results by
negating it. A matched groups design may be used to create comparable groups when there are too
few subjects for random assignment to work effectively. Matching subjects on the dependent
variable task is the best approach for creating matched groups, followed by matching subjects on a
task that is from the same category as the dependent variable. After subjects are matched on the
matching task they should then be randomly assigned to the conditions of the independent variable.
Matched-group design is an experimental design for research studies which requires both the
experimental and control groups are similar or matched on background characteristics (such as -
marital status) before being exposed to the variables the study is looking at whether they have an
overall effect.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 143

Matched-subjects designs use different participants in each group, but the participants have been
closely matched before assignment to conditions. The characteristics are –
 Each participant is exposed to only one level of the independent variable.
 Each participant has a matched participant in each of the other conditions, so the groups are
correlated.
 Only one measurement per participant on the dependent variable is used, and the analysis takes
into account the matching.
 The critical comparison is the difference between the correlated groups.

Matched subjects designs are often used in education, giving researchers a useful way to compare
treatments without having to use huge and randomized groups. For example, a study to compare two
new methods for teaching reading uses a matched subject research program. The researchers want
to compare two methods, the current method and a modern method. They select two groups of
children and match pairs of children across the two groups according to ability, using the results of
their last reading comprehension test. If the researchers wanted to test another method, they
would have to find three comparable children to compare between the three groups.
It is also possible to match for more than one variable. For example, a study to test whether a daily
exercise routine improved the cardio-vascular health in the inhabitants of a nursing home could
match subjects for age and gender. It may also be possible to match smokers and ex-smokers.
Obviously, given the complexity of humans and the sheer number of factors that can influence
behavior, this is exceptionally difficult for every factor, without huge groups and making the
project unnecessarily complex, especially if you are testing multiple treatments.
Matched Subjects Design
Subject 1 Pretest Treatment A Posttest

Subject 2 Pretest Control Treatment Posttest

Subject 3 Pretest Treatment A Posttest

Subject 4 Pretest Control Treatment Posttest

Subject 5 Pretest Treatment A Posttest

Subject 6 Pretest Control Treatment Posttest

The overall goal of a matched subjects design is to emulate the conditions of a within subjects
design, whilst avoiding the temporal effects that can influence results. A within subjects design
tests the same people whereas a matched subjects design comes as close as possible to that and
even uses the same statistical methods to analyze the results. This eliminates the possibility of
differences between individuals affecting the results. The matched subjects design also utilizes the
strength of the between subjects design, in that every subject is tested only once, eliminating the
possibility of temporal factors, known as order effects, affecting the results. Whilst the design is
an excellent compromise between reducing order effects and smoothing out variation between
individuals, it is certainly not perfect. Even with careful matching of the pairs, there will always be
some variation. In the nursing home example, there are far too many factors influencing cardio-
vascular fitness that the researchers can only hope to match the most influential variables, which is

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 144

an approximation. In addition, the researcher might be incorrect in their assumptions about which
variables are the most important and miss a major confounding variable. Even the single variable may
have been measured incorrectly; in the educational example, one of the children may have had a
really bad day, been ill or suffered from nerves, giving her a much lower score than her reading
comprehension would indicate. Despite these disadvantages, matched subjects designs are useful,
allowing researchers to perform streamlined and focused research programs whilst maintaining a
good degree of validity.

6.5.12 BETWEEN SUBJECTS DESIGN

A between subjects design is a way of avoiding the carryover effects that can plague within
subjects designs, and they are one of the most common experiment types in some scientific
disciplines, especially psychology. The basic idea behind this type of study is that participants can
be part of the treatment group or the control group, but cannot be part of both. If more than one
treatment is tested, a completely new group is required for each. A group of researchers wants to
test some modifications to the educational program and decide upon three different modifications.
They pick a school and decide to use the four existing classes within an age group, assuming that the
spread of abilities is similar. Each group of children is given a different educational program, along
with a control group sticking with the original. All of the groups are tested, at the end, to determine
which program delivered the most improvement. If the researchers want to be a little more
accurate and reduce the chances of differences between the groups having an effect, they use
modifications of the design. For example, maybe one class had a great teacher and has always been
much more motivated than the others, a factor that would undermine the validity of the experiment.
To avoid this, randomization and matched pairs are often used to smooth out the differences
between the groups.
Between Subjects Design
Subject 1 Pretest Treatment A Posttest

Subject 2 Pretest Treatment A Posttest

Subject 3 Pretest Treatment B Posttest

Subject 4 Pretest Treatment B Posttest

Subject 5 Pretest Control Treatment Posttest

Subject 6 Pretest Control Treatment Posttest

Between subjects designs are invaluable in certain situations, and give researchers the opportunity
to conduct an experiment with very little contamination by extraneous factors. This type of design
is often called an independent measures design because every participant is only subjected to a
single treatment. This lowers the chances of participants suffering boredom after a long series of
tests or, alternatively, becoming more accomplished through practice and experience, skewing the
results.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 145

The main disadvantage with between subjects designs is that they can be complex and often require
a large number of participants to generate any useful and analyzable data. Because each participant
is only measured once, researchers need to add a new group for every treatment and manipulation.
Practicality: Researchers testing educational programs, for example, might need two groups of
twenty children for a control and test group. If they wanted to add a third program to the mix,
they would need another group of twenty children. For many research programs, the sheer scale of
the experiment and the resources required can make between subjects designs impractical. If the
condition tested is rare, then finding enough subjects becomes even more difficult.
Individual Variability: The other problem is that it is impossible to maintain homogeneity across the
groups; this method uses individuals, with all of their subtle differences, and this can skew data.
Age, gender and social class are just some of the obvious factors but intelligence, emotive quotient
and every other personality construct can influence the data. If, for example, you were using a
between subjects design to measure intelligence, how do you guarantee that emotion does not play a
role? Some people may be very intelligent but are nervous when completing tests, so achieve lower
scores than they should. These individual differences can create a lot of background noise, reducing
the effects of the statistics and obscuring genuine patterns and trends.
Assignment Bias: Imagine researchers comparing educational programs, and they decide to use two
schools as their participants. They find that there is a difference between the two groups and
conclude that treatment A is better than treatment B. However, they neglected to take into
account the fact that the schools contain children from different socio-economic backgrounds, and
this created assignment bias. A better idea would have been to use children from a single school or
use random assignment, but this is not always possible.
Generalization: Whilst it is easy to try to select subjects of the same age, gender and background,
this then opens the door for generalization issues, as you cannot then extrapolate the results to
encompass wider groups. Striking the best balance is one of the keys to conducting a between
subjects design. Failure to do this can lead to assignment bias, the ogre that threatens to destroy
this type of research.
Environmental Factors: Environmental variables are another major issue and usually arise from poor
research design. For example, imagine that the researchers used participants from a single school
and randomly assigned them. Due to time restrictions, they tested one group in the morning and one
in the afternoon. Many studies show that most people are at their mental peak in the morning, so
this will certainly have created an environmental bias.
These factors could very easily become confounding variables and weaken the results, so
researchers have to be extremely careful to eliminate as many of these as possible during the
research design. These disadvantages are certainly not fatal, but ensure that any researcher
planning to use a between subjects design must be very thorough in their experimental design.

6.5.13 FACTORIAL DESIGN

A Factorial design is a design in which two or more independent variables are simultaneously
investigated to determine the independent and interactive influence which they have on the
dependent variable. It also has random assignment to the groups. Each combination of independent
variables is called a ‘cell’. Research participants are randomly assigned to as many groups are there
are cells of the factorial design if both of the independent variables can be manipulated. The
research participants are administered the combination of independent variables that corresponds
to the cell to which they have been assigned and then they respond to the dependent variable. The

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 146

data collected from this research give information on the effect of each independent variable
separately and the interaction between the independent variables. The effect of each independent
variable on the dependent variable is called a ‘main effect’. There are as many main effects in a
factorial design as there are independent variables. If a research design included the independent
variables of gender and type of instruction, then there would potentially be two main effects, one
for gender and one for type of instruction. An ‘interaction effect’ between two or more independent
variables occurs when the effect which one independent variable has on the dependent variable
depends on the level of the other independent variable. For example, if gender is one independent
variable and method of teaching mathematics is another independent variable, an interaction would
exist if the lecture method was more effective for teaching males mathematics and individualized
instruction was more effective in teaching females mathematics.
Probably the easiest way to begin understanding factorial designs is by looking at an example. Let’s
imagine a design where we have an educational program where we would like to look at a variety of
program variations to see which works best. For instance, we would like to vary the amount of time
the students receive instruction with one group getting 1 hour of instruction per week and another
getting 4 hours per week. And, we’d like to vary the setting with one group getting the instruction
in-class (probably pulled off into a corner of the classroom) and the other group being pulled-out of
the classroom for instruction in another room. We could think about having four separate groups to
do this, but when we are varying the amount of time in instruction, what setting would we use - in-
class or pull-out? And, when we were studying setting, what amount of instruction time would we use:
1 hour, 4 hours, or something else?
In factorial designs, a factor is a major
independent variable. In this example we have Factors: Major Independent Variables
two factors - time in instruction and setting. A
Levels: Subdivisions
level is a subdivision of a factor. In this
of Factors
example, time in instruction has two levels and
setting has two levels. Sometimes we depict a
factorial design with a numbering notation. In Time in Instruction
this example, we can say that we have a 2 x 2
(‘two-by-two’) factorial design. In this 1 hour/week 4 hours/week
notation, the number of numbers tells you how
In-class

many factors there are and the number values Group 1 Group 3
tell you how many levels. If I said I had a 3 x 4 Average Average
Setting

factorial design, you would know that I had 2

factors and that one factor had 3 levels while
Pull-out

Group 2 Group 4
the other had 4. Order of the numbers makes
Average Average
no difference and we could just as easily term
this a 4 x 3 factorial design.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 147

The number of different treatment groups that we have in any factorial design can easily be
determined by multiplying through the number notation. For instance, in our example we have 2 x 2 =
4 groups. In our notational example, we would need 3 x 4 = 12 groups.
We can also depict a factorial design in design notation. Because of the R X11 O
R X12 O
treatment level combinations, it is useful to use subscripts on the treatment
R X21 O
(X) symbol. We can see in the figure that there are four groups, one for R X22 O
each combination of levels of factors.
It is also immediately apparent that the groups were randomly assigned and that this is a posttest-
only design. Now, let’s look at a variety of different results we might get from this simple 2 x 2
factorial design. In this example, the outcome might be a test of achievement in the subject being
taught. We will assume that scores on this test range from 1 to 10 with higher values indicating
greater achievement. You should study carefully the outcomes in each figure in order to understand
the differences between these cases.
Null Outcome: Let’s begin by looking at the ‘null’ The Null Case
case. The null case is a situation where the
Time
treatments have no effect. This figure assumes 1 hr 4 hrs
that even if we didn’t give the training we could Out 5 5 5 The lines in the
expect that students would score a 5 on average Setting In 5 5 5 graphs below
5 5 overlap each other
on the outcome test. You can see in this
hypothetical case that all four groups score an
average of 5 and therefore the row and column
averages must be 5. You can’t see the lines for
both levels in the graphs because one line falls
right on top of the other.
Main Effects: A main effect is an outcome that Main Effects
is a consistent difference between levels of a
Time
factor. For instance, we would say there’s a 1 hr 4 hrs
main effect for setting if we find a statistical Out 5 7 6 Main Effect of
Time
difference between the averages for the in- Setting In 5 7 6
class and pull-out groups, at all levels of time in 5 7
instruction. The first figure depicts a main
effect of time. For all settings, the 4
hour/week condition worked better than the 1
hour/week one. It is also possible to have a main
effect for setting (and none for time). In the
second main effect graph we see that in-class Main Effects

training was better than pull-out training for all

Time
amounts of time. Finally, it is possible to have a 1 hr 4 hrs
main effect on both variables simultaneously as Out 5 5 5 Main Effect of
Setting Setting
depicted in the third main effect figure. In this In 7 7 7
instance 4 hours/week always works better 6 6

than 1 hour/week and in-class setting always

works better than pull-out.

Interaction Effects: If we could only look at Main Effects

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 148

main effects, factorial designs would be useful.

Time
But, because of the way we combine levels in Main Effects of
1 hr 4 hrs
factorial designs, they also enable us to Out 5 7 6
Time and Setting
examine the interaction effects that exist Setting In 7 9 8
between factors. An interaction effect exists 6 8
when differences on one factor depend on the
level you are on another factor. It’s important
to recognize that an interaction is between
factors, not levels. We wouldn’t say there’s an
interaction between 4 hours/week and in-class
treatment. Instead, we would say that there’s Interaction Effects

an interaction between time and setting, and

Time
then we would go on to describe the specific 1 hr 4 hrs
The 1 hour amount
levels involved. There are three ways you can works well with
Out 7 5 6
pull-outs while the
determine there’s an interaction. First, when Setting In 5 7 6
4 hour works as
you run the statistical analysis, the statistical 6 6
well with in-class
table will report on all main effects and
interactions. Second, you know there’s an
interaction when can’t talk about effect on one
factor without mentioning the other factor. if
you can say at the end of our study that time in
instruction makes a difference, then you know
that you have a main effect and not an Interaction Effects
interaction (because you did not have to
Time
mention the setting factor when describing the 1 hr 4 hrs
The in-class 4
results for time). On the other hand, when you hour per week
Out 5 5 5
group differs
have an interaction it is impossible to describe Setting In 5 7 6
from all the
your results accurately without mentioning both 5 6
others
factors. Finally, you can always spot an
interaction in the graphs of group means -
whenever there are lines that are not parallel
there is an interaction present.

If you check out the main effect graphs above, you will notice that all of the lines within a graph are
parallel. In contrast, for all of the interaction graphs, you will see that the lines are not parallel. In
the first interaction effect graph, we see that one combination of levels - 4 hours/week and in-class
setting - does better than the other three. In the second interaction we have a more complex
‘cross-over’ interaction. Here, at 1 hour/week the pull-out group does better than the in-class group
while at 4 hours/week the reverse is true. Furthermore, the both of these combinations of levels do
equally well.
Factorial design has several important features. First, it has great flexibility for exploring or
enhancing the ‘signal’ (treatment) in studies. Whenever we are interested in examining treatment
variations, factorial designs should be strong candidates as the designs of choice. Second, factorial
designs are efficient. Instead of conducting a series of independent studies we are effectively able
to combine these studies into one. Finally, factorial designs are the only effective way to examine
interaction effects.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 149

Three-level Factorial Designs: Three-level designs are useful for investigating quadratic effects.
The three-level design is written as a 3k factorial design. It means that k factors are considered,
each at 3 levels. These are (usually) referred to as low, intermediate and high levels. These levels
are numerically expressed as 0, 1, and 2. One could have considered the digits -1, 0, and +1, but this
may be confusing with respect to the 2-level designs since 0 is reserved for center points.
Therefore, we will use the 0, 1, 2 scheme. The reason that the three-level designs were proposed is
to model possible curvature in the response function and to handle the case of nominal factors at 3
levels. A third level for a continuous factor facilitates investigation of a quadratic relationship
between the response and each of the factors. Three-level design may require prohibitive number of
runs. Unfortunately, the three-level design is prohibitive in terms of the number of runs, and thus in
terms of cost and effort. For example a two-level design with center points is much less expensive
while it still is a very good (and simple) way to establish the presence or absence of curvature.
The 32 design: The simplest 3-level
design - with only 2 factors. This is the
simplest three-level design. It has two
factors, each at three levels. The 9
treatment combinations for this type of
design can be shown pictorially. A
notation such as ‘20’ means that factor
A is at its high level (2) and factor B is
at its low level (0).
The 33 design: The model and 3
Table of Treatments for the 3 Design
treatment runs for a 3 factor, 3-level Factor A
design. This is a design that consists of Factor B Factor C 0 1 2
three factors, each at three levels. It 0 0 000 100 200
can be expressed as a 3 x 3 x 3 = 33 0 1 001 101 201
design. In such cases, main effects have 0 2 002 102 202
1 0 010 110 210
(3-1) = 2 degrees of freedom, two-
1 1 011 111 211
factor interactions have 22 = 4 degrees 1 2 012 112 212
of freedom and k-factor interactions 2 0 020 120 220
k 2 1 021 121 221
have 2 degrees of freedom. The model
3 2 2 022 122 222
contains (3 - 1) = 26 degrees of
freedom. In this model we see that i =
1, 2, 3, and similarly for j and k, making
27 treatments.
A factorial design is often used by scientists wishing to understand the effect of two or more
independent variables upon a single dependent variable. Traditional research methods generally
study the effect of one variable at a time, because it is statistically easier to manipulate. However,
in many cases, two factors may be interdependent, and it is impractical or false to attempt to
analyze them in the traditional way. Social researchers often use factorial designs to assess the
effects of educational methods, whilst taking into account the influence of socio-economic factors
and background. Agricultural science, with a need for field-testing, often uses factorial designs to
test the effect of variables on crops. In such large-scale studies, it is difficult and impractical to
isolate and test each variable individually. Factorial experiments allow subtle manipulations of a
larger number of interdependent variables. Whilst the method has limitations, it is a useful method
for streamlining research and letting powerful statistical methods highlight any correlations.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 150

Factorial designs are extremely useful to psychologists and field scientists as a preliminary study,
allowing them to judge whether there is a link between variables, whilst reducing the possibility of
experimental error and confounding variables. The factorial design, as well as simplifying the
process and making research cheaper, allows many levels of analysis. As well as highlighting the
relationships between variables, it also allows the effects of manipulating a single variable to be
isolated and analyzed singly. The main disadvantage is the difficulty of experimenting with more
than two factors, or many levels. A factorial design has to be planned meticulously, as an error in
one of the levels, or in the general operationalization, will jeopardize a great amount of work. Other
than these slight detractions, a factorial design is a mainstay of many scientific disciplines,
delivering great results in the field.

6.5.14 SEMI – EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Semi-experiments are the simplest form of research design. In a semi-experiment either a single
group or multiple groups are observed subsequent to some agent or treatment presumed to cause
change.
Quasi-Experimental Design
Quasi-experimental design is a form of experimental research used extensively in the social
sciences and psychology. Whilst regarded as unscientific and unreliable, by physical and biological
scientists, the method is, nevertheless, a very useful method for measuring social variables. Quasi-
experimental design involves selecting groups, upon which a variable is tested, without any random
pre-selection processes. For example, to perform an educational experiment, a class might be
arbitrarily divided by alphabetical selection or by seating arrangement. The division is often
convenient and, especially in an educational situation, causes as little disruption as possible. After
this selection, the experiment proceeds in a very similar way to any other experiment, with a
variable being compared between different groups, or over a period of time. Quasi experiments
resemble quantitative and qualitative experiments, but lack random allocation of groups or proper
controls, so firm statistical analysis can be very difficult. Quasi experiments are studies that aim to
evaluate interventions but that do not use randomization. Like randomized trials, quasi experiments
aim to demonstrate causality between an intervention and an outcome. The randomized, controlled
trial is generally considered to have the highest level of credibility with regard to assessing
causality; however, in a hospital or public health setting, the intervention often cannot be
randomized, for one or more reasons: (1) ethical considerations, (2) an inability to randomize
patients, (3) an inability to randomize locations, and (4) a need to intervene quickly.
In the social sciences literature, quasi-experimental studies are divided into 3 study design
categories. Quasi-experimental study designs that -
(1) do not use control groups; (2) use control groups but no pretest; and (3) use control groups and
pretests.
Quasi-experimental designs came about because of -
a. difficulty of applying the classical natural science method to the social sciences;
b. overemphasis on theory testing and development;
c. high cost of classic natural science methods;
d. evelopment of new statistical tools that allowed for statistical control.
Advantages
 Especially in social sciences, where pre-selection and randomization of groups is often difficult,
they can be very useful in generating results for general trends.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 151

 Quasi-experimental design is often integrated with individual case studies; the figures and
results generated often reinforce the findings in a case study, and allow some sort of statistical
analysis to take place.
 In addition, without extensive pre-screening and randomization needing to be undertaken, they
do reduce the time and resources needed for experimentation.
Weaknesses
 Without proper randomization, statistical tests can be meaningless.
 A quasi experiment constructed to analyze the effects of different educational programs on
two groups of children, for example, might generate results that show that one program is more
effective than the other. These results will not stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny because
the researcher also need to control other factors that may have affected the results. This is
really hard to do properly.
 One group of participants may have been slightly more intelligent or motivated. Without some
form of pre-testing or random selection, it is hard to judge the influence of such factors.
There are several types of quasi-experimental designs, including –
1. One Group Pre-test / Post-test Design
2. Non-equivalent Comparison Group Design
3. Interrupted Time Series Design
1. One Group Pretest-Posttest Design
The one-group pretest-posttest design is a research design where one group of participants is
pretested on the dependent variable and then posttested after the treatment condition has been
administered. This is a commonly used study design.
A single pretest observational measurement (O1) Pretest Treatment Posttest
is made, an intervention (XT) is implemented, and O1 XT O2
a posttest measurement (O2) is made. This is a
better design than the one-group posttest-only
design because it at least includes a pretest, Compare
that indicates how the participants did prior to One-group pretest-posttest design in which
administration of the treatment condition. XT is the treatment; O1 and O2 represent the
pretest and posttest assessment.
In this design, the effect is taken to be the difference between the pretest and posttest scores. It
does not control for potentially confounding extraneous variables such as history, maturation,
testing, instrumentation, and regression artifacts, so it is still difficult to identify the effect of the
treatment condition. Researchers sometimes attempt to approximate pretest data by asking
participants for their recollections of a ‘before’ state. This is sometime referred to as a ‘proxy
pretest-posttest design’. Obviously this has all of the validly and reliability problems of the one-
group pretest-posttest design plus all of the additional problems of recall. While this is not a true
cause-effect (experimental) design, it can be a useful as an exploratory device in anticipation of
eventually conducting a true cause-effect study. This is the reason we include this design and others
like it under its own broad category of research designs called ‘Semi-Experimental Designs’.
Post-Test Only: A common form of experiment is to apply the treatment and measure the results,
for example a training course is followed by testing their knowledge as compared to a control group
who are not given the training.
Posttest Only Design With Non-Equivalent Control Groups: The posttest-only design with
nonequivalent group includes an experimental group that receives the treatment condition and a

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 152

control group that does not receive the treatment condition or receives some standard condition.
Both the groups are posttested on the dependent variable.
In this design, which uses two groups, one group Treatment Posttest
is given the treatment and the results are XT O2
gathered at the end. The control group receives
no treatment, over the same period of time, but ---------------- --------------- Compare
undergoes exactly the same tests. Statistical
analysis can then determine if the intervention XC O2
had a significant effect. For example, one group The posttest-only design with nonequivalent
is given a medicine, whereas the control group is groups in which XT = experimental treatment;
given none, and this allows the researchers to XC = control or standard treatment and O2
determine if the drug really works. represent the posttest assessment.
This type of design, whilst commonly using two groups, can be slightly more complex. For example, if
different dosages of a medicine are tested, the design can be based around multiple groups. Whilst
this posttest only design does find many uses, it is limited in scope and contains many threats to
validity. It is very poor at guarding against assignment bias, because the researcher knows nothing
about the individual differences within the control group and how they may have affected the
outcome. Even with randomization of the initial groups, this failure to address assignment bias
means that the statistical power is weak. The results of such a study will always be limited in scope
and, resources permitting; most researchers use a more robust design, of which pretest-posttest
designs are one. The posttest only design with non-equivalent groups is usually reserved for
experiments performed after the fact, such as a medical researcher wishing to observe the effect
of a medicine that has already been administered.
Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design: The pretest-posttest control-group design is a strong
research design in which a group of research participants is randomly assigned to an experimental
and control group. This is, by far, the simplest and most common of the pretest-posttest designs,
and is a useful way of ensuring that an experiment has a strong level of internal validity. The
principle behind this design is relatively simple, and involves randomly assigning subjects between
two groups, a test group and a control. Both groups are pre-tested, and both are post-tested, the
ultimate difference being that one group was administered the treatment. Here is a picture of it in
its basic form –
Pretest Treatment Posttest
Experimental Group O1 XT O2

Sample of Randomly
research assigned to
participants
Control Group O1 XC O2
Pretest-posttest control-group design in which XT represents the treatment condition; XC represents the control or
standard treatment condition; O1 & O2 represent the pretest and posttest assessment of the dependent variable.

This test allows a number of distinct analyses, giving researchers the tools to filter out
experimental noise and confounding variables. The internal validity of this design is strong, because
the pretest ensures that the groups are equivalent. The various analyses that can be performed
upon a two-group control group pretest-posttest designs are –
Randomized Pretest Treatment Posttest
Groups
Treated
Group
Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir
Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 153

A
B C
A1
Control
Group

1. This design allows researchers to compare the final posttest results between the two groups,
giving them an idea of the overall effectiveness of the intervention or treatment. (C)
2. The researcher can see how both groups changed from pretest to posttest, whether one, both
or neither improved over time. If the control group also showed a significant improvement, then
the researcher must attempt to uncover the reasons behind this. (A and A1)
3. The researchers can compare the scores in the two pretest groups, to ensure that the
randomization process was effective. (B)
These checks evaluate the efficiency of the randomization process and also determine whether the
group given the treatment showed a significant difference.
Posttest-Only Control Group Design:The posttest-only control group design is a research design in
which the research participants are randomly assigned to an experimental and control group; and
then post tested on the dependent variable after the experimental group has received the
experimental treatment condition. This is an excellent research design because it includes a control
or comparison group and has random assignment. Just like the previous design, it controls for all of
the standard threats to internal validity. Differential attrition may or may not be a problem
depending on what happens during the conduct of the experiment. This design does not include a
pretest of the dependent variable, but this does not detract from its internal validity because it
includes the control group and random assignment which means that the experimental and control
groups are equated at the outset of the experiment. Here is a picture of it –
Treatment Posttest
Control Group XC O2

Sample of Randomly
research assigned to
participants
Experimental Group XT O2
Posttest-only control-group design in which XC is the control condition; XT is the treatment condition and O2 is the
posttest assessment.

2. Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design/ Non-Equivalent Groups Design (NEGD)

The Non-Equivalent Groups Design (hereafter NEGD) is probably the most frequently used design in
social research. It is structured like a pretest-posttest randomized experiment, but it lacks the key
feature of the randomized designs - random assignment. In the NEGD, we most often use intact
groups that we think are similar as the treatment and control groups. In education, we might pick
two comparable classrooms or schools. In community-based research, we might use two similar
communities. We try to select groups that are as similar as possible so we can fairly compare the
treated one with the comparison one. But we can never be sure the groups are comparable. Or, put
another way, it’s unlikely that the two groups would be as similar as they would if we assigned them
through a random lottery. Because it’s often likely that the groups are not equivalent, this designed
was named the nonequivalent groups design to remind us. In one sense, ‘Nonequivalent’ just means
that assignment to group was not random. In other words, the researcher did not control the

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 154

assignment to groups through the mechanism of random assignment. As a result, the groups may be
different prior to the study. That is, the NEGD is especially susceptible to the internal validity
threat of selection. Any prior differences between the groups may affect the outcome of the study.
Under the worst circumstances, this can lead us to conclude that our program didn’t make a
difference when in fact it did, or that it did make a difference when in fact it didn’t. This is a
design that contains a treatment group and a nonequivalent untreated comparison group about of
which are administered pretest and posttest measures. The groups are ‘nonequivalent’ because you
lack random assignment (although there are some control techniques that can help make the groups
similar such as matching and statistical control). Because of the lack of random assignment, there is
no assurance that the groups are highly are similar at the outset of the study. Here is a depiction of
the nonequivalent comparison-group design -
Pretest Treatment Posttest
Measure Measure
Experimental Group O1 XT O2

-----------------------------------------------------
Control Group O1 XC O2
Non-equivalent comparison group design. The dashed line indicates nonrandom assignment to comparison groups.

This design has several important characteristics. First, the design has pretest and posttest
measures for all participants. Second, the design calls for two groups, one which gets some program
or treatment and one which does not (termed the ‘program’ and ‘comparison’ groups respectively).
Third, the two groups are nonequivalent, that is, we expect that they may differ prior to the study.
Often, nonequivalent groups are simply two intact groups which are convenient to the researcher
(e.g., two classrooms, two states, two cities, two mental health centers, etc.). Because there is no
random assignment to groups, confounding variables (rather than the independent variable) may
explain any difference observed between the experimental and control groups. The most common
threat to the internal validity of this type of design is differential selection. The problem is that
the groups may be different on many variables that are also related to the dependent variable (e.g.,
age, gender, IQ, reading ability, attitude, etc.). Here is a list of all of the primary threats to this
design.
Selectiion Bias: Because groups are nonequivalent, there will always be a potential differential selection bias. However, the pretest allows
exploration of the possible size and direction of the bias on any variables measured at pretesting.
Selection Maturation: A selection maturation bias may exist if one group of participants becomes more experienced, tired, or bored than
participants in the other group.
Selection Instrumentation: A selection instrumentation bias may exist if the nature of the dependent variable or the way it is measured varies
across the nonequivalent groups.
Selection Regression: A selection regression bias may exist if the two groups are from different populations such as the expeimental treatment
group being from a population of individuals with low reading scores and the comparison group being from a population of individuals with high
reading scores.
Selection History: A selection history bias may exist if an event occuring between the pretest and posttest affects one group more than the
other group.

It is a good idea to collect data that can be used to demonstrate that key confounding variables are
not the cause of the obtained results. Hence, you will need to think about potential rival
explanations during the planning phase of your research study so that you can collect the necessary
data to control for these factors. You can eliminate the influence of many confounding variables by
using the various control techniques, especially statistical control (where you measure the
confounding variables at the pretest and control for them using statistical procedures after the
study has been completed) and matching (where you select people to be in the groups so that the
members in the different groups are similar on the matching variables). Only when you can rule out

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 155

the effects of confounding variables can you confidently attribute the observed group difference at
the posttest to the independent variable.
Nonequivalent Group Posttest Only: The nonequivalent, posttest only design consists of
administering an outcome measure to two groups or to a program/treatment group and a comparison.
For example, one group of students might receive reading instruction using a whole language program
while the other receives a phonetics-based program. After twelve weeks, a reading comprehension
test can be administered to see which program was more effective. A major problem with this
design is that the two groups might not be necessarily the same before any instruction takes place
and may differ in important ways that influence what reading progress they are able to make. For
instance, if it is found that the students in the phonetics groups perform better, there is no way of
determining if they are better prepared or better readers even before the program and/or
whether other factors are influential to their growth.
Nonequivalent Group Pretest-Posttest: The nonequivalent group, pretest-posttest design partially
eliminates a major limitation of the nonequivalent group posttest only design. At the start of the
study, the researcher empirically assesses the differences in the two groups. With this design, both
a control group and an experimental group is compared, however, the groups are chosen and assigned
out of convenience rather than through randomization. Therefore, if the researcher finds that one
group performs better than the other on the posttest, s/he can rule out initial differences (if the
groups were in fact similar on the pretest) and normal development (e.g. resulting from typical home
literacy practices or other instruction) as explanations for the differences. Some problems still
might result from students in the comparison group being incidentally exposed to the treatment
condition, being more motivated than students in the other group, having more motivated or involved
parents, etc. Additional problems may result from discovering that the two groups do differ on the
pretest measure. If groups differ at the onset of the study, any differences that occur in test
scores at the conclusion are difficult to interpret.
3. Time Series Design/ Interrupted Time Series Design
Time series designs refer to the pre-testing and post-testing of one group of subjects at different
intervals. The purpose might be to determine long term effect of treatment and therefore the
number of pre- and posttests can vary from one each to many. Sometimes there is an interruption
between tests in order to assess the strength of treatment over an extended time period. When
such a design is employed, the posttest is referred to as follow-up. Here is a depiction of the
interrupted time-series design –
Multiple Pretests Treatment Multiple Posttests

01 02 03 04 05 XT 06 07 08 09 010
In time series designs, several assessments (or measurements) are obtained from the treatment
group as well as from the control group. This occurs prior to and after the application of the
treatment. The series of observations before and after can provide rich information about
participants. Because measures at several points in time prior and subsequent to the program are
likely to provide a more reliable picture of achievement, the time series design is sensitive to trends
in performance. Thus, this design, especially if a comparison group of similar students is used,
provides a strong picture of the outcomes of interest. Nevertheless, although to a lesser degree,
limitations and problems of the nonequivalent group, pretest-posttest design still apply to this
design.
The pretesting phase is called the baseline which refers to the observation of a behavior prior to
the presentation of any treatment designed to alter the behavior of interest. A treatment effect is

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 156

demonstrated only if the pattern of posttreatment responses differs from the pattern of
pretreatment responses. That is, the treatment effect is demonstrated by a discontinuity in the
pattern of pretreatment and posttreatment responses. For example, an effect is demonstrated
when there is a change in the level and/or slope of the posttreatment responses as compared to the
pretreatment responses. Many confounding variables are ruled out in the interrupted time-series
design because they are present in both the pretreatment and posttreatment responses (i.e., the
pretreatment and posttreatment responses will not differ on most confounding variables). However,
the main potentially confounding variable that cannot be ruled out is a history effect. The history
threat is a plausible rival explanation if some event other than the treatment co-occurs with the
onset of the treatment.
This type of design works best if the treatment (independent variable) is expected to have an
immediate, marked effect, and if the treatment is introduced (implemented) all at once in all
relevant situations. However, the results may be difficult to interpret, especially if no statistically
significant differences are found. Researchers must often collect qualitative data to supplement and
interpret the quantitative measurements.
The addition of a second time series for a comparison group helps to provide a check on some of the
threats to validity of the ‘Single Interrupted Time Series Design’. This design uses several waves of
observation in both groups (treatment and comparison groups) before and after the introduction of
the independent variable XT in the treatment group. It is diagrammed as follows -
Treatment Group: O1 O2 O3 O4 XT O5 O6 O7 O8
Comparison Group: O1 O2 O3 O4 - O5 O6 O7 O8

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 157

The general goal of quasiexperimental research is to investigate cause and effect relationships. This approach to research
allows for greater understanding of program features and practices. Because there is a loss of control in the
quasiexperimental design, it is necessary for the researcher to decide what and when to measure (Dawson, 1997). What
follows is a sample outline of designs. An X represents the group being exposed to a treatment or intervention. An O
represents an observation or measurement. Temporal order of events is designated from left to right. The dotted line in
each design is an indication of the lack of random assignment of subjects to the groups (Prater, 1983).
One-Group Posttest Design: The One-Group Posttest Design is a one-shot case study. It
simply has a treatment, X, and posttest, O with no control group. This design is best X O
implemented as an evaluation model. It should be used only when there is no available comparison group or pretest data.
Static-Group Comparison Design: In the Static-Group Comparison Design, a pre-test, X, is
given to only one group, while the post-test, O, is given to both the control and experimental X O
group. This design is comparable to the One-Group Posttest Design, with the addition of a ----------------
control group for comparison purposes. No randomization is present, instead two groups are O
arbitrarily selected, and one is labeled as experimental and the other control.
Nonequivalent Control-Group Design: The most common quasiexperimental design is the O1 X O2
Nonequivalent Control-Group Design. The design includes at least an experimental and control ---------------
group. It mirrors the Pretest-Posttest control group experimental design, but instead of O2 O2
randomization, naturally occurring comparison groups are selected to be as alike as possible
(Gribbons & Herman, 1997).
Time Series Design: With a Time Series Design, observations are taken (in this case three) to establish a baseline; a
treatment then occurs, X, followed by additional observations being made. From this, an
estimate of the impact the treatment made is computed (Gribbons & Herman, 1997; O1 O2 O3 X O4 O5 O6
Morgan, Gliner & Harmon, 2000). The design can be employed to establish a baseline
measure, describe a change over time or to keep track of trends. Data are almost always Pretest Posttest
presented in a graph.
Multiple Time Series Design: The Multiple Time Series Design is simply an extension of O1 O2 O3 X O4 O5 O6
the Time Series Design with the addition of a comparison group. It attempts to model ----------------------
what would have happened to the experimental group if the treatment or intervention had O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6
not taken place. The addition of the control adds credibility, even without randomization. Pretest Posttest
Equivalent Materials Design: In the Equivalent Materials
Design, different, equivalent materials are represented Ma X1 O Mb X0 O Mc X1 O Md X0 O
throughout with Ma,b,c,d. The treatments and repeats of treatments, X0,1, are applied and then observed. In addition to the
aforementioned designs, there are elaborate extensions, such as the Latin-square Design (Fortune & Hutson, 1984).

Quasiexperimental Versus Experimental Research: Quasiexperimental research and experimental

research both attempt to create a design scheme in which the concluded results can be thought of
as the best, most logical solution to the question at hand. Quasiexperimental designs tend to do this
through a comparison of existing groups. Experimental designs accomplish the same goal through
random assignment of individuals to interventions or treatments (Michigan State University, College
of Education, 2004). Experiments, especially large-scale, are designed to control for the influences
of extraneous variables. The goal is to allow for a maximum level of certainty regarding the impact
of an intervention. Specifically, experimental designs must have random selection of subject, use of
control groups, random assignments of individuals to the control and experimental groups, and
random assignment of groups to the intervention (Henrichsen, Smith & Baker, 1997). The strongest
comparisons are made through the ability to conduct a true experiment (Grib-bons & Herman, 1997).
To this extent, quasiexperimental designs attempt to rule out unrelated explanations so that the
outcome can be attributed only to the experimental intervention. The task is not as
straightforward, but through efforts such as matching subjects and statistical analysis, the true
experiment is mimicked (Morgan, Gliner & Harmon, 2000). Specifically, trend replaces the word
cause in quasiexperimental research. The goal of quasiexperimental research is to discover the one
trend that is a result of the treatment or intervention. Clearly, this is not a simple or direct task
and error exists in that process.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 158

The data collection and analyses are a point of overlap and a point of distinction between
experimental and quasiexperimental research. While standardized assessments are utilized in both
approaches, they are the singular mechanism to the experimental design. In contrast,
quasiexperimental design also utilizes such means as surveys, interviews, and observations. The
statistical techniques also have the same appearance, clean and simple. In contrast,
quasiexperimental research uses an array of analysis techniques including the t-test, but also
extending to correlation, regression, and factor analysis (Dims-dale & Kutner, 2004).
Quasiexperimental designs are typically employed if random assignment is not practical, or even
impossible. Without randomization, typical issues surface. Even with a comparison group, the concern
surfaces of how alike the groups are from the onset. Also, with the loss of control in
quasiexperimental designs, it is of concern whether both groups are in some manner exposed to the
intervention, intentionally or not. Nonetheless, the biggest weakness of quasiexperimental designs
may also indicate the greatest strength - a broader scope of the research design. The controlled,
randomized design of true experiments typically lends itself to a very limited, narrow view of the
topic of interest (Gribbons & Herman, 1997). In all cases, when human subjects are involved, there is
never a 100% guarantee that the results of an intervention can be completely attributed to the
intervention itself, with no regard for the opinions and practice of the individuals involved. Simply
stated, true experiments work well in laboratory settings. Quasiexperiments work well in natural
settings (Schoenfeld, 2006).
Identical Twins Study
The identical twins study has been used for a long time, to study the effects of environment and
genetics on human development. Some studies have tried to determine how genetics and
environmental factors contribute to intelligence, aggression or substance addictions. Most of the
twin’s studies compare identical twins, having 100% genetic similarity, with non identical twins, with
about 50% genetic similarity. The researcher compares the occurrence of an individual trait
between identical and fraternal twins. If the identical twins show more similarity for this trait than
the non-identical twins, then the excess is assumed to be down to genetic factors. This type of
analysis would then allow the researchers to estimate the heritability of specific traits and quantify
the effect of genetic factors on the individual trait. Psychologists have long known that a twin study
is not a true experimental design, but it has led to some interesting insights into the influence of
genes on human behavior. For this method, a number of assumptions have to be made; that the
identical twins share identical DNA profiles, and that the environmental factors are the same for all
participants.
There have been few criticisms of identical twin studies over the years. By their nature, and
because of small sample sizes, it is very difficult to quantitatively analyze the results and so all
experimentation tends to be observational; the sample groups cannot be random so statistical
analysis is impossible. The experimental methods assume that there is little difference in the
environmental factors between fraternal and identical twins, but there is a criticism that the
tendency of adults to treat identical twins in exactly the same way makes this assumption invalid.
Parents tend to dress identical twins the same way and encourage them to pursue the same
interests. The distinction between environmental factors and genetic influences may not be as black
and white as the identical twins study assumes. There is probably an interaction between genes and
environment and so the whole picture may be a lot more complex. In addition, the experiment tends
to assume that one gene affects one behavioral trait. Modern genetic research is showing that many
different genes can influence behavior.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 159

Twins studies are now trying to analyze the environmental factors more. Instead of assuming that
the environmental factors are the same, they are now contrasting shared family environment with
the individual events suffered by the individual twin. In addition, identical twins study is constantly
evolving into more complex forms, now taking into account whole families and other siblings in
addition to the twins. Research into the human genome is now resurrecting the studies of twins;
hereditary trends observed in an identical twins study can now be studied quantitatively in the
laboratory. It is now standard practice, when conducting twin’s research to analyze DNA from all
participants and this is bypassing many of the concerns about the twin study.

6.5.15 LATIN SQUARE DESIGN

Incomplete counterbalanced measures designs are a compromise, designed to balance the strengths
of counterbalancing with financial and practical reality. One such incomplete counterbalanced
measures design is the Latin Square, which attempts to circumvent some of the complexities and
keep the experiment to a reasonable size.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 160

With Latin Squares, a five-condition research program would look like this -
Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 Position 5
Order 1 A B C D E
Order 2 B C D E A
Order 3 C D E A B
Order 4 D E A B C
Order 5 E A B C D

The Latin Square design has its uses and is a good compromise for many research projects.
However, it still suffers from the same weakness as the standard repeated measures design in that
carryover effects are a problem. In the Latin Square, A always precedes B, and this means that
anything in condition A that potentially affects B will affect all but one of the orders. In addition, A
always follows E, and these interrelations can jeopardize the validity of the experiment.
The way around this is to use a balanced Latin Square, which is slightly more complicated but
ensures that the risk of carryover effects is much lower. For experiments with an even number of
conditions, the first row of the Latin Square will follow the formula 1, 2, n, 3, n-1, 4, n-2…, where n
is the number of conditions. For subsequent rows, you add one to the previous, returning to 1 after
n. Sounds complicated, so it is much easier to look at an example for a six condition experiment.
The subject groups are labelled A to F, the Subjects 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
columns represent the conditions tested, and the A 1 2 6 3 5 4
B 2 3 1 4 6 5
rows represent the subject groups .
C 3 4 2 5 1 6
As you can see, this ensures that every single D 4 5 3 6 2 1
condition follows every other condition once, E 5 6 4 1 3 2
allowing the researchers to pick out any F 6 1 5 2 4 3

carryover effects during the statistical analysis.

When an experiment with an odd number of 1 2 5 3 4 4 3 5 2 1
2 3 1 4 5
conditions is designed, the process is slightly 5 4 1 3 2
3 4 2 5 1
more complex and two Latin Squares are 4 5 3 1 2 1 5 2 4 3
needed to avoid carryover effects. The first 5 1 4 2 3 2 1 3 5 4
is created in exactly the same way and the 3 2 4 1 5
second is a mirror image.
With this design, every single condition follows another two times, and statistical tests allow
researchers to analyse the data. This balanced Latin Square is a commonly used instrument to
perform large repeated measured designs and is an excellent compromise between maintaining
validity and practicality. There are other variations of counterbalanced measures designs, but these
variations are by far the most common.

6.5.16 EXPLORATORY RESEARCH DESIGN

An exploratory design is conducted about a research problem when there are few or no earlier
studies to refer to or rely upon to predict an outcome. The focus is on gaining insights and
familiarity for later investigation or undertaken when research problems are in a preliminary stage
of investigation. Exploratory designs are often used to establish an understanding of how best to
proceed in studying an issue or what methodology would effectively apply to gathering information
about the issue. The goals of exploratory research are intended to produce the following possible
insights: Familiarity with basic details, settings, and concerns; Well grounded picture of the
situation being developed; Generation of new ideas and assumptions; Development of tentative
theories or hypotheses; Determination about whether a study is feasible in the future; Issues get

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 161

refined for more systematic investigation and formulation of new research questions; Direction for
future research and techniques get developed.
Advantages
 Design is a useful approach for gaining background information on a particular topic.
 Exploratory research is flexible and can address research questions of all types (what, why,
how).
 Provides an opportunity to define new terms and clarify existing concepts.
 Exploratory research is often used to generate formal hypotheses and develop more precise
research problems.
 In the policy arena or applied to practice, exploratory studies help establish research priorities
and where resources should be allocated.
Weaknesses
 Exploratory research generally utilizes small sample sizes and, thus, findings are typically not
generalizable to the population at large.
 The exploratory nature of the research inhibits an ability to make definitive conclusions about
the findings. They provide insight but not definitive conclusions.
 The research process underpinning exploratory studies is flexible but often unstructured,
leading to only tentative results that have limited value to decision-makers.
 Design lacks rigorous standards applied to methods of data gathering and analysis because one
of the areas for exploration could be to determine what method or methodologies could best fit
the research problem.

6.5.17 REVIEWING OTHER RESEARCH

Literature Review
A literature review is a critical and in depth evaluation of previous research. It is a summary and
synopsis of a particular area of research, allowing anybody reading the paper to establish why you
are pursuing this particular research program. A good literature review expands upon the reasons
behind selecting a particular research question. It is not a chronological catalog of all of the
sources, but an evaluation, integrating the previous research together, and also explaining how it
integrates into the proposed research program. All sides of an argument must be clearly explained,
to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted. It is not a collection
of quotes and paraphrasing from other sources. A good literature review should also have some
evaluation of the quality and findings of the research.
A good literature review should avoid the temptation of impressing the importance of a particular
research program. The fact that a researcher is undertaking the research program speaks for its
importance, and an educated reader may well be insulted that they are not allowed to judge the
importance for themselves. They want to be re-assured that it is a serious paper, not a pseudo-
scientific sales advertisement. As a general rule, certainly for a longer review, each paragraph
should address one point, and present and evaluate all of the evidence, from all of the differing
points of view. Conducting a good literature review is a matter of experience, and even the best
scientists have fallen into the trap of using poor evidence. This is not a problem, and is part of the
scientific process; if a research program is well constructed, it will not affect the results.
Systematic Reviews
Heavily used by the healthcare sector, systematic reviews are a powerful way of isolating and
critically evaluating previous research. Modern medical research generates so much literature, and

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 162

fills so many journals, that a traditional literature review could take months, and still be out of date
by the time that the research is designed and performed. To help medical professionals, specialist
compilers assess and condense the research, entering it into easily accessible research databases.
They are an integral part of the research process, and every student of medicine routinely receives
a long and extensive training in the best methods for critically evaluating literature.
The problems with narrative literature came to light a couple of decades ago, when critics realized
that reviewers looking at the same body of evidence often generated completely different findings.
They drew conclusions based upon their specialty, rather than the compelling evidence contained
within the body of research. It is unclear whether this was a case of conscious or subconscious
manipulation (bias), but this particular finding was worrying, especially in a research area where life
and death could be at stake. To address this issue, medical authorities developed a new protocol of
systematic reviewing, based upon a structure as strict as the scientific method governing empirical
research programs. The Protocols Underpinning Systematic Reviews are –
 Define a research question, in a similar way to formulating a research question for a standard
research design.
 Locate and select relevant previous research studies, with no attempt at evaluation at this
stage. Ideally, research in languages other than English should be used, and the researcher
should try to find papers and reports unpublished in journals, such as conference speeches or
company reports.
 Critically evaluate the studies. The reviewer should assess each study upon criteria based upon
quality, strength of the findings and validity. For safety, this process should include at least two
independent reviewers, although a greater number is advisable.
 Combine the results. This is the process of combining all of the findings, sometimes qualitatively,
but usually quantitatively, using meta-analysis.
 Publish the results. As with any research, the results have to be written and published, usually
with a system of independent review. Discussion of the conclusions, as with any research, allows
the validity of the findings to be verified.
Advantages
 The principle behind the systematic reviews process is that the researcher critically evaluates
previous studies, in a much more comprehensive and systematic way than a standard literature
review.
 In many cases, statistical meta-analysis tools are used to give the review a quantitative
foundation, allowing correlations to be documented and conclusions to be drawn.
 Whilst the techniques are mainly used by medicine and psychology, there is a growing trend
towards using systematic reviews in other disciplines. Many branches of science are becoming
increasingly fragmented and anarchic, so this layer of analysis aggregates all of the disparate
elements.
 Systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, are regarded as a cornerstone of healthcare research,
essential where it is impractical or unethical to keep repeating old research.
 In addition to the potential risks of repeated research upon patients and volunteers, there are
now laws in many countries prohibiting excessive research using animals. Systematic reviews are
a great way of reducing the amount of suffering caused by vivisection.
Weaknesses
 The main problem is the rapid advancement of medical research and technology, often meaning
that many reviews are out of date before they are even published, forcing researchers to

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 163

update their findings constantly. The development of specialist organizations for finding and
evaluating data minimizes the effects of this particular shortcoming.
 As with any subjective review, there is the problem of selection bias, where contradictory
research is jettisoned, although most medical researchers are adept at following the proper
procedures.
 Funding and research grants cause researchers to try to find results that suit their paymasters,
a growing problem in many areas of science, not just medicine. The specialist reviewers sidestep
this problem, to a certain extent, by producing independent research, uncorrupted by
governmental or private healthcare funding, curbing the worst excesses.
 Often, a blind system is used, and reviewers are unaware of where the papers they are reviewing
came from, or who they are written by. This lessens allegations of favoritism and judging
research by the reputation of the researcher rather than on merit.
Ultimately, all of the researchers to draw their own assessments, using their own experience to
judge the quality of the systematic review. Whilst not a perfect system, systematic reviews are far
superior to the traditional narrative approach, which often allows a lot of good research to fall
through the cracks.
Meta-Analysis Design
Meta-analysis is an analytical methodology designed to systematically evaluate and summarize the
results from a number of individual studies, thereby, increasing the overall sample size and the
ability of the researcher to study effects of interest. The purpose is to not simply summarize
existing knowledge, but to develop a new understanding of a research problem using synoptic
reasoning. The main objectives of meta-analysis include analyzing differences in the results among
studies and increasing the precision by which effects are estimated. A well-designed meta-analysis
depends upon strict adherence to the criteria used for selecting studies and the availability of
information in each study to properly analyze their findings. Lack of information can severely limit
the type of analyses and conclusions that can be reached. In addition, the more dissimilarity there is
in the results among individual studies (heterogeneity), the more difficult it is to justify
interpretations that govern a valid synopsis of results. A meta-analysis needs to fulfill the following
requirements to ensure the validity of findings –
 Clearly defined description of objectives, including precise definitions of the variables and
outcomes that are being evaluated;
 A well-reasoned and well-documented justification for identification and selection of the
studies;
 Assessment and explicit acknowledgment of any researcher bias in the identification and
selection of those studies;
 Description and evaluation of the degree of heterogeneity among the sample size of studies
reviewed; and
 Justification of the techniques used to evaluate the studies.

Social scientists have great difficulty in designing and implementing true experiments, so meta-
analysis gives them a quantitative tool to analyze statistically data drawn from a number of studies,
performed over a period of time. Medicine and psychology increasingly use this method, as a way of
avoiding time-consuming and intricate studies, largely repeating the work of previous research.
Advantages
 Can be an effective strategy for determining gaps in the literature.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 164

 Provides a means of reviewing research published about a particular topic over an extended
period of time and from a variety of sources.
 Is useful in clarifying what policy or programmitic actions can be justified on the basis of
analyzing research results from multiple studies.
 Provides a method for overcoming small sample sizes in individual studies that previously may
have had little relationship to each other.
 Can be used to generate new hypotheses or highlight research problems for future studies.
 Meta study can reduce the need for long, expensive and potentially intrusive repeated research
studies.
Weaknesses
 The main problem is that there is the potential for publication bias and skewed data.
 Small violations in defining the criteria used for content analysis can lead to difficult to
interpret and/or meaningless findings.
 A large sample size can yield reliable, but not necessarily valid, results.
 A lack of uniformity regarding, for example, the type of literature reviewed, how methods are
applied, and how findings are measured within the sample of studies you are analyzing, can make
the process of synthesis difficult to perform.
 Depending on the sample size, the process of reviewing and synthesizing multple studies can be
very time consuming.

6.5.18 MIXED – METHOD RESEARCH DESIGN

Mixed methods research represents more of an approach to examining a research problem than a
methodology. Mixed method is characterized by a focus on research problems that require, (1) an
examination of real-life contextual understandings, multi-level perspectives, and cultural influences;
(2) an intentional application of rigorous quantitative research assessing magnitude and frequency of
constructs and rigorous qualitative research exploring the meaning and understanding of the
constructs; and (3) an objective of drawing on the strengths of quantitative and qualitative data
gathering techniques to formulate a holistic interpretive framework for generating possible
solutions or new understandings of the problem. Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) proponents of
mixed methods argue that the design encompasses more than simply combining qualitative and
quantitative methods but, rather, reflects a new “third way” epistemological paradigm that occupies
the conceptual space between positivism and interpretivism.
Advantages
 Narrative and non-textual information can add meaning to numeric data, while numeric data can
add precision to narrative and non-textual information.
 Can utilize existing data while at the same time generating and testing a grounded theory
approach to describe and explain the phenomenon under study.
 A broader, more complex research problem can be investigated because the researcher is not
constrained by using only one method.
 The strengths of one method can be used to overcome the inherent weaknesses of another
method.
 Can provide stronger, more robust evidence to support a conclusion or set of recommendations.
 May generate new knowledge new insights or uncover hidden insights, patterns, or relationships
that a single methodological approach might not reveal.
 Produces more complete knowledge and understanding of the research problem that can be used
to increase the generalizability of findings applied to theory or practice.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 165

Weaknesses
 A researcher must be proficient in understanding how to apply multiple methods to investigating
a research problem as well as be proficient in optimizing how to design a study that coherently
melds them together.
 Can increase the likelihood of conflicting results or ambiguous findings that inhibit drawing a
valid conclusion or setting forth a recommended course of action (e.g., sample interview
responses do not support existing statistical data).
 Because the research design can be very complex, reporting the findings requires a well-
organized narrative, clear writing style, and precise word choice.
 Design invites collaboration among experts. However, merging different investigative approaches
and writing styles requires more attention to the overall research process than studies
conducted using only one methodological paradigm.
 Concurrent merging of quantitative and qualitative research requires greater attention to having
adequate sample sizes, using comparable samples, and applying a consistent unit of analysis.
 Due to multiple forms of data being collected and analyzed, this design requires extensive time
and resources to carry out the multiple steps involved in data gathering and interpretation.

6.6 OTHERS RESEARCH DESIGNS

Solomon Four Group Design
The Solomon four group design is a way of avoiding some of the difficulties associated with the
pretest-posttest design. This design is a combination of the pretest-posttest control group design
and the posttest only control group design. It is as good at controlling threats to internal and
external validity as the posttest only control group design, but superior to that design with respect
to statistical conclusion validity. However, it gains that advantage at the cost of considerably
greater expense and effort in the collection and analysis of the data. This design contains two extra
control groups, which serve to reduce the influence of confounding variables and allow the
researcher to test whether the pretest itself has an effect on the subjects. Whilst much more
complex to set up and analyze, this design type combats many of the internal validity issues that can
plague research. It allows the researcher to exert complete control over the variables and allows
the researcher to check that the pretest did not influence the results. The Solomon four group
test is a standard pretest-posttest two-group design and the posttest only control design. The
various combinations of tested and untested groups with treatment and control groups allows the
researcher to ensure that confounding variables and extraneous factors have not influenced the
results. Here are some examples of patterns of results from the Solomon four group design. Each
cell contains a posttest Mean. Where a pretest was given, it has indicated the pretest Mean in
parentheses.
Treatment
Treatment effect but no testing or Pre-tested Control X marginal
Testing x Treatment interaction no 10 30 20
yes 10 (10) 30 (10) 20
marginal 10 30 20
Treatment
Treatment and testing effects but no Pre-tested none X marginal
no 10 30 20
Testing x Treatment interaction
yes 20 (10) 40 (10) 30
marginal 15 35 25

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 166

Treatment
Treatment and testing effects and a Pre-tested none X marginal
no 10 30 20
Testing x Treatment interaction
yes 20 (10) 60 (10) 40
marginal 15 45 30
Solomon Four Group Design
Pretest Treatment Posttest

Group
A
A
B C
A1
Group
B
F

Group E G
C
D

Group
D

In the figure, A, A1, B and C are exactly the same as in the standard two group design. The first two
groups of the Solomon four group design are designed and interpreted in exactly the same way as in
the pretest-post-test design, and provide the same checks upon randomization.
 The comparison between the posttest results of groups C and D, marked by line ‘D’, allows the
researcher to determine if the actual act of pretesting influenced the results. If the
difference between the posttest results of Groups C and D is different from the Groups A and
B difference, then the researcher can assume that the pretest has had some effect upon the
results.
 The comparison between the Group B pretest and the Group D posttest allows the researcher to
establish if any external factors have caused a temporal distortion. For example, it shows if
anything else could have caused the results shown and is a check upon causality.
 The Comparison between Group A posttest and the Group C posttest allows the researcher to
determine the effect that the pretest has had upon the treatment. If the posttest results for
these two groups differ, then the pretest has had some effect upon the treatment and the
experiment is flawed.
 The comparison between the Group B posttest and the Group D posttest shows whether the
pretest itself has affected behavior, independently of the treatment. If the results are
significantly different, then the act of pretesting has influenced the overall results and is in
need of refinement.
The Solomon four group design is one of the benchmarks for sociological and educational research,
and combats most of the internal and external validity issues apparent in lesser designs. Despite the
statistical power and results that are easy to generalize, this design does suffer from one major
drawback that prevents it from becoming a common method of research - the complexity. A
researcher using a Solomon four group design must have the resources and time to use four

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

 Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 167

research groups, not always possible in tightly funded research departments. Most schools and
organizations are not going to allow researchers to assign four groups randomly because it will
disrupt their normal practice. Thus, a non-random assignment of groups is essential and this
undermines the strength of the design. Secondly, the statistics involved is extremely complex, even
in the age of computers and statistical programs. Unless the research is critical or funded by a
large budget and extensive team of researchers, most experiments are of the simpler pretest-
posttest research designs. As long as the researcher is fully aware of the issues with external
validity andgeneralization, they are sufficiently robust and a Solomon four group design is not
needed.
Multiple-Baseline Design
This is a design that investigates two or more people, behaviors, or settings to identify the effect
of an experimental treatment. Multiple-baseline designs are used when reversal designs are not
useful or are unethical. The key is that the treatment condition is successively administered to the
different people, behaviors, or settings. Here is a depiction of the design –
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Different people,
A Baseline Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment
different
B Baseline Baseline Treatment Treatment Treatment
behaviors, or
C Baseline Baseline Baseline Treatment Treatment
different settings
D Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Treatment
The multiple-baseline design requires that baseline behavior is collected on the several people,
behaviors, or settings and then the experimental treatment is successively administered to the
people, behaviors, or settings. The experimental treatment effect is demonstrated if a change in
response occurs when the treatment is administered to each person, behavior, or setting. Rival
hypotheses are unlikely to account for the changes in the behavior if the behavior change only
occurs after the treatment effect is administered to each successive person, behavior, or setting.
This design avoids the problem of failure to revert to baseline that can exist with the A-B-A and A-
B-A-B designs.
A-B-A and A-B-A-B Designs
The A-B-A design is a design in which the participant is repeatedly pretested (the first A phase or
baseline condition), then the experimental treatment condition is administered and the participant is
repeatedly posttested (the B phase or treatment phase). Following the posttesting stage, the
pretreatment conditions are reinstated and the participant is again repeatedly tested on the
dependent variable (the second A phase or the return to baseline condition). Here is a depiction of
the A-B-A design –
A-B-A Time Series Design
Baseline (A) Treatment (B) Baseline (A)
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O11 O12 O13 O14 O15
 The effect of the experimental treatment is demonstrated if the pattern of the pre- and
posttreatment responses (the first A phase and the B phase) differ and the pattern of
responses reverts back to the original pretreatment level when the pretreatment conditions are
reinstated (the second A or return to baseline phase).
 Including the second A phase controls for the potential rival hypothesis of history that is a
problem in a basic time series design (i.e., in an A-B design).

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 168

 Basically, you are looking for the ‘fingerprint’ of a stable baseline (during the first A phase),
then a clear jump or change in level or slope (during the B phase), and then a clear reversal or
return to the stable baseline (during the second A phase).
 For example, if you hope for low values on your dependent measure (e.g., talking out behavior),
you would hope to see a high-low-high pattern.
 Conversely, if you hope for high values on your dependent measure (e.g., attending to what the
teacher says), you would hope to see a low-high- low pattern.
 One limitation of the A-B-A design is that it ends with baseline condition or the withdrawal of
the treatment condition so the participant does not receive the benefit of the treatment
condition at the end of the experiment.
 This limitation can be overcome by including a fourth phase which adds a second administration
of the treatment condition so the design becomes an A-B-A-B design.
 A limitation of both the A-B-A and the A-B-A-B designs is that they are dependent on the
pattern of responses reverting to baseline conditions when the experimental treatment
condition is withdrawn. This may not occur if the experimental treatment is so powerful that its
effect continues even when the treatment is withdrawn.
 If a reversal to baseline conditions does not occur another design (such as the multiple-baseline
design) must be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment condition.
Bayesian Probability
Bayesian probability is the process of using probability to try to predict the likelihood of certain
events occurring in the future. Unlike traditional probability, which uses a frequency to try to
estimate probability, Bayesian probability is generally expressed as a percentage. In its most basic
form, it is the measure of confidence, or belief, that a person holds in a proposition. Using Bayesian
probability allows a researcher to judge the amount of confidence that they have in a particular
result. Frequency probability, via the traditional null hypothesis restricts the researcher to yes and
no answers. Bayesian methods are becoming another tool for assessing the viability of a research
hypothesis. To use Bayesian probability, a researcher starts with a set of initial beliefs, and tries to
adjust them, usually through experimentation and research. The original set of beliefs is then
altered to accommodate the new information. This process sacrifices a little objectivity for
flexibility, helping researchers to circumvent the need for a tortuous research design. A drug
company does not want to know whether a drug works or not, but assess if it works better than
existing treatments, giving a baseline for comparison. Drugs companies often ‘tinker’ with the
molecular structure of drugs, and do not want to design a new program each time. The researchers
will constantly reassess their Bayesian probability, or degree of belief, allowing them to concentrate
upon promising drugs and cutting short failing treatments. This reduces the risk to patients, the
timescale and the expense.
One simple example of Bayesian probability in action is rolling a die - Traditional frequency theory
dictates that, if you throw the dice six times, you should roll a six once. Of course, there may be
variations, but it will average out over time. This is where Bayesian probability differs. Imagine a
Bayesian specialist observing a game of dice in a casino. It is more than likely that he will begin with
the same 1 in 6 chance, or 16.67%. As the night wears on, he notices that the dice is turning up sixes
more than expected, and adjusts his belief. He begins to suspect that the dice is loaded, so leaves,
keeping his money in his pocket. Sticking with the gambling theme, consider a professional poker
player taking part in a game. Standard probability would state, assuming that all the players are of
equal ability and have a good ‘poker face’, that the game revolves around the frequencies and

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 169

chances of certain cards appearing. A similar, although more complex process is used to predict the
weather, based upon previous events and occurrences, and is right much more often than not.
Weather is a chaotic system, and these are notoriously difficult to predict by frequency probability.
Any regular computer user regularly makes use of Bayesian probability. Spam filters on e-mail
accounts make use of the Bayes theorem, and do a pretty good job. Whilst they do not intercept
every single spam e-mail, and may wrongly assign legitimate messages to the trash folder, they are
certainly better than having hundreds of junk messages waiting in the inbox every time the account
is opened. Every time the program makes an incorrect assumption, which is flagged by the recipient,
the new information feeds back into the model and facilitates a more accurate answer the next
time. This summarizes Bayesian probability very well - it is an extremely useful tool, more often
right than wrong, but it is only ever a guide. Many areas of science are adapting to this reworking of
an old theory, and it promises to fit alongside the traditional methods very well.
Changing-Criterion Design
This is a single-case design that is used when a behavior needs to be shaped over time or when it is
necessary to gradually change a behavior through successive treatment periods to reach a desired
criterion. This design involves collecting baseline data on the target behavior and then administering
the experimental treatment condition across a series of intervention phases where each
intervention phase uses a different criterion of successful performance until the desired criterion
is reached. The criterion used in each successive intervention phase should be large enough to
detect a change in behavior but small enough so that it can be achieved.

References
Kabir, S.M.S. (2016). Basic Guidelines for Research: An Introductory Approach for All
Disciplines. Book Zone Publication, ISBN: 978-984-33-9565-8, Chittagong-4203,
Bangladesh.
Kabir, S.M.S. (2017). Essentials of Counseling. Abosar Prokashana Sangstha, ISBN: 978-984-
8798-22-5, Banglabazar, Dhaka-1100.
Kabir, S.M.S., Mostafa, M.R., Chowdhury, A.H., & Salim, M.A.A. (2016). Bangladesher
Samajtattwa (Sociology of Bangladesh). Protik Publisher, ISBN: 978-984-8794-69-2,
Dhaka-1100.
Kabir, S.M.S. (2018). Psychological health challenges of the hill-tracts region for climate
change in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, Elsevier,34, 74–77.
Kabir, S.M.S., Aziz, M.A., & Jahan, A.K.M.S. (2018). Women Empowerment and Governance
in Bangladesh. ANTYAJAA: Indian journal of Women and Social Change, SAGE
Publications India Pvt. Ltd, 3(1), 1-12.
Alam, S.S. & Kabir, S.M.S. (2015). Classroom Management in Secondary Level: Bangladesh
Context. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(8), 1-4, ISSN
2250-3153, [Link].

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

 Chapter - 6 Research Design Page 170

Alam, S.S., Kabir, S.M.S., & Aktar, R. (2015). General Observation, Cognition, Emotion,
Social, Communication, Sensory Deficiency of Autistic Children. Indian Journal of
Health and Wellbeing, 6(7), 663-666, ISSN-p-2229-5356,e-2321-3698.
Kabir, S.M.S. (2013). Positive Attitude Can Change Life. Journal of Chittagong University
Teachers’ Association, 7, 55-63.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Mahtab, N. (2013). Gender, Poverty and Governance Nexus: Challenges and
Strategies in Bangladesh. Empowerment a Journal of Women for Women, Vol. 20, 1-12.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Jahan, A.K.M.S. (2013). Household Decision Making Process of Rural Women
in Bangladesh. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), ISSN:
2279-0845,Vol,10, Issue 6 (May. - Jun. 2013), 69-78. ISSN (Online): 2279-0837.
Jahan, A.K.M.S., Mannan, S.M., & Kabir, S.M.S. (2013). Designing a Plan for Resource
Sharing among the Selected Special Libraries in Bangladesh, International Journal of
Library Science and Research (IJLSR), ISSN 2250-2351, Vol. 3, Issue 3, Aug 2013, 1-20,
ISSN: 2321-0079.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Jahan, I. (2009). Anxiety Level between Mothers of Premature Born Babies
and Those of Normal Born Babies. The Chittagong University Journal of Biological
Science, 4(1&2), 131-140.
Kabir, S.M.S., Amanullah, A.S.M., & Karim, S.F. (2008). Self-esteem and Life Satisfaction of
Public and Private Bank Managers. The Dhaka University Journal of Psychology, 32, 9-
20.
Kabir, S.M.S., Amanullah, A.S.M., Karim, S.F., & Shafiqul, I. (2008). Mental Health and Self-
esteem: Public Vs. Private University Students in Bangladesh. Journal of Business and
Technology, 3, 96-108.
Kabir, S.M.S., Shahid, S.F.B., & Karim, S.F. (2007). Personality between Housewives and
Working Women in Bangladesh. The Dhaka University Journal of Psychology, 31, 73-
84.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Karim, S.F. (2005). Influence of Type of Bank and Sex on Self-esteem, Life
Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction. The Dhaka University Journal of Psychology, 29, 41-
52.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Rashid, U.K. (2017). Interpersonal Values, Inferiority Complex, and
Psychological Well-Being of Teenage Students. Jagannath University Journal of Life and
Earth Sciences, 3(1&2),127-135.

Basic Guidelines for Research SMS Kabir

View publication stats