Instrumentation is not a threat to internal validity in the one-shot case study

This occurs often in online surveys where individuals of specific demographics opt into the test at higher rates than other demographics.

Use of gain scores and covariance--the most used test is to compute pre-posttest gain scores for each group, and then to compute a t-test between the experimental and control groups on the gain scores. For example, a researcher created two test groups, the experimental and the control groups. A better procedure is to run a 2X2 ANOVA repeated measures, testing the pre-post difference as the within-subject factor, the group difference as the between-subject factor, and the interaction effect of both factors.

This does not mean, however, that the independent variable has no effect or that there is no relationship between dependent and independent variable.

If the children had been tested again before the course started, they would likely have obtained better scores anyway. History--this is controlled in that the general history events which may have contributed to the O1 and O2 effects would also produce the O3 and O4 effects. If there are insufficient observers to be randomly assigned to experimental conditions, the care must be taken to keep the observers ignorant of the purpose of the experiment.

However when observers or interviewers are being used, there exists a potential for problems. Cronbach is opposed to this notion. In this case the impact may be mitigated through the use of retrospective pretesting.

Interaction of selection and X--although selection is controlled for by randomly assigning subjects into experimental and control groups, there remains a possibility that the effects demonstrated hold true only for that population from which the experimental and control groups were selected.

Participants may remember the correct answers or may be conditioned to know that they are being tested. A treatment implemented around that period of time may be affected by a lack of supporting infrastructure.

Rather, you must test simultaneously the control and experimental groups. Whether internal validity or external validity is more important has been a controversial topic in the research community.

Interestingly enough, the US drug approval and monitoring processes seem to compartmentalize efficacy and effectiveness. Researchers concluded that workers improved their productivity because they were observed rather than better illumination.

A covariance analysis would use pretest means as the covariate. John Henry effect and Hawthorne effect: Nonetheless, the preceding problem is not surprising because usually the initial analysis tends to overfit the model to the data.

Threats to validity of Research Design

Diffusion[ edit ] If treatment effects spread from treatment groups to control groups, a lack of differences between experimental and control groups may be observed. The Hawthrone effect is similar to John Henery effect in the sense that the participants change their behaviors when they are aware of their role as research subjects.

Tests of significance for this design--although this design may be developed and conducted appropriately, statistical tests of significance are not always used appropriately.

Again, this does not mean that the independent variable produced no effect or that there is no relationship between dependent and independent variable. If this attrition is systematically related to any feature of the study, the administration of the independent variable, the instrumentation, or if dropping out leads to relevant bias between groups, a whole class of alternative explanations is possible that account for the observed differences.

Internal validity

Mortality--this was said to be controlled in this design, however upon reading the text, it seems it may or may not be controlled for. The economic recession is a good example.

As a result, a drug that could work well in a lab setting may fail in the real world. Learning gain might be observed from pre to posttest simply due to nature of the instrument.

Regression toward the mean This type of error occurs when subjects are selected on the basis of extreme scores one far away from the mean during a test.Threats to internal validity Ambiguous temporal precedence [ edit ] Lack of clarity about which variable occurred first may yield confusion about which variable is the cause and which is the effect.

Internal validity refers specifically to whether an experimental treatment/condition makes a difference or not, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. External validity refers to the generalizibility of the treatment/condition outcomes.

b In general, threats to internal validity are not addressed in the discussion section if the methods and results sections establish that the threat is unlikely to play a role in the study. Threat to internal validity - since the subjects of a control group are often deprived of something of value (the treatment), the control group may be compensated in some other way, possibly changing the results of the experiment.

Research Designs We will examine the operative threats to internal and external validity in twelve specific types of research designs. Some symbols to be used: R = Random Assignment X = Treatment Intervention O = Observation or Measurement Design 1: One-shot Case Study This is a widely-used research design in education.

The design of this study is: Post-test control group design High scores on variable X are associated with high scores on variable Y and low scores on variable X are associated with low scores on variable Y.

Instrumentation is not a threat to internal validity in the one-shot case study
Rated 0/5 based on 5 review