Quasi-Experimental Research vs. True Experiments
November 18, 2012
I will compare and contrast quasi-experimental research and true experiments by addressing their weaknesses and strengths. Throughout my project I will give a detailed description of my experimental method used, as well as a thorough justification of why I selected this method as well as my sampling plan. I will also identify the target population, any ethical issues and my expected results. I will discuss the internal validity, external validity, limitations to my conclusion as well as my recommendations for future research.
True experiments are considered the most accurate form of experimental research and are used to prove or disprove a hypothesis, or theory. True experiments are excellent for showing a cause-and-effect relationship. There is a random assignment of subjects or groups to treatments in true experiments with only one variable manipulated and tested. Random assignment controls for extraneous variables. The difference between participants or groups is based purely on chance.
The strength of true experiments is causal control and strong internal validity. They are high on internal validity and variable being measured is clear. Randomization is the number one contributor to making an experiment a true experiment. Long term and reasonable sized sample groups; groups usually of more than 5-10 participants, are better for randomization. The strength of randomization is that it creates two or more groups that are approximately equivalent at the start of the research.
As a weakness of true experiments, bias may be in the overall research design.
The ethical considerations in true experiments are also a weakness. True experiments are seldom a good source of descriptive data about meaningful populations in experiments. The factors jeopardizing internal