Ethics

A true experiment would, for example, randomly assign children to a scholarship, in order to control
for all other variables. Quasi-experiments are commonly used in social sciences, public health,
education, and policy analysis, especially when it is not practical or reasonable to randomize study
participants to the treatment condition.

As an example, suppose we divide households into two categories: Households in which the parents
spank their children, and households in which the parents do not spank their children. We can run a
linear regression to determine if there is a positive correlation between parents' spanking and their
children's aggressive behavior. However, to simply randomize parents to spank or to not spank their
children may not be practical or ethical, because some parents may believe it is morally wrong to
spank their children and refuse to participate.

Some authors distinguish between a natural experiment and a "quasi-experiment".[1][5] The

difference is that in a quasi-experiment the criterion for assignment is selected by the researcher,
while in a natural experiment the assignment occurs 'naturally,' without the researcher's
intervention.

Quasi-experiments have outcome measures, treatments, and experimental units, but do not use
random assignment. Quasi-experiments are often the design that most people choose over true
experiments. The main reason is that they can usually be conducted while true experiments can not
always be. Quasi-experiments are interesting because they bring in features from both experimental
and non experimental designs. Measured variables can be brought in, as well as manipulated
variables. Usually Quasi-experiments are chosen by experimenters because they maximize internal
and external validity.[8]

Advantages

Since quasi-experimental designs are used when randomization is impractical and/or unethical, they
are typically easier to set up than true experimental designs, which require[9] random assignment of
subjects. Additionally, utilizing quasi-experimental designs minimizes threats to ecological validity as
natural environments do not suffer the same problems of artificiality as compared to a well-
controlled laboratory setting.[10] Since quasi-experiments are natural experiments, findings in one
may be applied to other subjects and settings, allowing for some generalizations to be made about
population. Also, this experimentation method is efficient in longitudinal research that involves
longer time periods which can be followed up in different environments.
Other advantages of quasi experiments include the idea of having any manipulations the
experimenter so chooses. In natural experiments, the researchers have to let manipulations occur
on their own and have no control over them whatsoever. Also, using self selected groups in quasi
experiments also takes away to chance of ethical, conditional, etc. concerns while conducting the
study.[8]

Disadvantages

Quasi-experimental estimates of impact are subject to contamination by confounding variables.[1] In

the example above, a variation in the children's response to spanking is plausibly influenced by
factors that cannot be easily measured and controlled, for example the child's intrinsic wildness or
the parent's irritability. The lack of random assignment in the quasi-experimental design method
may allow studies to be more feasible, but this also poses many challenges for the investigator in
terms of internal validity. This deficiency in randomization makes it harder to rule out confounding
variables and introduces new threats to internal validity.[11] Because randomization is absent, some
knowledge about the data can be approximated, but conclusions of causal relationships are difficult
to determine due to a variety of extraneous and confounding variables that exist in a social
environment. Moreover, even if these threats to internal validity are assessed, causation still cannot
be fully established because the experimenter does not have total control over extraneous
variables.[12]

Disadvantages also include the study groups may provide weaker evidence because of the lack of
randomness. Randomness brings a lot of useful information to a study because it broadens results
and therefore gives a better representation of the population as a whole. Using unequal groups can
also be a threat to internal validity. If groups are not equal, which is sometimes the case in quasi
experiments, then the experimenter might not be positive what the causes are for the results.[4]

Internal validity

Internal validity is the approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect or causal
relationships. This is why validity is important for quasi experiments because they are all about
causal relationships. It occurs when the experimenter tries to control all variables that could affect
the results of the experiment. Statistical regression, history and the participants are all possible
threats to internal validity. The question you would want to ask while trying to keep internal validity
high is "Are there any other possible reasons for the outcome besides the reason I want it to be?" If
so, then internal validity might not be as strong.[8]

External validity

External validity is the extent to which results obtained from a study sample can be generalized to
the population of interest. When External Validity is high, the generalization is accurate and can
represent the outside world from the experiment. External Validity is very important when it comes
to statistical research because you want to make sure that you have a correct depiction of the
population. When external validity is low, the credibility of your research comes into doubt.
Reducing threats to external validity can be done by making sure there is a random sampling of
participants and random assignment as well.[13]

Design types

"Person-by-treatment" designs are the most common type of quasi experiment design. In this
design, the experimenter measures at least one independent variable. Along with measuring one
variable, the experimenter will also manipulate a different independent variable. Because there is
manipulating and measuring of different independent variables, the research is mostly done in
laboratories. An important factor in dealing with person-by-treatment designs are that random
assignment will need to be used in order to make sure that the experimenter has complete control
over the manipulations that are being done to the study.[14]

An example of this type of design was performed at the University of Notre Dame. The study was
conducted to see if being mentored for your job led to increased job satisfaction. The results showed
that many people who did have a mentor showed very high job satisfaction. However, the study also
showed that those who did not receive the mentor also had a high number of satisfied employees.
Seibert concluded that although the workers who had mentors were happy, he could not assume
that the reason for it was the mentors themselves because of the numbers of the high number of
non-mentored employees that said they were satisfied. This is why prescreening is very important so
that you can minimize any flaws in the study before they are seen.[15]

"Natural experiments" are a different type of quasi experiment design used by researchers. It differs
from person-by-treatment in a way that there is not a variable that is being manipulated by the
experimenter. Instead of controlling at least one variable like the person-by-treatment design,
experimenters do not use random assignment and leave the experimental control up to chance. This
is where the name "natural" experiment comes from. The manipulations occur naturally, and
although this may seem like an inaccurate technique, it has actually proven to be useful in many
cases. These are the studies done to people who had something sudden happen to them. This could
mean good or bad, traumatic or euphoric. An example of this could be studies done on those who
have been in a car accident and those who have not. Car accidents occur naturally, so it would not
be ethical to stage experiments to traumatize subjects in the study. These naturally occurring events
have proven to be useful for studying posttraumatic stress disorder cases.[14]