Research design

A research design is a systematic plan to study a scientific problem. The design of a study

defines the study type (descriptive, correlational, experimental etc)

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. Research problem determines the type of design you can use.

Types of research designs

 Non experimental

 Experimental

Non-experimental research design

A design in which the researcher is a passive agent, who observes, measures, and describes a

phenomenon as it occurs or exists.

According to Goodwin (2008) and McBurney (2001) non experimental research design includes:

 Observational research

 Archival research

 Case study

 Survey research

 Correlational research

Observational, archival, survey research methods simply obtain information about a current

existing phenomenon of interest in terms of frequency of occurrence rather than to describe a

relationship between variables. Correlational descriptive research design explores the

interrelationship between variables of interest without any active intervention or manipulation of

the independent variable by the researcher. In most surveys data is collected about demographic

characteristics such as: age, sex, education, occupation, marital status, income etc

Experimental Research Design

A systematic research study in which the investigator directly varies some variables and holds all

other factors constant and observes the result of systematic variation (Goodwin, 2008)

Why psychologists conduct experiments

There are four goals of research in psychology: description, prediction, explanation, and

application. Psychologists use observational methods to develop detailed descriptions of

behavior, often in natural settings. Survey research methods allow psychologists to describe

people’s attitudes and opinions. Psychologists are able to make predictions about behavior

and mental processes when they discover measures and observations that covary (correlations).

Description and prediction are essential to the scientific study of behavior, but they are not

sufficient for understanding the causes of behavior. Psychologists also seek explanation—the

“why” of behavior. We achieve scientific explanation when we identify the causes of a

phenomenon.

The best available research method for identifying causal relationships is the

experimental method. Researchers conduct experiments to test hypotheses about the causes of

behavior. Experiments allow researchers to decide whether a treatment or program effectively

changes behavior. One of the primary reasons that psychologists conduct experiments is to make

empirical tests of hypotheses they derive from psychological theories. The self-correcting

interplay between experiments and proposed explanations is a fundamental tool psychologists

use to understand the causes of the ways we think, feel, and behave.
 Well-conducted experiments also help to solve society’s problems by providing vital

information about the effectiveness of treatments in a wide variety of areas. This role of

experiments has a long history in the field of medicine for example, near the beginning of the

19th century, typhoid fever and delirium tremens were often fatal. The standard medical practice

at that time was to treat these two conditions by bleeding, purging, and other similar “therapies.”

In an experiment to test the effectiveness of these treatments, researchers randomly assigned one

group to receive the standard treatment (bleeding, purging, etc.) and a second group to receive

nothing but bed rest, good nutrition, and close observation. The group given the standard medical

treatment of the time did worse than the group left untreated. Treating such conditions using

early-19th-century practices was worse than not treating them at all. Experiments such as these

contributed to the insight that many medical conditions are self-limited: The illness runs its

course, and patients recover on their own.

Basic principles of experimental designs

Professor Fisher (as cited in kathori, 2004) has enumerated three principles of experimental

designs:

(1) The Principle of Replication

(2) The Principle of Randomization

(3) Principle of Local Control

(Research Methodology)

According to the Principle of Replication, the experiment should be repeated more than once.

Thus, each treatment is applied in many experimental units instead of one. By doing so the

statistical accuracy of the experiments is increased. For example, suppose we are to examine the

effect of two varieties of rice. For this purpose we may divide the field into two parts and grow
one variety in one part and the other variety in the other part. We can then compare the yield of

the two parts and draw conclusion on that basis. But if we are to apply the principle of

replication to this experiment, then we first divide the field into several parts, grow one variety in

half of these parts and the other variety in the remaining parts. We can then collect the data of

yield of the two varieties and draw conclusion by comparing the same. The result so obtained

will be more reliable in comparison to the conclusion we draw without applying the principle of

replication. The entire experiment can even be repeated several times for better results.

Conceptually replication does not present any difficulty, but computationally it does. For

example, if an experiment requiring a two-way analysis of variance is replicated, it will then

require a three-way analysis of variance since replication itself may be a source of variation in

the data. However, it should be remembered that replication is introduced in order to increase the

precision of a study; that is to say, to increase the accuracy with which the main effects and

interactions can be estimated.

The Principle of Randomization provides protection, when we conduct an experiment, against

the effect of extraneous factors by randomization. In other words, this principle indicates that we

should design or plan the experiment in such a way that the variations caused by extraneous

factors can all be combined under the general heading of “chance.” For instance, if we grow one

variety of rice, say, in the first half of the parts of a field and the other variety is grown in the

other half, then it is just possible that the soil fertility may be different in the first half in

comparison to the other half. If this is so, our results would not be realistic. In such a situation,

we may assign the variety of rice to be grown in different parts of the field on the basis of some

random sampling technique i.e., we may apply randomization principle and protect ourselves

against the effects of the extraneous factors (soil fertility differences in the given case). As such,
through the application of the principle of randomization, we can have a better estimate of the

experimental error.

The Principle of Local Control is another important principle of experimental designs. Under it

the extraneous factor, the known source of variability, is made to vary deliberately over as wide a

range as necessary and this need to be done in such a way that the variability it causes can be

measured and hence eliminated from the experimental error. This means that we should plan the

experiment in a manner that we can perform a two-way analysis of variance, in which the total

variability of the data is divided into three components attributed to treatments (varieties of rice

in above mentioned case), the extraneous factor (soil fertility) and experimental error.* In other

words, according to the principle of local control, we first divide the field into several

homogeneous parts, known as blocks, and then each such block is divided into parts equal to the

number of treatments. Then the treatments are randomly assigned to these parts of a block.

Dividing the field into several homogenous parts is known as ‘blocking’. In general, blocks are

the levels at which we hold an extraneous factor fixed, so that we can measure its contribution to

the total variability of the data by means of a two-way analysis of variance. In brief, through the

principle of local control we can eliminate the variability due to extraneous factor(s) from the

experimental error.

Basic ingredients of an experiment

 Researchers manipulate an independent variable in an experiment to observe the effect on

behavior, as assessed by the dependent variable.

 Experimental control allows researchers to make the causal inference that the

independent variable caused the observed changes in the dependent variable.

 Designs employing experimental control minimize error variance and increase systematic

variance, resulting in an internally valid study

 Control is the essential ingredient of experiments; experimental control is gained through

manipulation, holding conditions constant, and balancing.

 An experiment has internal validity when it fulfills the three conditions required for

causal inference: covariation, time-order relationship, and elimination of plausible

alternative causes. When confounding occurs, a plausible alternative explanation for the

observed covariation exists, and therefore, the experiment lacks internal validity.

Plausible alternative explanations are ruled out by holding conditions constant and

balancing.

 A true experiment involves the manipulation of one or more factors and the measurement

(observation) of the effects of this manipulation on behavior. The factors the researcher

controls or manipulates are called the independent variables. An independent variable

must have at least two levels (also called conditions). One level may be considered the

“treatment” condition and a second level the control (or comparison) condition. Often,

more than two levels are used for additional comparisons between groups. The measures

used to observe the effect (if any) of the independent variables are called dependent

variables. One way to remember the distinction between these two types of variables is to

understand that the outcome (dependent variable) depends on the independent variable.

 Experiments are effective for testing hypotheses because they allow us to exercise a

relatively high degree of control in a situation. Researchers use control in experiments to

be able to state with confidence that the independent variable caused the observed

changes in the dependent variable.( Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister, 2012)

Types of Experimental designs

Independent groups design/ Between group design

In an independent groups design, each group of subjects participates in a different condition of

the independent variable.

Random groups design

The most effective independent groups design is one that uses random assignment of subjects

to conditions in order to form comparable groups prior to implementing the independent

variable. When random assignment to conditions is used, the independent groups design is called

a random groups design. The logic of the design is straightforward. The groups are formed so

as to be similar on all important characteristics at the start of the experiment. Next, in the

experiment itself, the groups are treated the same except for the level of the independent

variable. Thus, any difference between the groups on the dependent variable must be caused by

the independent variable. Block randomization can be used for randomly assigning subjects.

With a randomized block design, the experimenter divides subjects into subgroups called blocks,

such that the variability within blocks is less than the variability between blocks. Then, subjects

within each block are randomly assigned to treatment conditions.

Gende Treatment

r Placebo Vaccine

Male 250 250

Femal
250 250
e
The table to the right shows a block randomization for a hypothetical medical experiment.

Subjects are assigned to blocks, based on gender. Then, within each block, subjects are randomly

assigned to treatments (either a placebo or a cold vaccine). For this design, 250 men get the

placebo, 250 men get the vaccine, 250 women get the placebo, and 250 women get the vaccine.

It is known that men and women are physiologically different and react differently to

medication. This design ensures that each treatment condition has an equal proportion of men

and women. As a result, differences between treatment conditions cannot be attributed to gender.

This randomized block design removes gender as a potential source of variability and as a

potential confounding variable.

Matched Groups Design

A matched groups design may be used to create comparable groups when there are too few

subjects available for random assignment to work effectively.

The matched groups design is a good alternative when neither the random groups design nor the

repeated measures design can be used effectively. The logic of the matched groups design is

simple and compelling. Instead of trusting random assignment to form comparable groups, the

researcher makes the groups equivalent by matching subjects. The matched groups design is

useful only when a good matching task is available. The most preferred matching task is one that

uses the same task that will be used in the experiment itself. For example, if the dependent

variable in the experiment is blood pressure, participants should be matched on blood pressure

prior to the start of the experiment. The matched groups design is an alternative to the random

groups design when only a small number of subjects are available, when a good matching task is

available, and when the experiment requires separate groups for each treatment
The biggest problem with the matched groups design is that the groups are equated only on the

characteristic measured by the matching task.

Natural groups design

Researchers in many areas of psychology are interested in independent variables that are called

individual differences variables, or subject variables. An individual differences variable is a

characteristic or trait that varies across individuals. Religious affiliation is an example of an

individual differences variable. Researchers can’t manipulate this variable by randomly

assigning people to Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, or other groups. Instead, researchers

“control” the religious affiliation variable by systematically selecting individuals who naturally

belong to these groups. Individual differences variables such as gender, introversion–

extraversion, race, or age are important independent variables in many areas of psychology. It is

important to differentiate experiments involving independent variables whose levels are selected

from those involving independent variables whose levels are manipulated. Experiments

involving independent variables whose levels are selected—like individual differences variables

—are called natural groups designs. The natural groups design is frequently used in situations

in which ethical and practical constraints prevent us from directly manipulating independent

variables. For example, no matter how interested we might be in the effects of major surgery on

subsequent depression, we could not ethically perform major surgery on a randomly assigned

group of introductory psychology students and then compare their depression symptoms with

those of another group who did not receive surgery

Threats to internal validity

There are several threats to the internal validity of experiments that involve testing independent

groups. Extraneous variables, such as different rooms or different experimenters, must not be
allowed to confound the independent variable of interest. A more serious threat to the internal

validity of the random groups design is involved when subjects fail to complete the experiment

successfully. Selective subject loss occurs when subjects are lost differentially across the

conditions and some characteristic of the subject that is related to the outcome of the experiment

is responsible for the loss. We can help prevent selective loss by restricting subjects to those

likely to complete the experiment successfully, or we can compensate for it by selectively

dropping comparable subjects from the group that did not experience the loss. Demand

characteristics and experimenter effects can be minimized through the use of proper

experimental procedures, but they can best be controlled by using placebo control and double-

blind procedures.

Example 1 Independent Group design

An investigator wants to evaluate whether a new technique to teach math to elementary school students is more

effective than the standard teaching method. Using an experimental design, the investigator divides the class

randomly (by chance) into two groups and calls them “group A” and “group B.” The students cannot choose their

own group. The random assignment process results in two groups that should share equal characteristics at the

beginning of the experiment. In group A, the teacher uses a new teaching method to teach the math lesson. In group

B, the teacher uses a standard teaching method to teach the math lesson. The investigator compares test scores at the

end of the semester to evaluate the success of the new teaching method compared to the standard teaching method. 

At the end of the study, the results indicated that the students in the new teaching method group scored significantly

higher on their final exam than the students in the standard teaching group.
Repeated Measures Designs

There are times when it is more effective to have each subject participate in all the conditions of

an experiment. These designs are called repeated measures designs (or within-subjects

designs). In an independent groups design, a separate group serves as a control for the group

given the experimental treatment. In a repeated measures design, subjects serve as their own

controls because they participate in both the experimental and control conditions individual

differences among participants cannot be eliminated in the random groups design, but they can

be balanced by using random assignment. Similarly, the practice affects that participants

experience due to repeated testing in the repeated measures designs cannot be eliminated. Like

individual differences in the random groups design, however, practice effects can be balanced, or

averaged, across the conditions of a repeated measures design experiment. When balanced across

the conditions, practice effects are not confounded with the independent variable and the results

of the experiment are interpretable.

Why Researchers Use Repeated Measures Designs

Researchers choose to use a repeated measures design in order to

 Conduct an experiment when few participants are available

 Conduct the experiment more efficiently

 Increase the sensitivity of the experiment

 Study changes in participants’ behavior over time.

Researchers who do experiments with children, the elderly or special populations such as

individuals with brain injuries frequently have a small number of participants available.

The sensitivity of an experiment refers to the ability to detect the effect of the independent

variable even if the effect is a small one. There is usually more variation between people than
there is within people. When the research question involves studying changes in participants’

behavior over time, such as in a learning experiment, a repeated measures design is needed.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Repeat measure Designs

Advantages

 Each subject serves as own control so that the variability between subjects gets isolated.

Analysis can focus more precisely on treatment effects.

 Repeat-measure designs are more economical since each subject is own control and so

fewer subjects are needed.

Disadvantages

 Carry-over effect occurs when a treatment is administered before the effects of previous

treatment have worn off. It can be avoided by allowing sufficient time between

treatments.

 Latent effect occurs when a treatment can activate the dormant effects of a previous

treatment.

 Learning effect occurs in situations where response improves each time a person takes a

test.

There are two types of repeated measures designs (complete and incomplete) that differ in the

specific ways in which they control for practice effects.

The Role of Practice Effects in Repeated Measures Designs

The absence of the potential for confounding by individual differences variables is a great

advantage of the repeated measures designs. The repeated testing of participants in the repeated

measures design gives them practice with the experimental task. As a result of this practice,

participants may get better and better at doing the task because they learn more about the task, or
they may get worse at the task because of such factors as fatigue and boredom with repeated

testing in the repeated measures designs are called practice effects. In general, practice effects

should be balanced across the conditions in repeated measures designs so that practice effects

“average out” across conditions. The key to conducting interpretable experiments using the

repeated measures designs is learning to use appropriate techniques to balance practice effects.

The two types of repeated measures designs are the complete and the incomplete design. The

specific techniques for balancing practice effects differ for the two repeated measures designs,

but the general term used to refer to these balancing techniques is counterbalancing. In the

complete design, practice effects are balanced for each participant by administering the

conditions to each participant several times, using different orders each time. Each participant

can thus be considered a “complete” experiment. In the incomplete design, each condition is

administered to each participant only once. The order of administering the conditions is varied

across participants rather than for each participant, as is the case in the complete design.

Balancing the practice effect in complete design

Block randomization

ABBA Counterbalancing

In its simplest form, ABBA counterbalancing can be used to balance practice effects in the

complete design with as few as two administrations of each condition. ABBA counterbalancing

involves presenting the conditions in one sequence (i.e., A then B) followed by the opposite of

that. ABBA counterbalancing is used when the number of conditions and the number of

repetitions of each condition are relatively small. Although ABBA counterbalancing provides a

simple and elegant means to balance practice effects, it is not without limitations. For example,

ABBA counterbalancing is ineffective when practice effects for a task are not linear. ABBA
counterbalancing is also ineffective when anticipation effects can occur. Anticipation effects

occur when a participant develops expectations about which condition should occur next in the

sequence.

Balancing Practice Effects in the Incomplete Design

The use of all possible orders, Latin Squares, and random starting orders with rotation are

equally effective in balancing practice effects because all three techniques ensure that each

condition appears in each ordinal position equally often.

In the incomplete design, each participant is given each treatment only once. The results for any

one participant, therefore, cannot be interpreted because the levels of the independent variable

for each participant are perfectly confounded with the order in which those levels were

presented. For instance, the first participant in an incomplete design experiment might be tested

first in the experimental condition (E) and second in the control condition (C). Any differences in

the participant’s performance between the experimental and control conditions could be due to

the effect of the independent variable or to the practice effects resulting from the EC order. To

break this confounding of the order of conditions and the independent variable, we can

administer different orders of the conditions to different participants. For example, we could

administer the conditions of our incomplete design experiment to a second participant in the CE

order, testing the control condition first and the experimental condition second. In this way, we

could balance the effects of order across the two conditions using two participants instead of one.

All Possible Orders

The preferred technique for balancing practice effects in the incomplete design is to use all

possible orders of the conditions. Each participant is randomly assigned to one of the orders.
With only two conditions there are only two possible orders (AB and BA) with three conditions

there are six possible orders (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA).

Selected Orders

The preferred method for balancing practice effects in the incomplete design is all possible

orders. There are times, however, when the use of all possible orders is not practical. Practice

effects can be balanced by using just some of all the possible orders. The number of selected

orders will always be equal to some multiple of the number of conditions in the experiment. For

example, to do an experiment with one independent variable with seven levels, we need to select

7, 14, 21, 28, or some other multiple of seven orders to balance practice effects.

This is done by Latin square and random starting orders

The problem of differential transfer

Differential transfer occurs when the effects of one condition persist and influence performance

in subsequent conditions.

Consider a problem-solving experiment in which two types of instructions are being compared in

a repeated measures design. One set of instructions (A) is expected to enhance problem solving,

whereas the other set of instructions (B) serves as the neutral control condition. It is reasonable

to expect that participants tested in the order AB will be unable or unwilling to abandon the

approach outlined in the A instructions when they are supposed to be following the B

instructions. Giving up the “good thing” participants had under instruction A would be the

counterpart of successfully following the admonition “Don’t think of pink elephants!” When

participants fail to give up the instruction from the first condition (A) while they are supposed to

be following instruction B, any difference between the two conditions is reduced. For those
participants, after all, condition B was not really tried. The experiment becomes a situation in

which participants are tested in an “AA” condition, not an “AB” condition.

Complex design/Factorial Designs

Complex designs are those in which two or more independent variables are studied

simultaneously in one experiment. Complex designs can also be called factorial designs because

they involve factorial combination of independent variables. Factorial combination involves

pairing each level of one independent variable with each level of a second independent variable.

This makes it possible to determine the effect of each independent variable alone (main effect)

and the effect of the independent variables in combination (interaction effect).

Researchers use factorial design because:

1) It is usually more efficient.  Instead of doing one study on the effect of the type of

psychotherapy a patient gets and a second study on the length of therapy, a researcher

could do a single study that examines the effect of both variables. 

2) It represents the complexity of the real world more accurately.  For example, in the real

world, psychotherapy does in fact vary in both type and length. 

3) It allows you to see whether the effect of one independent variable depends on the level

of other independent variables. For example, maybe some types of psychotherapy are

effective in a short form, but others are not. This is called an interaction

A factorial design is the most common way to study the effect of two or more independent

variables. In a factorial design, all levels of each independent variable are combined with all

levels of the other independent variables to produce all possible conditions.  For example, a

researcher might be interested in the effect of whether or not a stimulus person (shown in a

photograph) is smiling or not on ratings of the friendliness of that person.  The researcher
 might also be interested in whether or not the stimulus person is looking directly at the

camera makes a difference.  In a factorial design, the two levels of the first independent

variable (smiling and not smiling) would be combined with the two levels of the second

(looking directly or not) to produce four distinct conditions: smiling and looking at the

camera, smiling and not looking at the camera, not smiling and looking at the camera, and

not smiling and not looking at the camera.

This would be called a 2x2 (two-by-two) factorial design because there are two independent

variables, each of which has two levels.  If the first independent variable had three levels (not

smiling, closed-mouth smile, open-mouth smile), then it would be a 3x2 factorial design.  Note

that the number of distinct conditions formed by combining the levels of the independent

variables is always just the product of the numbers of levels.  In a 2x2 design, there are four

distinct conditions.  In a 3x2 design, there are 6.

Design Tables

One way to represent a factorial design is with a design table.  The table below represents a 2x2

factorial design in which one independent variable is the type of psychotherapy used to treat a

sample of depressed people (behavioral vs. cognitive) and the other is the duration of that

therapy (short vs. long).  (The dependent variable--which is not actually shown in this table--is a

measure of improvement.)  Each cell in the table, therefore, represents one of the four distinct

conditions: short behavioral therapy, short cognitive therapy, long behavioral therapy, and long

cognitive therapy.  Inside the cells, you can put different things.  In this example, it is the number

of participants in each condition. (The symbol n generally refers to the number of subjects in a

condition.)   You could also put expected results or actual results (e.g., means and standard

deviations) into the cells of the table if you wanted to.

 Duration of Type of Therapy (B)  

Therapy (B)  

Behavioral Cognitive

 Short      

n = 50 n = 50  

       

Long n = 50 n = 50  

     

Between vs. Within Subjects

In a factorial design, each independent variable can be manipulated between subjects or within

subjects--and this decision must be made separately for each one.  In the design above, it makes

sense that participants will receive only one kind of psychotherapy.  They will receive either

behavioral or cognitive, not both.  And they will receive either short or long, not both.  That

explains the "B"s in parentheses after each variable name; they stand for "between subjects." 

What this implies is that each participant will be in only one of the four distinct conditions.

In the design below, however, both independent variables are manipulated within subjects.  That

is, participants are tested under both quiet and noisy conditions and under both cool and warm

conditions.  That explains the "W"s; they stand for "within subjects."  This implies that each

participant will be in all four of the distinct conditions.

Noise Level (W)  

 
 Quiet Noisy

       

Cool n = 50 n = 50  

Temperature (W)

       

Warm n = 50 n = 50  

     

In addition to the between-subjects design and the within-subjects design, it is possible to have a

mixed design, in which one independent variable is manipulated between subjects and the other

is manipulated within subjects.  For example, participants might be tested under a quiet condition

and under a noisy condition (so that noise level is a within-subjects variable), but they might be

tested in either a cool room or a warm room (so that temperature is a between-subjects variable). 

In this case, noise level would be labeled with a "W" and temperature with a "B."

Data analysis

Data analysis and statistics provide researchers with an alternative to replication for determining

whether the results of a single experiment are reliable and can be used to make a claim about the

effect of an independent variable on behavior.

The choice among techniques hinges on the number of IVs and DVs and whether some variables

are conceptualized as covariates. Further distinctions are made as to whether all DVs are

measured on the same scale and how within-subjects IVs are to be treated.
 Data analysis for a complete design begins with computing a summary score (e.g., mean,

median) for each participant. Descriptive statistics are used to summarize performance across

all participants for each condition of the independent variable.

Dependent t-test

The dependent t-test compares two means, when those means have come from the same entities;

for example, if you have used the same participants in each of two experimental conditions.

The independent t-test

The independent t-test compares two means, when those means have come from different groups

of entities; for example, if you have used different participants in each of two experimental

conditions.

One-way repeated-measures ANOVA

The one-way repeated-measures ANOVA compares several means, when those means have

come from the same participants for example, if you measured people’s statistical ability each

month over a year-long course. In repeated-measures ANOVA there is an additional

assumption: sphericity. This assumption needs to be considered only when there are three or

more repeated-measures conditions.

One-way independent ANOVA

The one-way independent ANOVA compares several means, when those means have come from

different groups of people. For example; if you have several experimental conditions and have

used different participants in each condition.

Mixed ANOVA

Mixed ANOVA compares several means when there are two or more independent variables, and

at least one of them has been measured using the same participants and at least one other has

been measured using different participants.

Field, A. (2009)

ANCOVA

ANCOVA is used to adjust for differences among groups when groups are naturally occurring
and random assignment to them is not possible. For example, one might ask if attitude toward
abortion (the DV) varies as a function of religious affiliation.

With ANCOVA, selected and/or pooled group means are adjusted for differences on covariates
before differences in means on the DV are assessed. (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007)
References

Bordens, K.S. & Abbot, B.B. (2005). Research Design and Methods. 6th ed. Tata Mcgraw hill

Publication

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics: Using SPSS. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications Ltd

Goodwin,C.J.(2008). Research in Psychology: Methods and design. 5th ed. John Wily and Sons

Kothori, C.R. (2004). Research Methods: methods and techniques. (2nd ed). New Age

International (P) Ltd. Publishers

McBurney, D.H.(2001). Research Methods. Indian ed. Wadsworth

Retrieved on 05.6.2014 http://www.nyu.edu/classes/bkg/methods/005847ch1.pdf)

Retrieved on05.6.2014

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Hanan_Alkorashy/Nursing%20management%20489NUR/

Non_experimental_Designs.pdf

Shaughnessy, J.J; Zechmeister, E.B. & Zechmeister, J.S. (2012). Research Methods in

Psychology. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill Companies

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Pearson Education,
Inc.