Urmi Akter ID:KCCWC-212012

Table of Contents

Title Page No.

Quasi-experiment method.................................................................................... 3
Introduction: ................................................................................................................ 3
Non-equivalent Control Group Design: ..................................................................... 3
1. Intervention Group: ............................................................................................. 3
2. Control Group: .................................................................................................... 4
After the intervention period: ..................................................................................... 4
1. Outcome Evaluation: .......................................................................................... 4
2. Analysis: ............................................................................................................. 4
3. Interpretation: ...................................................................................................... 4
Interrupted Time Series Design: ................................................................................ 5
1. Data Collection Phase: ........................................................................................... 5
2. Intervention Phase: ................................................................................................. 5
3. Post-Intervention Period:........................................................................................ 5
4. Data Analysis: ........................................................................................................ 5
5. Interpretation: ......................................................................................................... 6
6. Validity Considerations: ......................................................................................... 6
Regression Discontinuity Design: ............................................................................... 6
1. Assignment Variable: ............................................................................................. 7
2. Cutoff Point: ........................................................................................................... 7
3. Data Collection:...................................................................................................... 7
4. Analysis: ................................................................................................................. 7
5. Interpretation: ......................................................................................................... 7
6. Validity Considerations: ......................................................................................... 8
Single-Case Experimental Designs: ............................................................................ 8
1. Baseline Phase (A1): .............................................................................................. 8
2. Intervention Phase (B):........................................................................................... 9
3. Follow-up Baseline Phase (A2): ............................................................................ 9
4. Data Analysis: ........................................................................................................ 9
5.Interpretation: .......................................................................................................... 9
6.Validity Considerations: ........................................................................................ 10

Page 1 of 13
Propensity Score Matching: ...................................................................................... 10
1. Data Collection:.................................................................................................... 10
2. Propensity Score Estimation: ............................................................................... 10
3. Matching: ............................................................................................................. 11
4. Data Analysis: ...................................................................................................... 11
5. Interpretation: ....................................................................................................... 11
6. Validity Considerations: ....................................................................................... 11
Natural Experiments: ................................................................................................ 12
1. Policy Change: ..................................................................................................... 12
2. Data Collection:.................................................................................................... 12
3. Comparison: ......................................................................................................... 12
4. Data Analysis: ...................................................................................................... 13
5. Interpretation: ....................................................................................................... 13
6. Validity Considerations: ....................................................................................... 13
Conclusion: ................................................................................................................. 13

Page 2 of 13
 Quasi-experiment method
Introduction:
Quasi-experimental methods are utilized in social research when a true experimental
design, with random assignment of participants to groups, is not feasible or ethical.
These methods aim to approximate the rigor of experimental designs while dealing with
real-world constraints.

For example, Imagine a researcher wants to assess the effectiveness of an anti-bullying

program implemented in schools. However, due to ethical concerns, it's not feasible to
randomly assign students to either receive the program or not. Instead, the researcher
selects two similar schools, one where the anti-bullying program is implemented (the
treatment group) and one where it is not (the control group).

Quasi-experimental methods are widely used in social research across various fields to
study phenomena where true experimental designs are impractical or unethical. These
methods allow researchers to draw causal inferences about the effects of interventions
or treatments. Here are some common quasi-experimental methods used in social
research:

Non-equivalent Control Group Design:

A Non-equivalent Control Group Design is a quasi-experimental research design where

participants are not randomly assigned to groups, and there is no assurance that the
groups are initially equivalent. Instead, researchers compare an intervention group with
a control group that is similar but not identical to the intervention group.

For example, Imagine a researcher wants to evaluate the effectiveness of a job training
program designed to improve employability skills among unemployed individuals. Due
to logistical constraints and ethical considerations, the researcher cannot randomly
assign participants to either receive the training (intervention group) or not (control
group). Instead, the researcher selects two similar communities with similar
unemployment rates and demographics.

1. Intervention Group: In Community A, individuals are offered participation in the

job training program. This group receives training in various job skills such as

Page 3 of 13
 resume writing, interview techniques, and computer literacy over a period of three
months.
2. Control Group: In Community B, individuals do not have access to the job training
program but have similar access to other resources available to Community A, such
as job listings and employment support services.

Both communities are assessed before and after the intervention period using surveys,
interviews, or other measures to collect data on employment status, income, job
satisfaction, and other relevant outcomes.

After the intervention period:

1. Outcome Evaluation: The researcher compares the employment rates, income

levels, and job satisfaction between the intervention group (Community A) and the
control group (Community B) to determine the impact of the job training program.
2. Analysis: Statistical techniques such as analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or
propensity score matching may be used to account for baseline differences between
the two communities and to improve the comparability of the groups.
3. Interpretation: If the intervention group shows significantly higher employment
rates, income levels, or job satisfaction compared to the control group, it provides
evidence for the effectiveness of the job training program in improving
employability skills. However, if there are no significant differences or if outcomes
worsen for the intervention group, it suggests that the program may not be effective
or may even have unintended consequences.

This example illustrates how a Non-equivalent Control Group Design can be used to
evaluate the impact of an intervention when random assignment is not feasible. Despite
the absence of randomization, researchers can still draw meaningful conclusions by
carefully selecting and comparing similar groups.

Page 4 of 13
Interrupted Time Series Design:

The Interrupted Time Series (ITS) design is a quasi-experimental research design that
involves collecting data at multiple time points before and after the introduction of an
intervention or treatment. This design allows researchers to assess whether there is a
change in the outcome of interest immediately following the intervention.

Such as, Suppose a government decides to increase taxes on tobacco products as a

public health measure to reduce smoking rates. A researcher wants to evaluate the
impact of this policy change using an Interrupted Time Series design.

1. Data Collection Phase:

i. Pre-Intervention Period: The researcher collects data on smoking rates

from a representative sample of the population over several years leading
up to the implementation of the tobacco tax increase. Data are collected
monthly or quarterly to capture seasonal variations.

2. Intervention Phase:

i. Tax Increase Implementation: At a specific point in time, the government

implements the tobacco tax increase, resulting in higher prices for tobacco
products.

3. Post-Intervention Period:

i. Immediate Post-Intervention Phase: The researcher continues to collect data

on smoking rates immediately following the implementation of the tax increase.
ii. Long-Term Post-Intervention Phase: Data collection continues over several
months or years to assess the sustained effects of the intervention.

4. Data Analysis:

i. Trend Analysis: The researcher analyzes the trends in smoking rates over time
using statistical methods such as time series analysis.
ii. Comparison: The researcher compares the trend in smoking rates before and
after the intervention to determine whether there is a significant change in the

Page 5 of 13
 rate of decline (or increase) following the implementation of the tobacco tax
increase.
iii. Adjustment for Seasonality and Autocorrelation: Statistical techniques may
be used to adjust for seasonal variations and autocorrelation in the data.

5. Interpretation:

i. If there is a significant decrease in smoking rates immediately following the

implementation of the tax increase, it suggests that the policy intervention was
effective.
ii. If there is no significant change or if smoking rates continue to decline at a
similar rate as before the intervention, it may indicate that the tax increase had
limited impact on smoking behavior.

6. Validity Considerations:

i. Threats to Internal Validity: Researchers must consider potential confounding

factors or external events that could influence smoking rates during the study
period.
ii. Assumptions: The Interrupted Time Series design assumes that any observed
changes in the outcome variable are causally related to the intervention and not
due to other factors.

By using an Interrupted Time Series design, researchers can assess the immediate and
long-term effects of policy interventions or other interventions in real-world settings,
providing valuable evidence for policymakers and stakeholders.

Regression Discontinuity Design:

Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) is a quasi-experimental research design used

to estimate the causal effect of a treatment or intervention by exploiting a cutoff point
or threshold in a continuous assignment variable. Here's an example to illustrate how
RDD works:

Suppose a university has a policy where students who score above a certain threshold
on a standardized test are guaranteed admission, while those who score below the

Page 6 of 13
threshold are not admitted. A researcher wants to evaluate the impact of this policy on
student outcomes using an RDD.

1. Assignment Variable:

The assignment variable in this example is the standardized test score. Students who
score above the threshold are considered in the treatment group (admitted), while those
who score below the threshold are in the control group (not admitted).

2. Cutoff Point: The university's policy establishes a cutoff score on the standardized
test. Students who score above the cutoff are guaranteed admission, while those who
score below it are not admitted.

3. Data Collection:

i. The researcher collects data on students' test scores and other relevant variables,
such as academic performance, graduation rates, and employment outcomes.
ii. Data are collected for students who are close to the cutoff point, both slightly
above and slightly below it.

4. Analysis:

i. The researcher conducts a regression analysis to estimate the effect of being

admitted to the university (treatment) on various outcomes, such as academic
performance.
ii. The regression model includes an indicator variable for whether the student's
test score is above or below the cutoff point (the "treatment" variable). This
variable captures the discontinuity in treatment assignment at the cutoff point.
iii. The researcher also includes other control variables in the regression model to
account for potential confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status or prior
academic achievement.

5. Interpretation:

i. If there is a significant difference in outcomes between students just above and

just below the cutoff point, it suggests a causal effect of admission to the
university on those outcomes.

Page 7 of 13
 ii. For example, if students just above the cutoff point have higher graduation rates
or better employment outcomes compared to those just below the cutoff point,
it indicates a positive impact of admission on those outcomes.

6. Validity Considerations:

i. Compliance: The validity of RDD depends on the assumption that students

cannot manipulate their test scores to be above the cutoff point solely for the
purpose of gaining admission.
ii. Other Thresholds: Researchers should consider whether there are other
thresholds or cutoff points in the admission process that could affect the results.

By using an RDD, researchers can estimate causal effects in situations where random
assignment to treatment and control groups is not feasible or ethical, providing valuable
insights into the impact of policies and interventions.

Single-Case Experimental Designs:

Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) are research designs used in behavioral

sciences to study the effects of interventions on individual subjects over time. These
designs involve repeated measurements of the same individual under different
conditions, allowing researchers to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

For example, suppose a psychologist wants to assess the effectiveness of a behavior

modification program for reducing aggressive behavior in a child diagnosed with
oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). The psychologist decides to use a single-case
experimental design, specifically an A-B-A design, to evaluate the intervention.

1. Baseline Phase (A1):

i. During this phase, the psychologist collects baseline data on the frequency and
intensity of the child's aggressive behavior over a period of time (e.g., two
weeks). The child's behavior is observed and recorded in various settings, such
as at home and at school, to establish a stable baseline.

Page 8 of 13
2. Intervention Phase (B):

i. In this phase, the psychologist implements the behavior modification program

designed to reduce aggressive behavior. The program may include strategies
such as positive reinforcement for prosocial behavior, teaching anger
management techniques, and implementing consequences for aggressive acts.
ii. The psychologist monitors the child's behavior closely during the intervention
phase and continues to collect data on the frequency and intensity of aggressive
behavior.

3. Follow-up Baseline Phase (A2):

i. After the intervention phase, the psychologist withdraws the intervention and
returns to baseline conditions to determine if any changes in the child's behavior
are maintained.
ii. The psychologist resumes data collection on the child's aggressive behavior in
various settings, similar to the initial baseline phase.

4. Data Analysis:

i. The psychologist analyzes the data collected during each phase to determine
whether there were changes in the frequency and intensity of the child's
aggressive behavior in response to the intervention.
ii. Visual analysis of the data using graphs (e.g., line graphs) can help identify
trends and patterns in the child's behavior across different phases of the study.

5.Interpretation:

i. If the frequency and intensity of the child's aggressive behavior decrease during
the intervention phase (B) compared to the baseline phases (A1 and A2), it
suggests that the behavior modification program was effective in reducing
aggressive behavior.
ii. If the child's behavior returns to baseline levels during the follow-up baseline
phase (A2), it provides evidence for the stability of the intervention effects.

Page 9 of 13
6.Validity Considerations:

i. Internal Validity: Researchers must consider potential confounding variables

that could influence the child's behavior during the study, such as changes in the
child's environment or concurrent interventions.
ii. External Validity: The findings of SCEDs may have limited generalizability
beyond the individual participant and the specific context of the study.

By using a single-case experimental design, the psychologist can evaluate the

effectiveness of the behavior modification program for reducing aggressive behavior in
the child, providing valuable insights for clinical practice and intervention
development.

Propensity Score Matching:

Propensity Score Matching (PSM) is a statistical technique used in observational

studies to reduce bias by matching treated and control subjects who have similar
propensities or probabilities of receiving the treatment. Here's an example to illustrate
how propensity score matching works:

Suppose a company implements a training program aimed at improving the job

performance of its employees. The company wants to evaluate the effectiveness of the
training program using data from previous years when the program was not in place.
However, the company cannot randomly assign employees to receive the training due
to logistical constraints.

1. Data Collection:

i. The company collects data on employee characteristics (e.g., age, education

level, years of experience), job performance metrics (e.g., productivity,
customer satisfaction scores), and whether each employee participated in the
training program.

2. Propensity Score Estimation:

i. Using logistic regression or another suitable method, the company estimates the
propensity scores for each employee, representing the likelihood of
participating in the training program based on their observed characteristics.
Page 10 of 13
 The propensity score indicates the probability of being treated (receiving the
training).

3. Matching:

i. The company then matches employees who participated in the training program
(treated group) with similar employees who did not participate (control group)
based on their propensity scores.
ii. Various matching techniques can be used, such as nearest neighbor matching,
caliper matching, or kernel matching, to ensure that treated and control subjects
are closely matched on propensity scores.

4. Data Analysis:

i. After matching, the company compares the job performance outcomes between
the treated and control groups to assess the effect of the training program.
ii. Statistical methods such as t-tests, chi-square tests, or regression analysis can
be used to examine differences in job performance metrics between the two
groups.

5. Interpretation:

i. If employees who participated in the training program show significantly higher

job performance scores compared to matched controls, it suggests that the
training program had a positive effect on job performance.
ii. Conversely, if there are no significant differences in job performance between
the treated and control groups after matching, it indicates that the training
program may not have had a substantial impact on job performance.

6. Validity Considerations:

i. Balance Assessment: The company should assess the balance of covariates

between the treated and control groups after matching to ensure that they are
similar on observed characteristics.
ii. Sensitivity Analysis: Conducting sensitivity analyses helps evaluate the
robustness of the findings to different matching specifications and assumptions.

Page 11 of 13
Natural Experiments:

Natural experiments occur when researchers take advantage of naturally occurring

events or circumstances to study the effects of interventions, policies, or other
phenomena. In a natural experiment, individuals or groups are exposed to different
conditions, similar to experimental and control groups in a randomized controlled trial,
but without intentional manipulation by the researcher. Here's an example:

Suppose a government decides to increase the minimum wage in one state but not in
another state. Researchers want to study the impact of this policy change on
employment rates using a natural experiment.

1. Policy Change:

i. The government of State A decides to raise the minimum wage, while the
government of State B keeps the minimum wage unchanged. This decision is
based on various factors, such as economic conditions, political considerations,
and public opinion.

2. Data Collection:

i. Researchers collect data on employment rates in both states before and after the
minimum wage change. They also gather information on other relevant
variables, such as demographic characteristics, industry sectors, and regional
economic indicators.

3. Comparison:

i. By comparing employment trends in State A (treatment group) with those in

State B (control group), researchers can assess the impact of the minimum wage
increase on employment rates.
ii. If employment rates in State A continue to grow or remain stable following the
minimum wage increase, while employment rates in State B show no significant
changes, it suggests that the policy change may have had a positive or neutral
effect on employment.

Page 12 of 13
4. Data Analysis:

i. Researchers use statistical techniques, such as regression analysis or difference-

in-differences estimation, to control for potential confounding variables and
estimate the causal effect of the minimum wage increase on employment rates.
ii. They may also conduct subgroup analyses to examine whether the effects vary
across different demographic groups, industries, or regions within each state.

5. Interpretation:

i. If the increase in the minimum wage is associated with a significant decrease in

employment rates in State A compared to State B, it suggests that the policy
change may have led to job losses or reduced hiring in response to higher labor
costs.
ii. Conversely, if there are no significant differences in employment rates between
the two states after the minimum wage increase, it indicates that the policy
change may not have had a substantial impact on employment.

6. Validity Considerations:

i. Researchers must consider potential confounding factors and alternative

explanations for any observed differences in employment rates between the two
states.
ii. Sensitivity analyses and robustness checks can help assess the reliability of the
findings and address concerns about the validity of the natural experiment.

Conclusion:

These quasi-experimental methods provide valuable tools for researchers to investigate

causal relationships in social research settings where traditional experimental designs
are not feasible or ethical. However, they also come with their own set of limitations
and assumptions that researchers must carefully consider when interpreting results.

Page 13 of 13