There are two general categories of experimental researchtrue experimental design

and quasiexperimen-tal design (Gribbons & Herman, 1997). The word quasi in Latin
means as if or almost. Considering this, quasiexperimental research could be described
as a best attempt at an experiment when it is impossible, or not reasonable, to meet all
the criteria of a true experiment. This type of research is typically identified as being
void of randomization of either subjects or treatment and/or the lack of comparison
groups. Yet, there is still an attempt to isolate the treatment. As an overarching goal, the
body of quasiexperimental research attempts to answer questions such as: Does a
treatment or intervention have an impact? and What is the relationship between
program practices and outcomes? (Dimsdale and Kutner, 2004).
True experiments are ideal when it comes to being able to isolate any type of statistical
relationship, with the potential to infer causality. Even so, prior to designing an
experiment, it is necessary to consider a few key elements. Can the individuals and/or
other elements in your study be precisely classified? Can you select random individuals
or other elements in your study? Is the process of randomization fair to all involved in
the study? Should the answer be no to any of these questions, quasiexperi-mental
designs then surface. Educational research, and the techniques or interventions that are
introduced, seem relatively harmless to the general eye; thus, many researchers
continue to emphasize true experiments (Kid-der, 1981). It is never so simple; however,
as effectiveness, efficiency, and feasibility also need to be considered. There are other
ethical considerations as well. If there is any risk of harm from delivering or withholding
services to someone in the sample, then an experimental design cannot be employed.
For these reasons, in fields such as education, psychology, and criminal justice,
quasiexper-imental research is often utilized. As a whole, the research community tends
to support the use of and recognize the utility of quasiexperimental research (Campbell
& Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979).

A COMPARISON TO EXPERIMENTAL
RESEARCH
Quasiexperimental research and experimental research both attempt to create a design
scheme in which the concluded results can be thought of as the best, most logical
solution to the question at hand. Quasiexperimen-tal designs tend to do this through a
comparison of existing groups. Experimental designs accomplish the same goal through
random assignment of individuals to interventions or treatments (Michigan State
University, College of Education, 2004).
Experiments, especially large-scale, are designed to control for the influences of
extraneous variables. The goal is to allow for a maximum level of certainty regarding the
impact of an intervention. Specifically, experimental designs must have random
selection of subject, use of control groups, random assignments of individuals to the
control and experimental groups, and random assignment of groups to the intervention
(Henrichsen, Smith & Baker, 1997). The strongest comparisons are made through the
ability to conduct a true experiment (Grib-bons & Herman, 1997). To this extent,

quasiexperimental designs attempt to rule out unrelated explanations so that the

outcome can be attributed only to the experimental intervention. The task is not as
straightforward, but through efforts such as matching subjects and statistical analysis,
the true experiment is mimicked (Morgan, Gliner & Harmon, 2000; SERVE Center,
2007). Specifically, trend replaces the word cause in quasiexperimental research. The
goal of quasiexperimental research is to discover the one trend that is a result of the
treatment or intervention. Clearly, this is not a simple or direct task and error exists in
that process.
The data collection and analyses are a point of overlap and a point of distinction
between experimental and quasiexperimental research. While standardized
assessments are utilized in both approaches, they are the singular mechanism to the
experimental design. In contrast, quasiexperimental design also utilizes such means as
surveys, interviews, and observations. The statistical techniques also have the same
appearance, clean and simple. In contrast, quasiexperimental research uses an array of
analysis techniques including the t-test, but also extending to correlation, regression,
and factor analysis (Dims-dale & Kutner, 2004).
Quasiexperimental designs are typically employed if random assignment is not
practical, or even impossible. Without randomization, typical issues surface. Even with a
comparison group, the concern surfaces of how alike the groups are from the onset.
Also, with the loss of control in quasiexperimental designs, it is of concern whether both
groups are in some manner exposed to the intervention, intentionally or not.
Nonetheless, the biggest weakness of quasiexperimental designs may also indicate the
greatest strengtha broader scope of the research design. The controlled, randomized
design of true experiments typically lends itself to a very limited, narrow view of the topic
of interest (Gribbons & Herman, 1997). In all cases, when human subjects are involved,
there is never a 100% guarantee that the results of an intervention can be completely
attributed to the intervention itself, with no regard for the opinions and practice of the
individuals involved. Simply stated, true experiments work well in laboratory settings.
Quasiexperiments work well in natural settings (Schoenfeld, 2006).

EXAMPLES OF QUASIEXPERIMENTAL
RESEARCH
Quasiexperimental research is designed with the intent to be as much like a true
experiment as possible. The two traditional platforms are: (1) matching studies, in which
participants are compared with individuals that are comparable on variables of interest
that do not receive the intervention; and (2) interrupted time series, in which
observations made prior to an intervention are compared again and additional
observations are made after the intervention has happened. These types of studies
present themselves in various formats (Prater, 1983).
The general goal of quasiexperimental research is to investigate cause and effect
relationships. This approach to research allows for greater understanding of program
features and practices. Because there is a loss of control in the quasiexperimental
design, it is necessary for the researcher to decide what and when to measure

(Dawson, 1997). What follows is a sample outline of designs. An X represents the group
being exposed to a treatment or intervention. An O represents an observation or
measurement. Temporal order of events is designated from left to right. The dotted line
in each design is an indication of the lack of random assignment of subjects to the
groups (Prater, 1983).

The One-Group Posttest Design is a one-shot case study. It simply has a treatment, X,
and posttest, Owith no control group. This design is best implemented as an evaluation
model. It should be used only when there is no available comparison group or pretest
data.

In the Static-Group Comparison Design, a pre-test, X, is given to only one group, while
the post-test, O, is given to both the control and experimental group. This design is
comparable to the One-Group Posttest Design, with the addition of a control group for
comparison purposes. No randomization is present, instead two groups are arbitrarily
selected, and one is labeled as experimental and the other control.

The most common quasiexperimental design is the Nonequivalent Control-Group

Design, illustrated above. The design includes at least an experimental and control
group. It mirrors the Pretest-Posttest control group experimental design, but instead of
randomization, naturally occurring comparison groups are selected to be as alike as
possible (Gribbons & Herman, 1997).

With a Time Series Design, observations are taken (in this case three) to establish a
baseline; a treatment then occurs, X, followed by additional observations being made.
From this, an estimate of the impact the treatment made is computed (Gribbons &
Herman, 1997; Morgan, Gliner & Harmon, 2000). The design can be employed to
establish a baseline measure, describe a change over time or to keep track of trends.
Data are almost always presented in a graph.

The Multiple Time Series Design is simply an extension of the Time Series Design with
the addition of a comparison group. It attempts to model what would have happened to
the experimental group if the treatment or intervention had not taken place. The addition
of the control adds credibility, even without randomization.

In the Equivalent Materials Design, different, equivalent materials are represented

throughout withMa,b,c,d. The treatments and repeats of treatments, X0,1, are applied and
then observed. In addition to the aforementioned designs, there are elaborate
extensions, such as the Latin-square Design (Fortune & Hutson, 1984).

ROLE OF QUASIEXPERIMENTAL
RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH
It was not until the late 1900s that educational reform gave credence to research. Prior
to that, untested interventions and innovations were commonplace. The U.S.
government has come to demand a research base, as demonstrated by the
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration legislation of 1997 and the No Child Left
Behind Act. In both cases, the emphasis is in the application of experimental or
quasiexperimental research (Slavin, 2003).
Campbell and Stanley (1963) speak to traditional experimental and quasiexperimental
methods. Cook and Campbell (1979) continued to explore these methods, building upon
early investigations of validity. In 1993 Parker reviewed and synthesized both the works
and further added to the mound of threats to validity. At the turn of the century, various
authors were continuing to write about the issue of what constitutes an experimental

design and the issues associated with a less than perfect experiment. The presence of
true experimental designs in educational research has not been prevalent over time
largely due to methodological constraints and on some accounts, more logistical issues
like money and time. It is frequently not practical to randomly assign individuals to
control and experimental groups, like in a clinical setting where groups are already
intact (Dimsdale & Kutner, 2004; Heppner, Kivlighan & Wampold, 1992).
Quasiexperimental designs offer a plausible solution to these dilemmas.
Other issues that typically surface in educational research include, but are not limited to,
confounding and the assumption of independence. Independence states that the
measure for an individual is independent of the measures of other individuals.
Randomization of subjects is the only way to insure this. Confounding is another
concern. When a variable in a research design is not controlled, but should be, it is
identified as a confounding factor. Given that confounding cannot be dealt with in terms
of statistical notions alone, quasiexperi-mental designs, and for the most part
educational research as a whole, always have this as a limitation (Pearl, 2000).
If evidence-based school reform continues to be the golden standard,
quasiexperimental research will play an instrumental role. Quasiexperimental research,
and the scientifically based results that go along with it, can provide the educational
community with a variety of models that have been shown to be effective. Reading First
and other similar initiatives have created evidence-based reform that can be sustained.
Because of this, it is plausible that the rigor associated with quasiexperimental designs
will become commonplace (Slavin, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 1998; U.S.
Department of Education, 2002).

ANALYTIC APPLICATIONS APPLIED IN

QUASIEXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
Valentin (1997) made a claim that with an understanding of eight statistical procedures,
it is reasonable to have an understanding of 90% of quantitative research. Experimental
designs lend themselves to straightforward, often simpler, statistical analysis than
quasiexperimenatal designs. Advanced statistical procedures are typically necessary in
quasiexperimental research, largely due to the lack of randomization (Dimsdale &
Kutner, 2004).
Two specific examples include multiple regression analysis and factor analysis. Multiple
regression analysis is a statistical application that is utilized in studies in which impact is
being measured. Using statistical methods, a control group is simulated, and multiple
adjustments can be made for outside factors. Thus, the control that is in the design of
an experiment is inserted through analytical techniques (SERVE Center, 2007). Factor
analysis is a useful technique when a study has a large number of variables. This
statistical application allows for a reduction in the number of variables while detecting
possible relationships between those variables of interest (Dimsdale & Kutner, 2004). It
is commonly applied when data is collected through a survey, especially when the
survey contains a large number of items. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is yet
another analytical technique employed to increase the strength of the quasiexperimental

design. By making compensating adjustments, ANCOVA reduces the effects of the initial
differences between groups. This again is an attempt to respond to the lack of
randomization.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS OF

QUASIEXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
When considering what type of design to employ in a study, it is important to consider
both validity and practicality. In general, quasiexperimental research is more feasible,
given the typical time and logistical constraints. At the surface level, an easily
identifiable weakness of employing quasiexperimental research, in contrast to a true
experiment, is the lack of random assignment. Without random assignment, internal
validity is reduced, and causal claims become quite difficult to make (Prater, 1983).
On the other side, quasiexperimental designs tend to present the situation under
investigation in real-world conditions, increasing the external validity. Typically,
quasiexperimental designs are pre-existing constructions. Because of this, fewer
variables are able to be controlled; yet another factor limiting the ability to make causal
claims (Henrichsen, Smith & Baker, 1997).
With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind statute, educational research put
forth an agenda of scientifically based research. Shavelson and Towne (2002) outline
criteria necessary for a scientific study, which include: direct, empirical investigation of
an important question; consideration for the context in which the study took place;
alignment with a conceptual framework; careful and thorough reasoning; and disclosure
of results. Quasiexperimental research makes the mark by meeting each criterion listed.
While the controlled, experimental design is the ideal, at least statistically, when an
experiment is not possible or practical, the best approach is to identify and eliminate
threats to validity through the implementation of a quasiexperi-mental approach (Borg &
Gall, 1989).