POOR QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS

Results from these designs (sometimes called preexperimental) are hard to interpret; they
should not be used if it is possible to use one of the better quasi-experimental or randomized
designs. Unfortunately, these poor designs are relatively common in clinical practice.
One-Group Posttest-Only
Design An example of this design, sometimes referred to as the oneshot case study, would be
some evaluations of a new treatment. The investigator introduces the treatment and uses some
outcome measure to determine the patient’s response to the treatment.
The design is diagrammed as follows: E: X 0
This diagram and those that follow indicate a time sequence. First, all participants are in one
group, the experimental group (E). Then the treatment (X) and, finally, a posttest (0) takes
place. The problem with the design is that it does not satisfy even the minimum condition for
a research problem, which is the investigation of a relationship or comparison. Note that the
intervention is not a variable because there is only one level. Does the one-group posttest-only
design have any value? If nothing else, it provides a pilot test of the feasibility and cost of the
treatment and the outcome measure. It can help get the “bugs” out of a procedure. The
investigator could compare the results to data from an earlier group that had not received the
treatment, but then the design would no longer be a one-group posttest-only design.
One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design This design is diagrammed as follows: E: 0, X 02 For this
design, an observation in the form of a pretest (0,) is given first, then the intervention is given
to all participants, and, finally, a second observation (03 or posttest is recorded. The problem
with this design is that the comparison is not with a second group, a control group. Instead, the
comparison is between the pretest and the posttest within the same group. Because there is no
comparison group, the design is susceptible to most of Cook and Campbell’s (1979) threats to
internal vuldiv. An example of this type of design might be a study of the effects of therapy on
pre- and posttest measures of motor performance on one group of children with physical
disabilities. The history threat means that environmental events are a possible problem in this
design. The lack of a control group prevents the investigator from knowing, for example,
whether other activities happening in the children’s school at the same time as the intervention
might be contributing to any changes. Maturation is also a possible threat to internal validity
because the children are getting older and may be better coordinated and stronger even without
the intervention. Canyovrr ficts are a possible problem in this and all pretest designs because
taking the pretest could influence the posttest. This design could be useful if previous research
had convincingly dcmonstrated that without treatment the problem behavior would not
decrease. In this situation, a successful intervention would be quite credible.

Posttest-Only Design With Nonequivalent Groups

This design is diagrammed as follows:
NR E: X 0 NR C: -X 0
This design has 2 (or more) groups, an experimental or intervention group and a comparison
group (C) that does not receive (-X) the treatment. Because there is nonrandom assignment
(NR) to groups and no pretest, it is impossible to determine the similarity of the groups prior
to the treatment. Thus, this design is weak on equivalence of the groups on participant
characteristics, especially if the participants volunteered to be in one group or the other, and
any difference in outcomes could be due to differences between the groups or to a combination
of the results of these differences and the treatment.
BETTER QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent-Groups Designs
These designs are diagrammed as follows: NR E: 01 X 02 NR C: 01 -X 02
As with all quasi-experiments, there is not mndom assignment of the participants to the groups
in this design. First, measurements are taken on the groups prior to an intervention. Then one
group receives a new treatment, which the other group does not receive; often the comparison
group receives their usual treatment. At the end of the intervention period, both groups are
measured again to determine whether there are differences between the 2 groups. The design
is considered to be nonequivdent because, even if the 2 groups have the same mean score on
the pretest, there may be characteristics that have not been measured that may interact with the
treatment to cause differences between the 2 groups that are not due strictly to the intervention.
We classify the nonequivalent comparison group design into 3 strengths that look alike when
diagrammed but vary in how participants were assigned to groups and how much control the
investigator has over the independent variable.
Weak Quari-Ejrpm‘mental Designs.
This design occurs when trying to evaluate situations in which participation is voluntary. The
participants may have chosen a particular group to receive a particular treatment. Thus, the
groups are likely to be ctfferent in a number of ways. A design of this type is common when
trying to evaluate therapeutic workshops. People who want to attend the workshop volunteer
to be in that group. A comparison group is composed of people who choose not to attend the
workshop or of a sample of people who were not invited to attend. Regardless, at least one
group has volunteered; therefore, any posttest difference between the group that received the
intervention and the group that did not receive the intervention must be tempered by this
potential bias. Mohute-Strength Quati-Experimental Designs. This design also involves little
direct control by the investigator over the independent variable.
The moderate-strength quasi-experimental design
usually has more similarity of groups prior to the intervention than in the weak design because
participants do not assign themselves to groups, but are in these groups due to other factors,
which are not related to their preference for the intervention. For example, people may choose
their clinic because it is nearest their home and thus are members of “intact” groups prior to a
study. In a study of a new versus an established treatment, the researcher might know that one
clinic was going to be using the new intervention and another similar clinic was not. The
relative strength of this design rests on 2 questions. First, why did one clinic use the new
treatment and the other clinic did not? Second, are patients in the clinic that received the
intervention different fiom patients in the clinic that did not? If there is no reason to suspect
bias relative to the dependent variable for either question, then the design is almost as strong
as the type discussed next.
Strong Quari-fiperimental Designs.
This design might be used in a study when afcw clinics are available and the researcher has
control over the active independent variable. The patients have already chosen one of the
clinics, and thus the investigator cannot randomly assign participants to groups. However, in
the strong quasi-experimental approach, the investigator can randomly assign the new
treatment condition to one or a few intact clinics and the usual treatment to others. The strength
of this quasi-experimental design is that it is quite similar to a randomized experimental design
except that tnut