difference between a case study and observation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Case Study Observational Research: A Framework for Conducting Case Study Research Where Observation Data Are the Focus

Affiliation.

1 1 University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
PMID: 27217290
DOI: 10.1177/1049732316649160

Case study research is a comprehensive method that incorporates multiple sources of data to provide detailed accounts of complex research phenomena in real-life contexts. However, current models of case study research do not particularly distinguish the unique contribution observation data can make. Observation methods have the potential to reach beyond other methods that rely largely or solely on self-report. This article describes the distinctive characteristics of case study observational research, a modified form of Yin's 2014 model of case study research the authors used in a study exploring interprofessional collaboration in primary care. In this approach, observation data are positioned as the central component of the research design. Case study observational research offers a promising approach for researchers in a wide range of health care settings seeking more complete understandings of complex topics, where contextual influences are of primary concern. Future research is needed to refine and evaluate the approach.

Keywords: New Zealand; appreciative inquiry; case studies; case study observational research; health care; interprofessional collaboration; naturalistic inquiry; observation; primary health care; qualitative; research design.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Research Methods (Case Studies & Observation Studies) 0 Pages | Leaving School | 18/06/2024

Case Studies & Observation Studies

difference between a case study and observation

——————————————————

Observation Studies

Categories of behaviour: If the researcher is undertaking a natural observation , he may need to divide the behaviour he sees into categories so that a quick record can be made. If the researcher wants to understand how the public respond to a woman collapsing in the street, for example, his categories might include 1.) Ignores and walks on. 2.) Hesitates and walks on. 3.) Checks to see if the woman is ok. 4.) Calls 999.

Inter-observer reliability: In order to test the reliability of an observer’s records, it might be sensible to have two observers who are working to exactly the same category and score sheet, so that they can compare their results at the end of the observation period. If these observations closely match each other then it can be assumed their observations have been accurate. If there is a significant difference it may be necessary to start the observation over again.

Advantages of natural observation Natural observations are high in ecological validity . A string of natural actions can be observed. In a laboratory situation people are often asked to complete unnatural tasks.

Disadvantages of natural observation In the absence ofcontrolled variables it is difficult to establish why someone behaved in a certain way. This type of study is reliant on the accuracy of the observation. There are ethical issues involved in an observation of this kind i.e. the people being observed may not know that this is the case. Should they be told? And if they are told, would their behaviour still be natural? Natural observations can be awkward to plan as well as time consuming.

Research Methods
Hypotheses and Experimental Designs
Standardised Procedures & Instructions
Ecological Validity & Sampling Methods
Making Sense of Data & Anomalous Results
Survey Methods & Ethical Considerations
Remember it, Test it!

6.5 Observational Research

Learning objectives.

List the various types of observational research methods and distinguish between each
Describe the strengths and weakness of each observational research method.

What Is Observational Research?

The term observational research is used to refer to several different types of non-experimental studies in which behavior is systematically observed and recorded. The goal of observational research is to describe a variable or set of variables. More generally, the goal is to obtain a snapshot of specific characteristics of an individual, group, or setting. As described previously, observational research is non-experimental because nothing is manipulated or controlled, and as such we cannot arrive at causal conclusions using this approach. The data that are collected in observational research studies are often qualitative in nature but they may also be quantitative or both (mixed-methods). There are several different types of observational research designs that will be described below.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is an observational method that involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic observation is a type of field research (as opposed to a type of laboratory research). Jane Goodall’s famous research on chimpanzees is a classic example of naturalistic observation. Dr. Goodall spent three decades observing chimpanzees in their natural environment in East Africa. She examined such things as chimpanzee’s social structure, mating patterns, gender roles, family structure, and care of offspring by observing them in the wild. However, naturalistic observation could more simply involve observing shoppers in a grocery store, children on a school playground, or psychiatric inpatients in their wards. Researchers engaged in naturalistic observation usually make their observations as unobtrusively as possible so that participants are not aware that they are being studied. Such an approach is called disguised naturalistic observation. Ethically, this method is considered to be acceptable if the participants remain anonymous and the behavior occurs in a public setting where people would not normally have an expectation of privacy. Grocery shoppers putting items into their shopping carts, for example, are engaged in public behavior that is easily observable by store employees and other shoppers. For this reason, most researchers would consider it ethically acceptable to observe them for a study. On the other hand, one of the arguments against the ethicality of the naturalistic observation of “bathroom behavior” discussed earlier in the book is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public restroom and that this expectation was violated.

In cases where it is not ethical or practical to conduct disguised naturalistic observation, researchers can conduct undisguised naturalistic observation where the participants are made aware of the researcher presence and monitoring of their behavior. However, one concern with undisguised naturalistic observation is reactivity. Reactivity refers to when a measure changes participants’ behavior. In the case of undisguised naturalistic observation, the concern with reactivity is that when people know they are being observed and studied, they may act differently than they normally would. For instance, you may act much differently in a bar if you know that someone is observing you and recording your behaviors and this would invalidate the study. So disguised observation is less reactive and therefore can have higher validity because people are not aware that their behaviors are being observed and recorded. However, we now know that people often become used to being observed and with time they begin to behave naturally in the researcher’s presence. In other words, over time people habituate to being observed. Think about reality shows like Big Brother or Survivor where people are constantly being observed and recorded. While they may be on their best behavior at first, in a fairly short amount of time they are, flirting, having sex, wearing next to nothing, screaming at each other, and at times acting like complete fools in front of the entire nation.

Participant Observation

Another approach to data collection in observational research is participant observation. In participant observation , researchers become active participants in the group or situation they are studying. Participant observation is very similar to naturalistic observation in that it involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. As with naturalistic observation, the data that is collected can include interviews (usually unstructured), notes based on their observations and interactions, documents, photographs, and other artifacts. The only difference between naturalistic observation and participant observation is that researchers engaged in participant observation become active members of the group or situations they are studying. The basic rationale for participant observation is that there may be important information that is only accessible to, or can be interpreted only by, someone who is an active participant in the group or situation. Like naturalistic observation, participant observation can be either disguised or undisguised. In disguised participant observation, the researchers pretend to be members of the social group they are observing and conceal their true identity as researchers. In contrast with undisguised participant observation, the researchers become a part of the group they are studying and they disclose their true identity as researchers to the group under investigation. Once again there are important ethical issues to consider with disguised participant observation. First no informed consent can be obtained and second passive deception is being used. The researcher is passively deceiving the participants by intentionally withholding information about their motivations for being a part of the social group they are studying. But sometimes disguised participation is the only way to access a protective group (like a cult). Further, disguised participant observation is less prone to reactivity than undisguised participant observation.

Rosenhan’s study (1973) [1] of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward would be considered disguised participant observation because Rosenhan and his pseudopatients were admitted into psychiatric hospitals on the pretense of being patients so that they could observe the way that psychiatric patients are treated by staff. The staff and other patients were unaware of their true identities as researchers.

Another example of participant observation comes from a study by sociologist Amy Wilkins (published in Social Psychology Quarterly ) on a university-based religious organization that emphasized how happy its members were (Wilkins, 2008) [2] . Wilkins spent 12 months attending and participating in the group’s meetings and social events, and she interviewed several group members. In her study, Wilkins identified several ways in which the group “enforced” happiness—for example, by continually talking about happiness, discouraging the expression of negative emotions, and using happiness as a way to distinguish themselves from other groups.

One of the primary benefits of participant observation is that the researcher is in a much better position to understand the viewpoint and experiences of the people they are studying when they are apart of the social group. The primary limitation with this approach is that the mere presence of the observer could affect the behavior of the people being observed. While this is also a concern with naturalistic observation when researchers because active members of the social group they are studying, additional concerns arise that they may change the social dynamics and/or influence the behavior of the people they are studying. Similarly, if the researcher acts as a participant observer there can be concerns with biases resulting from developing relationships with the participants. Concretely, the researcher may become less objective resulting in more experimenter bias.

Structured Observation

Another observational method is structured observation. Here the investigator makes careful observations of one or more specific behaviors in a particular setting that is more structured than the settings used in naturalistic and participant observation. Often the setting in which the observations are made is not the natural setting, rather the researcher may observe people in the laboratory environment. Alternatively, the researcher may observe people in a natural setting (like a classroom setting) that they have structured some way, for instance by introducing some specific task participants are to engage in or by introducing a specific social situation or manipulation. Structured observation is very similar to naturalistic observation and participant observation in that in all cases researchers are observing naturally occurring behavior, however, the emphasis in structured observation is on gathering quantitative rather than qualitative data. Researchers using this approach are interested in a limited set of behaviors. This allows them to quantify the behaviors they are observing. In other words, structured observation is less global than naturalistic and participant observation because the researcher engaged in structured observations is interested in a small number of specific behaviors. Therefore, rather than recording everything that happens, the researcher only focuses on very specific behaviors of interest.

Structured observation is very similar to naturalistic observation and participant observation in that in all cases researchers are observing naturally occurring behavior, however, the emphasis in structured observation is on gathering quantitative rather than qualitative data. Researchers using this approach are interested in a limited set of behaviors. This allows them to quantify the behaviors they are observing. In other words, structured observation is less global than naturalistic and participant observation because the researcher engaged in structured observations is interested in a small number of specific behaviors. Therefore, rather than recording everything that happens, the researcher only focuses on very specific behaviors of interest.

Researchers Robert Levine and Ara Norenzayan used structured observation to study differences in the “pace of life” across countries (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999) [3] . One of their measures involved observing pedestrians in a large city to see how long it took them to walk 60 feet. They found that people in some countries walked reliably faster than people in other countries. For example, people in Canada and Sweden covered 60 feet in just under 13 seconds on average, while people in Brazil and Romania took close to 17 seconds. When structured observation takes place in the complex and even chaotic “real world,” the questions of when, where, and under what conditions the observations will be made, and who exactly will be observed are important to consider. Levine and Norenzayan described their sampling process as follows:

“Male and female walking speed over a distance of 60 feet was measured in at least two locations in main downtown areas in each city. Measurements were taken during main business hours on clear summer days. All locations were flat, unobstructed, had broad sidewalks, and were sufficiently uncrowded to allow pedestrians to move at potentially maximum speeds. To control for the effects of socializing, only pedestrians walking alone were used. Children, individuals with obvious physical handicaps, and window-shoppers were not timed. Thirty-five men and 35 women were timed in most cities.” (p. 186). Precise specification of the sampling process in this way makes data collection manageable for the observers, and it also provides some control over important extraneous variables. For example, by making their observations on clear summer days in all countries, Levine and Norenzayan controlled for effects of the weather on people’s walking speeds. In Levine and Norenzayan’s study, measurement was relatively straightforward. They simply measured out a 60-foot distance along a city sidewalk and then used a stopwatch to time participants as they walked over that distance.

As another example, researchers Robert Kraut and Robert Johnston wanted to study bowlers’ reactions to their shots, both when they were facing the pins and then when they turned toward their companions (Kraut & Johnston, 1979) [4] . But what “reactions” should they observe? Based on previous research and their own pilot testing, Kraut and Johnston created a list of reactions that included “closed smile,” “open smile,” “laugh,” “neutral face,” “look down,” “look away,” and “face cover” (covering one’s face with one’s hands). The observers committed this list to memory and then practiced by coding the reactions of bowlers who had been videotaped. During the actual study, the observers spoke into an audio recorder, describing the reactions they observed. Among the most interesting results of this study was that bowlers rarely smiled while they still faced the pins. They were much more likely to smile after they turned toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

When the observations require a judgment on the part of the observers—as in Kraut and Johnston’s study—this process is often described as coding . Coding generally requires clearly defining a set of target behaviors. The observers then categorize participants individually in terms of which behavior they have engaged in and the number of times they engaged in each behavior. The observers might even record the duration of each behavior. The target behaviors must be defined in such a way that different observers code them in the same way. This difficulty with coding is the issue of interrater reliability, as mentioned in Chapter 4. Researchers are expected to demonstrate the interrater reliability of their coding procedure by having multiple raters code the same behaviors independently and then showing that the different observers are in close agreement. Kraut and Johnston, for example, video recorded a subset of their participants’ reactions and had two observers independently code them. The two observers showed that they agreed on the reactions that were exhibited 97% of the time, indicating good interrater reliability.

One of the primary benefits of structured observation is that it is far more efficient than naturalistic and participant observation. Since the researchers are focused on specific behaviors this reduces time and expense. Also, often times the environment is structured to encourage the behaviors of interested which again means that researchers do not have to invest as much time in waiting for the behaviors of interest to naturally occur. Finally, researchers using this approach can clearly exert greater control over the environment. However, when researchers exert more control over the environment it may make the environment less natural which decreases external validity. It is less clear for instance whether structured observations made in a laboratory environment will generalize to a real world environment. Furthermore, since researchers engaged in structured observation are often not disguised there may be more concerns with reactivity.

Case Studies

A case study is an in-depth examination of an individual. Sometimes case studies are also completed on social units (e.g., a cult) and events (e.g., a natural disaster). Most commonly in psychology, however, case studies provide a detailed description and analysis of an individual. Often the individual has a rare or unusual condition or disorder or has damage to a specific region of the brain.

Like many observational research methods, case studies tend to be more qualitative in nature. Case study methods involve an in-depth, and often a longitudinal examination of an individual. Depending on the focus of the case study, individuals may or may not be observed in their natural setting. If the natural setting is not what is of interest, then the individual may be brought into a therapist’s office or a researcher’s lab for study. Also, the bulk of the case study report will focus on in-depth descriptions of the person rather than on statistical analyses. With that said some quantitative data may also be included in the write-up of a case study. For instance, an individuals’ depression score may be compared to normative scores or their score before and after treatment may be compared. As with other qualitative methods, a variety of different methods and tools can be used to collect information on the case. For instance, interviews, naturalistic observation, structured observation, psychological testing (e.g., IQ test), and/or physiological measurements (e.g., brain scans) may be used to collect information on the individual.

HM is one of the most notorious case studies in psychology. HM suffered from intractable and very severe epilepsy. A surgeon localized HM’s epilepsy to his medial temporal lobe and in 1953 he removed large sections of his hippocampus in an attempt to stop the seizures. The treatment was a success, in that it resolved his epilepsy and his IQ and personality were unaffected. However, the doctors soon realized that HM exhibited a strange form of amnesia, called anterograde amnesia. HM was able to carry out a conversation and he could remember short strings of letters, digits, and words. Basically, his short term memory was preserved. However, HM could not commit new events to memory. He lost the ability to transfer information from his short-term memory to his long term memory, something memory researchers call consolidation. So while he could carry on a conversation with someone, he would completely forget the conversation after it ended. This was an extremely important case study for memory researchers because it suggested that there’s a dissociation between short-term memory and long-term memory, it suggested that these were two different abilities sub-served by different areas of the brain. It also suggested that the temporal lobes are particularly important for consolidating new information (i.e., for transferring information from short-term memory to long-term memory).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkaXNvzE4pk

The history of psychology is filled with influential cases studies, such as Sigmund Freud’s description of “Anna O.” (see Note 6.1 “The Case of “Anna O.””) and John Watson and Rosalie Rayner’s description of Little Albert (Watson & Rayner, 1920) [5] , who learned to fear a white rat—along with other furry objects—when the researchers made a loud noise while he was playing with the rat.

The Case of “Anna O.”

Sigmund Freud used the case of a young woman he called “Anna O.” to illustrate many principles of his theory of psychoanalysis (Freud, 1961) [6] . (Her real name was Bertha Pappenheim, and she was an early feminist who went on to make important contributions to the field of social work.) Anna had come to Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer around 1880 with a variety of odd physical and psychological symptoms. One of them was that for several weeks she was unable to drink any fluids. According to Freud,

She would take up the glass of water that she longed for, but as soon as it touched her lips she would push it away like someone suffering from hydrophobia.…She lived only on fruit, such as melons, etc., so as to lessen her tormenting thirst. (p. 9)

But according to Freud, a breakthrough came one day while Anna was under hypnosis.

[S]he grumbled about her English “lady-companion,” whom she did not care for, and went on to describe, with every sign of disgust, how she had once gone into this lady’s room and how her little dog—horrid creature!—had drunk out of a glass there. The patient had said nothing, as she had wanted to be polite. After giving further energetic expression to the anger she had held back, she asked for something to drink, drank a large quantity of water without any difficulty, and awoke from her hypnosis with the glass at her lips; and thereupon the disturbance vanished, never to return. (p.9)

Freud’s interpretation was that Anna had repressed the memory of this incident along with the emotion that it triggered and that this was what had caused her inability to drink. Furthermore, her recollection of the incident, along with her expression of the emotion she had repressed, caused the symptom to go away.

As an illustration of Freud’s theory, the case study of Anna O. is quite effective. As evidence for the theory, however, it is essentially worthless. The description provides no way of knowing whether Anna had really repressed the memory of the dog drinking from the glass, whether this repression had caused her inability to drink, or whether recalling this “trauma” relieved the symptom. It is also unclear from this case study how typical or atypical Anna’s experience was.

Figure 10.1 Anna O. “Anna O.” was the subject of a famous case study used by Freud to illustrate the principles of psychoanalysis. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pappenheim_1882.jpg

Case studies are useful because they provide a level of detailed analysis not found in many other research methods and greater insights may be gained from this more detailed analysis. As a result of the case study, the researcher may gain a sharpened understanding of what might become important to look at more extensively in future more controlled research. Case studies are also often the only way to study rare conditions because it may be impossible to find a large enough sample to individuals with the condition to use quantitative methods. Although at first glance a case study of a rare individual might seem to tell us little about ourselves, they often do provide insights into normal behavior. The case of HM provided important insights into the role of the hippocampus in memory consolidation. However, it is important to note that while case studies can provide insights into certain areas and variables to study, and can be useful in helping develop theories, they should never be used as evidence for theories. In other words, case studies can be used as inspiration to formulate theories and hypotheses, but those hypotheses and theories then need to be formally tested using more rigorous quantitative methods.

The reason case studies shouldn’t be used to provide support for theories is that they suffer from problems with internal and external validity. Case studies lack the proper controls that true experiments contain. As such they suffer from problems with internal validity, so they cannot be used to determine causation. For instance, during HM’s surgery, the surgeon may have accidentally lesioned another area of HM’s brain (indeed questioning into the possibility of a separate brain lesion began after HM’s death and dissection of his brain) and that lesion may have contributed to his inability to consolidate new information. The fact is, with case studies we cannot rule out these sorts of alternative explanations. So as with all observational methods case studies do not permit determination of causation. In addition, because case studies are often of a single individual, and typically a very abnormal individual, researchers cannot generalize their conclusions to other individuals. Recall that with most research designs there is a trade-off between internal and external validity, with case studies, however, there are problems with both internal validity and external validity. So there are limits both to the ability to determine causation and to generalize the results. A final limitation of case studies is that ample opportunity exists for the theoretical biases of the researcher to color or bias the case description. Indeed, there have been accusations that the woman who studied HM destroyed a lot of her data that were not published and she has been called into question for destroying contradictory data that didn’t support her theory about how memories are consolidated. There is a fascinating New York Times article that describes some of the controversies that ensued after HM’s death and analysis of his brain that can be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/magazine/the-brain-that-couldnt-remember.html?_r=0

Archival Research

Another approach that is often considered observational research is the use of archival research which involves analyzing data that have already been collected for some other purpose. An example is a study by Brett Pelham and his colleagues on “implicit egotism”—the tendency for people to prefer people, places, and things that are similar to themselves (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005) [7] . In one study, they examined Social Security records to show that women with the names Virginia, Georgia, Louise, and Florence were especially likely to have moved to the states of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, respectively.

As with naturalistic observation, measurement can be more or less straightforward when working with archival data. For example, counting the number of people named Virginia who live in various states based on Social Security records is relatively straightforward. But consider a study by Christopher Peterson and his colleagues on the relationship between optimism and health using data that had been collected many years before for a study on adult development (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988) [8] . In the 1940s, healthy male college students had completed an open-ended questionnaire about difficult wartime experiences. In the late 1980s, Peterson and his colleagues reviewed the men’s questionnaire responses to obtain a measure of explanatory style—their habitual ways of explaining bad events that happen to them. More pessimistic people tend to blame themselves and expect long-term negative consequences that affect many aspects of their lives, while more optimistic people tend to blame outside forces and expect limited negative consequences. To obtain a measure of explanatory style for each participant, the researchers used a procedure in which all negative events mentioned in the questionnaire responses, and any causal explanations for them were identified and written on index cards. These were given to a separate group of raters who rated each explanation in terms of three separate dimensions of optimism-pessimism. These ratings were then averaged to produce an explanatory style score for each participant. The researchers then assessed the statistical relationship between the men’s explanatory style as undergraduate students and archival measures of their health at approximately 60 years of age. The primary result was that the more optimistic the men were as undergraduate students, the healthier they were as older men. Pearson’s r was +.25.

This method is an example of content analysis —a family of systematic approaches to measurement using complex archival data. Just as structured observation requires specifying the behaviors of interest and then noting them as they occur, content analysis requires specifying keywords, phrases, or ideas and then finding all occurrences of them in the data. These occurrences can then be counted, timed (e.g., the amount of time devoted to entertainment topics on the nightly news show), or analyzed in a variety of other ways.

Key Takeaways

There are several different approaches to observational research including naturalistic observation, participant observation, structured observation, case studies, and archival research.
Naturalistic observation is used to observe people in their natural setting, participant observation involves becoming an active member of the group being observed, structured observation involves coding a small number of behaviors in a quantitative manner, case studies are typically used to collect in-depth information on a single individual, and archival research involves analysing existing data.
Describe one problem related to internal validity.
Describe one problem related to external validity.
Generate one hypothesis suggested by the case study that might be interesting to test in a systematic single-subject or group study.
Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵
Wilkins, A. (2008). “Happier than Non-Christians”: Collective emotions and symbolic boundaries among evangelical Christians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71 , 281–301. ↵
Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 , 178–205. ↵
Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 1539–1553. ↵
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 , 1–14. ↵
Freud, S. (1961). Five lectures on psycho-analysis . New York, NY: Norton. ↵
Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 , 106–110. ↵
Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for physical illness: A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 23–27. ↵

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

6.6: Observational Research

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 19655

Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton

Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton
Kwantlen Polytechnic U., Washington State U., & Texas A&M U.—Texarkana

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

List the various types of observational research methods and distinguish between each.
Describe the strengths and weakness of each observational research method.

What Is Observational Research?

Naturalistic Observation

In cases where it is not ethical or practical to conduct disguised naturalistic observation, researchers can conduct undisguised naturalistic observation where the participants are made aware of the researcher presence and monitoring of their behavior. However, one concern with undisguised naturalistic observation is reactivity. Reactivity refers to when a measure changes participants’ behavior. In the case of undisguised naturalistic observation, the concern with reactivity is that when people know they are being observed and studied, they may act differently than they normally would. This type of reactivity is known as the Hawthorne effect . For instance, you may act much differently in a bar if you know that someone is observing you and recording your behaviors and this would invalidate the study. So disguised observation is less reactive and therefore can have higher validity because people are not aware that their behaviors are being observed and recorded. However, we now know that people often become used to being observed and with time they begin to behave naturally in the researcher’s presence. In other words, over time people habituate to being observed. Think about reality shows like Big Brother or Survivor where people are constantly being observed and recorded. While they may be on their best behavior at first, in a fairly short amount of time they are flirting, having sex, wearing next to nothing, screaming at each other, and occasionally behaving in ways that are embarrassing.

Participant Observation

In a famous example of disguised participant observation, Leon Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated a doomsday cult known as the Seekers, whose members believed that the apocalypse would occur on December 21, 1954. Interested in studying how members of the group would cope psychologically when the prophecy inevitably failed, they carefully recorded the events and reactions of the cult members in the days before and after the supposed end of the world. Unsurprisingly, the cult members did not give up their belief but instead convinced themselves that it was their faith and efforts that saved the world from destruction. Festinger and his colleagues later published a book about this experience, which they used to illustrate the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956) [1] .

In contrast with undisguised participant observation, the researchers become a part of the group they are studying and they disclose their true identity as researchers to the group under investigation. Once again there are important ethical issues to consider with disguised participant observation. First no informed consent can be obtained and second deception is being used. The researcher is deceiving the participants by intentionally withholding information about their motivations for being a part of the social group they are studying. But sometimes disguised participation is the only way to access a protective group (like a cult). Further, disguised participant observation is less prone to reactivity than undisguised participant observation.

Rosenhan’s study (1973) [2] of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward would be considered disguised participant observation because Rosenhan and his pseudopatients were admitted into psychiatric hospitals on the pretense of being patients so that they could observe the way that psychiatric patients are treated by staff. The staff and other patients were unaware of their true identities as researchers.

Another example of participant observation comes from a study by sociologist Amy Wilkins on a university-based religious organization that emphasized how happy its members were (Wilkins, 2008) [3] . Wilkins spent 12 months attending and participating in the group’s meetings and social events, and she interviewed several group members. In her study, Wilkins identified several ways in which the group “enforced” happiness—for example, by continually talking about happiness, discouraging the expression of negative emotions, and using happiness as a way to distinguish themselves from other groups.

One of the primary benefits of participant observation is that the researchers are in a much better position to understand the viewpoint and experiences of the people they are studying when they are a part of the social group. The primary limitation with this approach is that the mere presence of the observer could affect the behavior of the people being observed. While this is also a concern with naturalistic observation, additional concerns arise when researchers become active members of the social group they are studying because that they may change the social dynamics and/or influence the behavior of the people they are studying. Similarly, if the researcher acts as a participant observer there can be concerns with biases resulting from developing relationships with the participants. Concretely, the researcher may become less objective resulting in more experimenter bias.

Structured Observation

Structured observation is very similar to naturalistic observation and participant observation in that in all three cases researchers are observing naturally occurring behavior; however, the emphasis in structured observation is on gathering quantitative rather than qualitative data. Researchers using this approach are interested in a limited set of behaviors. This allows them to quantify the behaviors they are observing. In other words, structured observation is less global than naturalistic or participant observation because the researcher engaged in structured observations is interested in a small number of specific behaviors. Therefore, rather than recording everything that happens, the researcher only focuses on very specific behaviors of interest.

Researchers Robert Levine and Ara Norenzayan used structured observation to study differences in the “pace of life” across countries (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999) [4] . One of their measures involved observing pedestrians in a large city to see how long it took them to walk 60 feet. They found that people in some countries walked reliably faster than people in other countries. For example, people in Canada and Sweden covered 60 feet in just under 13 seconds on average, while people in Brazil and Romania took close to 17 seconds. When structured observation takes place in the complex and even chaotic “real world,” the questions of when, where, and under what conditions the observations will be made, and who exactly will be observed are important to consider. Levine and Norenzayan described their sampling process as follows:

Precise specification of the sampling process in this way makes data collection manageable for the observers, and it also provides some control over important extraneous variables. For example, by making their observations on clear summer days in all countries, Levine and Norenzayan controlled for effects of the weather on people’s walking speeds. In Levine and Norenzayan’s study, measurement was relatively straightforward. They simply measured out a 60-foot distance along a city sidewalk and then used a stopwatch to time participants as they walked over that distance.

As another example, researchers Robert Kraut and Robert Johnston wanted to study bowlers’ reactions to their shots, both when they were facing the pins and then when they turned toward their companions (Kraut & Johnston, 1979) [5] . But what “reactions” should they observe? Based on previous research and their own pilot testing, Kraut and Johnston created a list of reactions that included “closed smile,” “open smile,” “laugh,” “neutral face,” “look down,” “look away,” and “face cover” (covering one’s face with one’s hands). The observers committed this list to memory and then practiced by coding the reactions of bowlers who had been videotaped. During the actual study, the observers spoke into an audio recorder, describing the reactions they observed. Among the most interesting results of this study was that bowlers rarely smiled while they still faced the pins. They were much more likely to smile after they turned toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

In yet another example (this one in a laboratory environment), Dov Cohen and his colleagues had observers rate the emotional reactions of participants who had just been deliberately bumped and insulted by a confederate after they dropped off a completed questionnaire at the end of a hallway. The confederate was posing as someone who worked in the same building and who was frustrated by having to close a file drawer twice in order to permit the participants to walk past them (first to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and once again on their way back to the room where they believed the study they signed up for was taking place). The two observers were positioned at different ends of the hallway so that they could read the participants’ body language and hear anything they might say. Interestingly, the researchers hypothesized that participants from the southern United States, which is one of several places in the world that has a “culture of honor,” would react with more aggression than participants from the northern United States, a prediction that was in fact supported by the observational data (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996) [6] .

When the observations require a judgment on the part of the observers—as in the studies by Kraut and Johnston and Cohen and his colleagues—a process referred to as coding is typically required . Coding generally requires clearly defining a set of target behaviors. The observers then categorize participants individually in terms of which behavior they have engaged in and the number of times they engaged in each behavior. The observers might even record the duration of each behavior. The target behaviors must be defined in such a way that guides different observers to code them in the same way. This difficulty with coding illustrates the issue of interrater reliability, as mentioned in Chapter 4. Researchers are expected to demonstrate the interrater reliability of their coding procedure by having multiple raters code the same behaviors independently and then showing that the different observers are in close agreement. Kraut and Johnston, for example, video recorded a subset of their participants’ reactions and had two observers independently code them. The two observers showed that they agreed on the reactions that were exhibited 97% of the time, indicating good interrater reliability.

One of the primary benefits of structured observation is that it is far more efficient than naturalistic and participant observation. Since the researchers are focused on specific behaviors this reduces time and expense. Also, often times the environment is structured to encourage the behaviors of interest which again means that researchers do not have to invest as much time in waiting for the behaviors of interest to naturally occur. Finally, researchers using this approach can clearly exert greater control over the environment. However, when researchers exert more control over the environment it may make the environment less natural which decreases external validity. It is less clear for instance whether structured observations made in a laboratory environment will generalize to a real world environment. Furthermore, since researchers engaged in structured observation are often not disguised there may be more concerns with reactivity.

Case Studies

Like many observational research methods, case studies tend to be more qualitative in nature. Case study methods involve an in-depth, and often a longitudinal examination of an individual. Depending on the focus of the case study, individuals may or may not be observed in their natural setting. If the natural setting is not what is of interest, then the individual may be brought into a therapist’s office or a researcher’s lab for study. Also, the bulk of the case study report will focus on in-depth descriptions of the person rather than on statistical analyses. With that said some quantitative data may also be included in the write-up of a case study. For instance, an individual’s depression score may be compared to normative scores or their score before and after treatment may be compared. As with other qualitative methods, a variety of different methods and tools can be used to collect information on the case. For instance, interviews, naturalistic observation, structured observation, psychological testing (e.g., IQ test), and/or physiological measurements (e.g., brain scans) may be used to collect information on the individual.

The history of psychology is filled with influential cases studies, such as Sigmund Freud’s description of “Anna O.” (see Note 6.1 “The Case of “Anna O.””) and John Watson and Rosalie Rayner’s description of Little Albert (Watson & Rayner, 1920) [7] , who allegedly learned to fear a white rat—along with other furry objects—when the researchers repeatedly made a loud noise every time the rat approached him.

The Case of “Anna O.”

Sigmund Freud used the case of a young woman he called “Anna O.” to illustrate many principles of his theory of psychoanalysis (Freud, 1961) [8] . (Her real name was Bertha Pappenheim, and she was an early feminist who went on to make important contributions to the field of social work.) Anna had come to Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer around 1880 with a variety of odd physical and psychological symptoms. One of them was that for several weeks she was unable to drink any fluids. According to Freud,

But according to Freud, a breakthrough came one day while Anna was under hypnosis.

Freud’s interpretation was that Anna had repressed the memory of this incident along with the emotion that it triggered and that this was what had caused her inability to drink. Furthermore, he believed that her recollection of the incident, along with her expression of the emotion she had repressed, caused the symptom to go away.

However, it is important to note that while case studies can provide insights into certain areas and variables to study, and can be useful in helping develop theories, they should never be used as evidence for theories. In other words, case studies can be used as inspiration to formulate theories and hypotheses, but those hypotheses and theories then need to be formally tested using more rigorous quantitative methods. The reason case studies shouldn’t be used to provide support for theories is that they suffer from problems with both internal and external validity. Case studies lack the proper controls that true experiments contain. As such, they suffer from problems with internal validity, so they cannot be used to determine causation. For instance, during HM’s surgery, the surgeon may have accidentally lesioned another area of HM’s brain (a possibility suggested by the dissection of HM’s brain following his death) and that lesion may have contributed to his inability to consolidate new information. The fact is, with case studies we cannot rule out these sorts of alternative explanations. So, as with all observational methods, case studies do not permit determination of causation. In addition, because case studies are often of a single individual, and typically an abnormal individual, researchers cannot generalize their conclusions to other individuals. Recall that with most research designs there is a trade-off between internal and external validity. With case studies, however, there are problems with both internal validity and external validity. So there are limits both to the ability to determine causation and to generalize the results. A final limitation of case studies is that ample opportunity exists for the theoretical biases of the researcher to color or bias the case description. Indeed, there have been accusations that the woman who studied HM destroyed a lot of her data that were not published and she has been called into question for destroying contradictory data that didn’t support her theory about how memories are consolidated. There is a fascinating New York Times article that describes some of the controversies that ensued after HM’s death and analysis of his brain that can be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/magazine/the-brain-that-couldnt-remember.html?_r=0

Archival Research

Another approach that is often considered observational research involves analyzing archival data that have already been collected for some other purpose. An example is a study by Brett Pelham and his colleagues on “implicit egotism”—the tendency for people to prefer people, places, and things that are similar to themselves (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005) [9] . In one study, they examined Social Security records to show that women with the names Virginia, Georgia, Louise, and Florence were especially likely to have moved to the states of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, respectively.

As with naturalistic observation, measurement can be more or less straightforward when working with archival data. For example, counting the number of people named Virginia who live in various states based on Social Security records is relatively straightforward. But consider a study by Christopher Peterson and his colleagues on the relationship between optimism and health using data that had been collected many years before for a study on adult development (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988) [10] . In the 1940s, healthy male college students had completed an open-ended questionnaire about difficult wartime experiences. In the late 1980s, Peterson and his colleagues reviewed the men’s questionnaire responses to obtain a measure of explanatory style—their habitual ways of explaining bad events that happen to them. More pessimistic people tend to blame themselves and expect long-term negative consequences that affect many aspects of their lives, while more optimistic people tend to blame outside forces and expect limited negative consequences. To obtain a measure of explanatory style for each participant, the researchers used a procedure in which all negative events mentioned in the questionnaire responses, and any causal explanations for them were identified and written on index cards. These were given to a separate group of raters who rated each explanation in terms of three separate dimensions of optimism-pessimism. These ratings were then averaged to produce an explanatory style score for each participant. The researchers then assessed the statistical relationship between the men’s explanatory style as undergraduate students and archival measures of their health at approximately 60 years of age. The primary result was that the more optimistic the men were as undergraduate students, the healthier they were as older men. Pearson’s r was +.25.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. University of Minnesota Press. ↵
Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵
Wilkins, A. (2008). “Happier than Non-Christians”: Collective emotions and symbolic boundaries among evangelical Christians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71 , 281–301. ↵
Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 , 178–205. ↵
Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 1539–1553. ↵
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An "experimental ethnography." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (5), 945-960. ↵
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 , 1–14. ↵
Freud, S. (1961). Five lectures on psycho-analysis . New York, NY: Norton. ↵
Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 , 106–110. ↵
Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for physical illness: A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 23–27. ↵

Skip to secondary menu
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

What is an Observational Study: Definition & Examples

By Jim Frost 10 Comments

What is an Observational Study?

An observational study uses sample data to find correlations in situations where the researchers do not control the treatment, or independent variable, that relates to the primary research question. The definition of an observational study hinges on the notion that the researchers only observe subjects and do not assign them to the control and treatment groups. That’s the key difference between an observational study vs experiment. These studies are also known as quasi-experiments and correlational studies .

True experiments assign subject to the experimental groups where the researchers can manipulate the conditions. Unfortunately, random assignment is not always possible. For these cases, you can conduct an observational study.

In this post, learn about the types of observational studies, why they are susceptible to confounding variables, and how they compare to experiments. I’ll close this post by reviewing a published observational study about vitamin supplement usage.

Observational Study Definition

In an observational study, the researchers only observe the subjects and do not interfere or try to influence the outcomes. In other words, the researchers do not control the treatments or assign subjects to experimental groups. Instead, they observe and measure variables of interest and look for relationships between them. Usually, researchers conduct observational studies when it is difficult, impossible, or unethical to assign study participants to the experimental groups randomly. If you can’t randomly assign subjects to the treatment and control groups, then you observe the subjects in their self-selected states.

Observational Study vs Experiment

Randomized experiments provide better results than observational studies. Consequently, you should always use a randomized experiment whenever possible. However, if randomization is not possible, science should not come to a halt. After all, we still want to learn things, discover relationships, and make discoveries. For these cases, observational studies are a good alternative to a true experiment. Let’s compare the differences between an observational study vs. an experiment.

Random assignment in an experiment reduces systematic differences between experimental groups at the beginning of the study, which increases your confidence that the treatments caused any differences between groups you observe at the end of the study. In contrast, an observational study uses self-formed groups that can have pre-existing differences, which introduces the problem of confounding variables. More on that later!

In a randomized experiment, randomization tends to equalize confounders between groups and, thereby, prevents problems. In my post about random assignment , I describe that process as an elegant solution for confounding variables. You don’t need to measure or even know which variables are confounders, and randomization will still mitigate their effects. Additionally, you can use control variables in an experiment to keep the conditions as consistent as possible. For more detail about the differences, read Observational Study vs. Experiment .



Does not assign subjects to groups	Randomly assigns subjects to control and treatment groups
Does not control variables that can affect outcome	Administers treatments and controls influence of other variables
Correlational findings. Differences might be due to confounders rather than the treatment	More confident that treatments cause the differences in outcomes

If you’re looking for a middle ground choice between observational studies vs experiments, consider using a quasi-experimental design. These methods don’t require you to randomly assign participants to the experimental groups and still allow you to draw better causal conclusions about an intervention than an observational study. Learn more about Quasi-Experimental Design Overview & Examples .

Related posts : Experimental Design: Definition and Examples , Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) , and Control Groups in Experiments

Observational Study Examples

Photograph of a person observing to illustrate an observational study.

Consider using an observational study when random assignment for an experiment is problematic. This approach allows us to proceed and draw conclusions about effects even though we can’t control the independent variables. The following observational study examples will help you understand when and why to use them.

For example, if you’re studying how depression affects performance of an activity, it’s impossible to assign subjects to the depression and control group randomly. However, you can have subjects with and without depression perform the activity and compare the results in an observational study.

Or imagine trying to assign subjects to cigarette smoking and non-smoking groups randomly?! However, you can observe people in both groups and assess the differences in health outcomes in an observational study.

Suppose you’re studying a treatment for a disease. Ideally, you recruit a group of patients who all have the disease, and then randomly assign them to the treatment and control group. However, it’s unethical to withhold the treatment, which rules out a control group. Instead, you can compare patients who voluntarily do not use the medicine to those who do use it.

In all these observational study examples, the researchers do not assign subjects to the experimental groups. Instead, they observe people who are already in these groups and compare the outcomes. Hence, the scientists must use an observational study vs. an experiment.

Types of Observational Studies

The observational study definition states that researchers only observe the outcomes and do not manipulate or control factors . Despite this limitation, there various types of observational studies.

The following experimental designs are three standard types of observational studies.

Cohort Study : A longitudinal observational study that follows a group who share a defining characteristic. These studies frequently determine whether exposure to risk factor affects an outcome over time.
Case-Control Study : A retrospective observational study that compares two existing groups—the case group with the condition and the control group without it. Researchers compare the groups looking for potential risk factors for the condition.
Cross-Sectional Study : Takes a snapshot of a moment in time so researchers can understand the prevalence of outcomes and correlations between variables at that instant.

Qualitative research studies are usually observational in nature, but they collect non-numeric data and do not perform statistical analyses.

Retrospective studies must be observational.

Later in this post, we’ll closely examine a quantitative observational study example that assesses vitamin supplement consumption and how that affects the risk of death. It’s possible to use random assignment to place each subject in either the vitamin treatment group or the control group. However, the study assesses vitamin consumption in 40,000 participants over the course of two decades. It’s unrealistic to enforce the treatment and control protocols over such a long time for so many people!

Drawbacks of Observational Studies

While observational studies get around the inability to assign subjects randomly, this approach opens the door to the problem of confounding variables. A confounding variable, or confounder, correlates with both the experimental groups and the outcome variable. Because there is no random process that equalizes the experimental groups in an observational study, confounding variables can systematically differ between groups when the study begins. Consequently, confounders can be the actual cause for differences in outcome at the end of the study rather than the primary variable of interest. If an experiment does not account for confounding variables, confounders can bias the results and create spurious correlations .

Performing an observational study can decrease the internal validity of your study but increase the external validity. Learn more about internal and external validity .

Let’s see how this works. Imagine an observational study that compares people who take vitamin supplements to those who do not. People who use vitamin supplements voluntarily will tend to have other healthy habits that exist at the beginning of the study. These healthy habits are confounding variables. If there are differences in health outcomes at the end of the study, it’s possible that these healthy habits actually caused them rather than the vitamin consumption itself. In short, confounders confuse the results because they provide alternative explanations for the differences.

Despite the limitations, an observational study can be a valid approach. However, you must ensure that your research accounts for confounding variables. Fortunately, there are several methods for doing just that!

Learn more about Correlation vs. Causation: Understanding the Differences .

Accounting for Confounding Variables in an Observational Study

Because observational studies don’t use random assignment, confounders can be distributed disproportionately between conditions. Consequently, experimenters need to know which variables are confounders, measure them, and then use a method to account for them. It involves more work, and the additional measurements can increase the costs. And there’s always a chance that researchers will fail to identify a confounder, not account for it, and produce biased results. However, if randomization isn’t an option, then you probably need to consider an observational study.

Trait matching and statistically controlling confounders using multivariate procedures are two standard approaches for incorporating confounding variables.

Related post : Causation versus Correlation in Statistics

Matching in Observational Studies

Matching is a technique that involves selecting study participants with similar characteristics outside the variable of interest or treatment. Rather than using random assignment to equalize the experimental groups, the experimenters do it by matching observable characteristics. For every participant in the treatment group, the researchers find a participant with comparable traits to include in the control group. Matching subjects facilitates valid comparisons between those groups. The researchers use subject-area knowledge to identify characteristics that are critical to match.

For example, a vitamin supplement study using matching will select subjects who have similar health-related habits and attributes. The goal is that vitamin consumption will be the primary difference between the groups, which helps you attribute differences in health outcomes to vitamin consumption. However, the researchers are still observing participants who decide whether they consume supplements.

Matching has some drawbacks. The experimenters might not be aware of all the relevant characteristics they need to match. In other words, the groups might be different in an essential aspect that the researchers don’t recognize. For example, in the hypothetical vitamin study, there might be a healthy habit or attribute that affects the outcome that the researchers don’t measure and match. These unmatched characteristics might cause the observed differences in outcomes rather than vitamin consumption.

Learn more about Matched Pairs Design: Uses & Examples .

Using Multiple Regression in Observational Studies

Random assignment and matching use different methods to equalize the experimental groups in an observational study. However, statistical techniques, such as multiple regression analysis , don’t try to equalize the groups but instead use a model that accounts for confounding variables. These studies statistically control for confounding variables.

In multiple regression analysis, including a variable in the model holds it constant while you vary the variable/treatment of interest. For information about this property, read my post When Should I Use Regression Analysis?

As with matching, the challenge is to identify, measure, and include all confounders in the regression model. Failure to include a confounding variable in a regression model can cause omitted variable bias to distort your results.

Next, we’ll look at a published observational study that uses multiple regression to account for confounding variables.

Related post : Independent and Dependent Variables in a Regression Model

Vitamin Supplement Observational Study Example

Vitamins for the example of an observational study.

Murso et al. (2011)* use a longitudinal observational study that ran 22 years to assess differences in death rates for subjects who used vitamin supplements regularly compared to those who did not use them. This study used surveys to record the characteristics of approximately 40,000 participants. The surveys asked questions about potential confounding variables such as demographic information, food intake, health details, physical activity, and, of course, supplement intake.

Because this is an observational study, the subjects decided for themselves whether they were taking vitamin supplements. Consequently, it’s safe to assume that supplement users and non-users might be different in other ways. From their article, the researchers found the following pre-existing differences between the two groups:

Supplement users had a lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, and smoking status; a lower BMI and waist to hip ratio, and were less likely to live on a farm. Supplement users had a higher educational level, were more physically active and were more likely to use estrogen replacement therapy. Also, supplement users were more likely to have a lower intake of energy, total fat, and monounsaturated fatty acids, saturated fatty acids and to have a higher intake of protein, carbohydrates, polyunsaturated fatty acids, alcohol, whole grain products, fruits, and vegetables.

Whew! That’s a long list of differences! Supplement users were different from non-users in a multitude of ways that are likely to affect their risk of dying. The researchers must account for these confounding variables when they compare supplement users to non-users. If they do not, their results can be biased.

This example illustrates a key difference between an observational study vs experiment. In a randomized experiment, the randomization would have equalized the characteristics of those the researchers assigned to the treatment and control groups. Instead, the study works with self-sorted groups that have numerous pre-existing differences!

Using Multiple Regression to Statistically Control for Confounders

To account for these initial differences in the vitamin supplement observational study, the researchers use regression analysis and include the confounding variables in the model.

The researchers present three regression models. The simplest model accounts only for age and caloric intake. Next, are two models that include additional confounding variables beyond age and calories. The first model adds various demographic information and seven health measures. The second model includes everything in the previous model and adds several more specific dietary intake measures. Using statistical significance as a guide for specifying the correct regression model , the researchers present the model with the most variables as the basis for their final results.

It’s instructive to compare the raw results and the final regression results.

Raw results

The raw differences in death risks for consumers of folic acid, vitamin B6, magnesium, zinc, copper, and multivitamins are NOT statistically significant. However, the raw results show a significant reduction in the death risk for users of B complex, C, calcium, D, and E.

However, those are the raw results for the observational study, and they do not control for the long list of differences between the groups that exist at the beginning of the study. After using the regression model to control for the confounding variables statistically, the results change dramatically.

Adjusted results

Of the 15 supplements that the study tracked in the observational study, researchers found consuming seven of these supplements were linked to a statistically significant INCREASE in death risk ( p-value < 0.05): multivitamins (increase in death risk 2.4%), vitamin B6 (4.1%), iron (3.9%), folic acid (5.9%), zinc (3.0%), magnesium (3.6%), and copper (18.0%). Only calcium was associated with a statistically significant reduction in death risk of 3.8%.

In short, the raw results suggest that those who consume supplements either have the same or lower death risks than non-consumers. However, these results do not account for the multitude of healthier habits and attributes in the group that uses supplements.

In fact, these confounders seem to produce most of the apparent benefits in the raw results because, after you statistically control the effects of these confounding variables, the results worsen for those who consume vitamin supplements. The adjusted results indicate that most vitamin supplements actually increase your death risk!

This research illustrates the differences between an observational study vs experiment. Namely how the pre-existing differences between the groups allow confounders to bias the raw results, making the vitamin consumption outcomes look better than they really are.

In conclusion, if you can’t randomly assign subjects to the experimental groups, an observational study might be right for you. However, be aware that you’ll need to identify, measure, and account for confounding variables in your experimental design.

Jaakko Mursu, PhD; Kim Robien, PhD; Lisa J. Harnack, DrPH, MPH; Kyong Park, PhD; David R. Jacobs Jr, PhD; Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women: The Iowa Women’s Health Study ; Arch Intern Med . 2011;171(18):1625-1633.

Reader Interactions

December 30, 2023 at 5:05 am

I see, but our professor required us to indicate what year it was put into the article. May you tell me what year was this published originally? <3

December 30, 2023 at 3:40 pm

December 29, 2023 at 10:46 am

Hi, may I use your article as a citation for my thesis paper? If so, may I know the exact date you published this article? Thank you!

December 29, 2023 at 2:13 pm

Definitely feel free to cite this article! 🙂

When citing online resources, you typically use an “Accessed” date rather than a publication date because online content can change over time. For more information, read Purdue University’s Citing Electronic Resources .

November 18, 2021 at 10:09 pm

Love your content and has been very helpful!

Can you please advise the question below using an observational data set:

I have three years of observational GPS data collected on athletes (2019/2020/2021). Approximately 14-15 athletes per game and 8 games per year. The GPS software outputs 50+ variables for each athlete in each game, which we have narrowed down to 16 variables of interest from previous research.

2 factors 1) Period (first half, second half, and whole game), 2) Position (two groups with three subgroups in each – forwards (group 1, group 2, group 3) and backs (group 1, group 2, group 3))

16 variables of interest – all numerical and scale variables. Some of these are correlated, but not all.

My understanding is that I can use a oneway ANOVA for each year on it’s own, using one factor at a time (period or position) with post hoc analysis. This is fine, if data meets assumptions and is normally distributed. This tells me any significant interactions between variables of interest with chosen factor. For example, with position factor, do forwards in group 1 cover more total running distance than forwards in group 2 or backs in group 3.

However, I want to go deeper with my analysis. If I want to see if forwards in group 1 cover more total running distance in period 1 than backs in group 3 in the same period, I need an additional factor and the oneway ANOVA does not suit. Therefore I can use a twoway ANOVA instead of 2 oneway ANOVA’s and that solves the issue, correct?

This is complicated further by looking to compare 2019 to 2020 or 2019 to 2021 to identify changes over time, which would introduce a third independent variable.

I believe this would require a threeway ANOVA for this observational data set. 3 factors – Position, Period, and Year?

Are there any issues or concerns you see at first glance?

I appreciate your time and consideration.

April 12, 2021 at 2:02 pm

Could an observational study use a correlational design.

e.g. measuring effects of two variables on happiness, if you’re not intervening.

April 13, 2021 at 12:14 am

Typically, with observational studies, you’d want to include potential confounders, etc. Consequently, I’ve seen regression analysis used more frequently for observational studies to be able to control for other things because you’re not using randomization. You could use correlation to observe the relationship. However, you wouldn’t be controlling for potential confounding variables. Just something to consider.

April 11, 2021 at 1:28 pm

Hi, If I am to administer moderate doses of coffee for a hypothetical experiment, does it raise ethical concerns? Can I use random assignment for it?

April 11, 2021 at 4:06 pm

I don’t see any inherent ethical problems here as long as you describe the participant’s experience in the experiment including the coffee consumption. They key with human subjects is “informed consent.” They’re agreeing to participate based on a full and accurate understanding of what participation involves. Additionally, you as a researcher, understand the process well enough to be able to ensure their safety.

In your study, as long as subject know they’ll be drinking coffee and agree to that, I don’t see a problem. It’s a proven safe substance for the vast majority of people. If potential subjects are aware of the need to consume coffee, they can determine whether they are ok with that before agreeing to participate.

June 17, 2019 at 4:51 am

Really great article which explains observational and experimental study very well. It presents broad picture with the case study which helped a lot in understanding the core concepts. Thanks

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

2.2 Approaches to Research

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Describe the different research methods used by psychologists
Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of case studies, naturalistic observation, surveys, and archival research
Compare longitudinal and cross-sectional approaches to research
Compare and contrast correlation and causation

There are many research methods available to psychologists in their efforts to understand, describe, and explain behavior and the cognitive and biological processes that underlie it. Some methods rely on observational techniques. Other approaches involve interactions between the researcher and the individuals who are being studied—ranging from a series of simple questions to extensive, in-depth interviews—to well-controlled experiments.

Each of these research methods has unique strengths and weaknesses, and each method may only be appropriate for certain types of research questions. For example, studies that rely primarily on observation produce incredible amounts of information, but the ability to apply this information to the larger population is somewhat limited because of small sample sizes. Survey research, on the other hand, allows researchers to easily collect data from relatively large samples. While this allows for results to be generalized to the larger population more easily, the information that can be collected on any given survey is somewhat limited and subject to problems associated with any type of self-reported data. Some researchers conduct archival research by using existing records. While this can be a fairly inexpensive way to collect data that can provide insight into a number of research questions, researchers using this approach have no control on how or what kind of data was collected. All of the methods described thus far are correlational in nature. This means that researchers can speak to important relationships that might exist between two or more variables of interest. However, correlational data cannot be used to make claims about cause-and-effect relationships.

Correlational research can find a relationship between two variables, but the only way a researcher can claim that the relationship between the variables is cause and effect is to perform an experiment. In experimental research, which will be discussed later in this chapter, there is a tremendous amount of control over variables of interest. While this is a powerful approach, experiments are often conducted in artificial settings. This calls into question the validity of experimental findings with regard to how they would apply in real-world settings. In addition, many of the questions that psychologists would like to answer cannot be pursued through experimental research because of ethical concerns.

Clinical or Case Studies

In 2011, the New York Times published a feature story on Krista and Tatiana Hogan, Canadian twin girls. These particular twins are unique because Krista and Tatiana are conjoined twins, connected at the head. There is evidence that the two girls are connected in a part of the brain called the thalamus, which is a major sensory relay center. Most incoming sensory information is sent through the thalamus before reaching higher regions of the cerebral cortex for processing.

Link to Learning

Watch this CBC video about Krista's and Tatiana's lives to learn more.

The implications of this potential connection mean that it might be possible for one twin to experience the sensations of the other twin. For instance, if Krista is watching a particularly funny television program, Tatiana might smile or laugh even if she is not watching the program. This particular possibility has piqued the interest of many neuroscientists who seek to understand how the brain uses sensory information.

These twins represent an enormous resource in the study of the brain, and since their condition is very rare, it is likely that as long as their family agrees, scientists will follow these girls very closely throughout their lives to gain as much information as possible (Dominus, 2011).

Over time, it has become clear that while Krista and Tatiana share some sensory experiences and motor control, they remain two distinct individuals, which provides invaluable insight for researchers interested in the mind and the brain (Egnor, 2017).

In observational research, scientists are conducting a clinical or case study when they focus on one person or just a few individuals. Indeed, some scientists spend their entire careers studying just 10–20 individuals. Why would they do this? Obviously, when they focus their attention on a very small number of people, they can gain a precious amount of insight into those cases. The richness of information that is collected in clinical or case studies is unmatched by any other single research method. This allows the researcher to have a very deep understanding of the individuals and the particular phenomenon being studied.

If clinical or case studies provide so much information, why are they not more frequent among researchers? As it turns out, the major benefit of this particular approach is also a weakness. As mentioned earlier, this approach is often used when studying individuals who are interesting to researchers because they have a rare characteristic. Therefore, the individuals who serve as the focus of case studies are not like most other people. If scientists ultimately want to explain all behavior, focusing attention on such a special group of people can make it difficult to generalize any observations to the larger population as a whole. Generalizing refers to the ability to apply the findings of a particular research project to larger segments of society. Again, case studies provide enormous amounts of information, but since the cases are so specific, the potential to apply what’s learned to the average person may be very limited.

Naturalistic Observation

If you want to understand how behavior occurs, one of the best ways to gain information is to simply observe the behavior in its natural context. However, people might change their behavior in unexpected ways if they know they are being observed. How do researchers obtain accurate information when people tend to hide their natural behavior? As an example, imagine that your professor asks everyone in your class to raise their hand if they always wash their hands after using the restroom. Chances are that almost everyone in the classroom will raise their hand, but do you think hand washing after every trip to the restroom is really that universal?

This is very similar to the phenomenon mentioned earlier in this chapter: many individuals do not feel comfortable answering a question honestly. But if we are committed to finding out the facts about hand washing, we have other options available to us.

Suppose we send a classmate into the restroom to actually watch whether everyone washes their hands after using the restroom. Will our observer blend into the restroom environment by wearing a white lab coat, sitting with a clipboard, and staring at the sinks? We want our researcher to be inconspicuous—perhaps standing at one of the sinks pretending to put in contact lenses while secretly recording the relevant information. This type of observational study is called naturalistic observation : observing behavior in its natural setting. To better understand peer exclusion, Suzanne Fanger collaborated with colleagues at the University of Texas to observe the behavior of preschool children on a playground. How did the observers remain inconspicuous over the duration of the study? They equipped a few of the children with wireless microphones (which the children quickly forgot about) and observed while taking notes from a distance. Also, the children in that particular preschool (a “laboratory preschool”) were accustomed to having observers on the playground (Fanger, Frankel, & Hazen, 2012).

It is critical that the observer be as unobtrusive and as inconspicuous as possible: when people know they are being watched, they are less likely to behave naturally. If you have any doubt about this, ask yourself how your driving behavior might differ in two situations: In the first situation, you are driving down a deserted highway during the middle of the day; in the second situation, you are being followed by a police car down the same deserted highway ( Figure 2.7 ).

It should be pointed out that naturalistic observation is not limited to research involving humans. Indeed, some of the best-known examples of naturalistic observation involve researchers going into the field to observe various kinds of animals in their own environments. As with human studies, the researchers maintain their distance and avoid interfering with the animal subjects so as not to influence their natural behaviors. Scientists have used this technique to study social hierarchies and interactions among animals ranging from ground squirrels to gorillas. The information provided by these studies is invaluable in understanding how those animals organize socially and communicate with one another. The anthropologist Jane Goodall , for example, spent nearly five decades observing the behavior of chimpanzees in Africa ( Figure 2.8 ). As an illustration of the types of concerns that a researcher might encounter in naturalistic observation, some scientists criticized Goodall for giving the chimps names instead of referring to them by numbers—using names was thought to undermine the emotional detachment required for the objectivity of the study (McKie, 2010).

The greatest benefit of naturalistic observation is the validity , or accuracy, of information collected unobtrusively in a natural setting. Having individuals behave as they normally would in a given situation means that we have a higher degree of ecological validity, or realism, than we might achieve with other research approaches. Therefore, our ability to generalize the findings of the research to real-world situations is enhanced. If done correctly, we need not worry about people or animals modifying their behavior simply because they are being observed. Sometimes, people may assume that reality programs give us a glimpse into authentic human behavior. However, the principle of inconspicuous observation is violated as reality stars are followed by camera crews and are interviewed on camera for personal confessionals. Given that environment, we must doubt how natural and realistic their behaviors are.

The major downside of naturalistic observation is that they are often difficult to set up and control. In our restroom study, what if you stood in the restroom all day prepared to record people’s hand washing behavior and no one came in? Or, what if you have been closely observing a troop of gorillas for weeks only to find that they migrated to a new place while you were sleeping in your tent? The benefit of realistic data comes at a cost. As a researcher you have no control of when (or if) you have behavior to observe. In addition, this type of observational research often requires significant investments of time, money, and a good dose of luck.

Sometimes studies involve structured observation. In these cases, people are observed while engaging in set, specific tasks. An excellent example of structured observation comes from Strange Situation by Mary Ainsworth (you will read more about this in the chapter on lifespan development). The Strange Situation is a procedure used to evaluate attachment styles that exist between an infant and caregiver. In this scenario, caregivers bring their infants into a room filled with toys. The Strange Situation involves a number of phases, including a stranger coming into the room, the caregiver leaving the room, and the caregiver’s return to the room. The infant’s behavior is closely monitored at each phase, but it is the behavior of the infant upon being reunited with the caregiver that is most telling in terms of characterizing the infant’s attachment style with the caregiver.

Another potential problem in observational research is observer bias . Generally, people who act as observers are closely involved in the research project and may unconsciously skew their observations to fit their research goals or expectations. To protect against this type of bias, researchers should have clear criteria established for the types of behaviors recorded and how those behaviors should be classified. In addition, researchers often compare observations of the same event by multiple observers, in order to test inter-rater reliability : a measure of reliability that assesses the consistency of observations by different observers.

Often, psychologists develop surveys as a means of gathering data. Surveys are lists of questions to be answered by research participants, and can be delivered as paper-and-pencil questionnaires, administered electronically, or conducted verbally ( Figure 2.9 ). Generally, the survey itself can be completed in a short time, and the ease of administering a survey makes it easy to collect data from a large number of people.

Surveys allow researchers to gather data from larger samples than may be afforded by other research methods . A sample is a subset of individuals selected from a population , which is the overall group of individuals that the researchers are interested in. Researchers study the sample and seek to generalize their findings to the population. Generally, researchers will begin this process by calculating various measures of central tendency from the data they have collected. These measures provide an overall summary of what a typical response looks like. There are three measures of central tendency: mode, median, and mean. The mode is the most frequently occurring response, the median lies at the middle of a given data set, and the mean is the arithmetic average of all data points. Means tend to be most useful in conducting additional analyses like those described below; however, means are very sensitive to the effects of outliers, and so one must be aware of those effects when making assessments of what measures of central tendency tell us about a data set in question.

There is both strength and weakness of the survey in comparison to case studies. By using surveys, we can collect information from a larger sample of people. A larger sample is better able to reflect the actual diversity of the population, thus allowing better generalizability. Therefore, if our sample is sufficiently large and diverse, we can assume that the data we collect from the survey can be generalized to the larger population with more certainty than the information collected through a case study. However, given the greater number of people involved, we are not able to collect the same depth of information on each person that would be collected in a case study.

Another potential weakness of surveys is something we touched on earlier in this chapter: People don't always give accurate responses. They may lie, misremember, or answer questions in a way that they think makes them look good. For example, people may report drinking less alcohol than is actually the case.

Any number of research questions can be answered through the use of surveys. One real-world example is the research conducted by Jenkins, Ruppel, Kizer, Yehl, and Griffin (2012) about the backlash against the US Arab-American community following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Jenkins and colleagues wanted to determine to what extent these negative attitudes toward Arab-Americans still existed nearly a decade after the attacks occurred. In one study, 140 research participants filled out a survey with 10 questions, including questions asking directly about the participant’s overt prejudicial attitudes toward people of various ethnicities. The survey also asked indirect questions about how likely the participant would be to interact with a person of a given ethnicity in a variety of settings (such as, “How likely do you think it is that you would introduce yourself to a person of Arab-American descent?”). The results of the research suggested that participants were unwilling to report prejudicial attitudes toward any ethnic group. However, there were significant differences between their pattern of responses to questions about social interaction with Arab-Americans compared to other ethnic groups: they indicated less willingness for social interaction with Arab-Americans compared to the other ethnic groups. This suggested that the participants harbored subtle forms of prejudice against Arab-Americans, despite their assertions that this was not the case (Jenkins et al., 2012).

Archival Research

Some researchers gain access to large amounts of data without interacting with a single research participant. Instead, they use existing records to answer various research questions. This type of research approach is known as archival research . Archival research relies on looking at past records or data sets to look for interesting patterns or relationships.

For example, a researcher might access the academic records of all individuals who enrolled in college within the past ten years and calculate how long it took them to complete their degrees, as well as course loads, grades, and extracurricular involvement. Archival research could provide important information about who is most likely to complete their education, and it could help identify important risk factors for struggling students ( Figure 2.10 ).

In comparing archival research to other research methods, there are several important distinctions. For one, the researcher employing archival research never directly interacts with research participants. Therefore, the investment of time and money to collect data is considerably less with archival research. Additionally, researchers have no control over what information was originally collected. Therefore, research questions have to be tailored so they can be answered within the structure of the existing data sets. There is also no guarantee of consistency between the records from one source to another, which might make comparing and contrasting different data sets problematic.

Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Research

Sometimes we want to see how people change over time, as in studies of human development and lifespan. When we test the same group of individuals repeatedly over an extended period of time, we are conducting longitudinal research. Longitudinal research is a research design in which data-gathering is administered repeatedly over an extended period of time. For example, we may survey a group of individuals about their dietary habits at age 20, retest them a decade later at age 30, and then again at age 40.

Another approach is cross-sectional research. In cross-sectional research , a researcher compares multiple segments of the population at the same time. Using the dietary habits example above, the researcher might directly compare different groups of people by age. Instead of studying a group of people for 20 years to see how their dietary habits changed from decade to decade, the researcher would study a group of 20-year-old individuals and compare them to a group of 30-year-old individuals and a group of 40-year-old individuals. While cross-sectional research requires a shorter-term investment, it is also limited by differences that exist between the different generations (or cohorts) that have nothing to do with age per se, but rather reflect the social and cultural experiences of different generations of individuals that make them different from one another.

To illustrate this concept, consider the following survey findings. In recent years there has been significant growth in the popular support of same-sex marriage. Many studies on this topic break down survey participants into different age groups. In general, younger people are more supportive of same-sex marriage than are those who are older (Jones, 2013). Does this mean that as we age we become less open to the idea of same-sex marriage, or does this mean that older individuals have different perspectives because of the social climates in which they grew up? Longitudinal research is a powerful approach because the same individuals are involved in the research project over time, which means that the researchers need to be less concerned with differences among cohorts affecting the results of their study.

Often longitudinal studies are employed when researching various diseases in an effort to understand particular risk factors. Such studies often involve tens of thousands of individuals who are followed for several decades. Given the enormous number of people involved in these studies, researchers can feel confident that their findings can be generalized to the larger population. The Cancer Prevention Study-3 (CPS-3) is one of a series of longitudinal studies sponsored by the American Cancer Society aimed at determining predictive risk factors associated with cancer. When participants enter the study, they complete a survey about their lives and family histories, providing information on factors that might cause or prevent the development of cancer. Then every few years the participants receive additional surveys to complete. In the end, hundreds of thousands of participants will be tracked over 20 years to determine which of them develop cancer and which do not.

Clearly, this type of research is important and potentially very informative. For instance, earlier longitudinal studies sponsored by the American Cancer Society provided some of the first scientific demonstrations of the now well-established links between increased rates of cancer and smoking (American Cancer Society, n.d.) ( Figure 2.11 ).

As with any research strategy, longitudinal research is not without limitations. For one, these studies require an incredible time investment by the researcher and research participants. Given that some longitudinal studies take years, if not decades, to complete, the results will not be known for a considerable period of time. In addition to the time demands, these studies also require a substantial financial investment. Many researchers are unable to commit the resources necessary to see a longitudinal project through to the end.

Research participants must also be willing to continue their participation for an extended period of time, and this can be problematic. People move, get married and take new names, get ill, and eventually die. Even without significant life changes, some people may simply choose to discontinue their participation in the project. As a result, the attrition rates, or reduction in the number of research participants due to dropouts, in longitudinal studies are quite high and increase over the course of a project. For this reason, researchers using this approach typically recruit many participants fully expecting that a substantial number will drop out before the end. As the study progresses, they continually check whether the sample still represents the larger population, and make adjustments as necessary.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Psychology 2e
Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-2-approaches-to-research

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Observation Method in Psychology: Naturalistic, Participant and Controlled

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The observation method in psychology involves directly and systematically witnessing and recording measurable behaviors, actions, and responses in natural or contrived settings without attempting to intervene or manipulate what is being observed.

Used to describe phenomena, generate hypotheses, or validate self-reports, psychological observation can be either controlled or naturalistic with varying degrees of structure imposed by the researcher.

There are different types of observational methods, and distinctions need to be made between:

1. Controlled Observations 2. Naturalistic Observations 3. Participant Observations

In addition to the above categories, observations can also be either overt/disclosed (the participants know they are being studied) or covert/undisclosed (the researcher keeps their real identity a secret from the research subjects, acting as a genuine member of the group).

In general, conducting observational research is relatively inexpensive, but it remains highly time-consuming and resource-intensive in data processing and analysis.

The considerable investments needed in terms of coder time commitments for training, maintaining reliability, preventing drift, and coding complex dynamic interactions place practical barriers on observers with limited resources.

Controlled Observation

Controlled observation is a research method for studying behavior in a carefully controlled and structured environment.

The researcher sets specific conditions, variables, and procedures to systematically observe and measure behavior, allowing for greater control and comparison of different conditions or groups.

The researcher decides where the observation will occur, at what time, with which participants, and in what circumstances, and uses a standardized procedure. Participants are randomly allocated to each independent variable group.

Rather than writing a detailed description of all behavior observed, it is often easier to code behavior according to a previously agreed scale using a behavior schedule (i.e., conducting a structured observation).

The researcher systematically classifies the behavior they observe into distinct categories. Coding might involve numbers or letters to describe a characteristic or the use of a scale to measure behavior intensity.

The categories on the schedule are coded so that the data collected can be easily counted and turned into statistics.

For example, Mary Ainsworth used a behavior schedule to study how infants responded to brief periods of separation from their mothers. During the Strange Situation procedure, the infant’s interaction behaviors directed toward the mother were measured, e.g.,

Proximity and contact-seeking
Contact maintaining
Avoidance of proximity and contact
Resistance to contact and comforting

The observer noted down the behavior displayed during 15-second intervals and scored the behavior for intensity on a scale of 1 to 7.

Sometimes participants’ behavior is observed through a two-way mirror, or they are secretly filmed. Albert Bandura used this method to study aggression in children (the Bobo doll studies ).

A lot of research has been carried out in sleep laboratories as well. Here, electrodes are attached to the scalp of participants. What is observed are the changes in electrical activity in the brain during sleep ( the machine is called an EEG ).

Controlled observations are usually overt as the researcher explains the research aim to the group so the participants know they are being observed.

Controlled observations are also usually non-participant as the researcher avoids direct contact with the group and keeps a distance (e.g., observing behind a two-way mirror).

Controlled observations can be easily replicated by other researchers by using the same observation schedule. This means it is easy to test for reliability .
The data obtained from structured observations is easier and quicker to analyze as it is quantitative (i.e., numerical) – making this a less time-consuming method compared to naturalistic observations.
Controlled observations are fairly quick to conduct which means that many observations can take place within a short amount of time. This means a large sample can be obtained, resulting in the findings being representative and having the ability to be generalized to a large population.

Limitations

Controlled observations can lack validity due to the Hawthorne effect /demand characteristics. When participants know they are being watched, they may act differently.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is a research method in which the researcher studies behavior in its natural setting without intervention or manipulation.

It involves observing and recording behavior as it naturally occurs, providing insights into real-life behaviors and interactions in their natural context.

Naturalistic observation is a research method commonly used by psychologists and other social scientists.

This technique involves observing and studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in natural surroundings. The researcher simply records what they see in whatever way they can.

In unstructured observations, the researcher records all relevant behavior with a coding system. There may be too much to record, and the behaviors recorded may not necessarily be the most important, so the approach is usually used as a pilot study to see what type of behaviors would be recorded.

Compared with controlled observations, it is like the difference between studying wild animals in a zoo and studying them in their natural habitat.

With regard to human subjects, Margaret Mead used this method to research the way of life of different tribes living on islands in the South Pacific. Kathy Sylva used it to study children at play by observing their behavior in a playgroup in Oxfordshire.

Collecting Naturalistic Behavioral Data

Technological advances are enabling new, unobtrusive ways of collecting naturalistic behavioral data.

The Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) is a digital recording device participants can wear to periodically sample ambient sounds, allowing representative sampling of daily experiences (Mehl et al., 2012).

Studies program EARs to record 30-50 second sound snippets multiple times per hour. Although coding the recordings requires extensive resources, EARs can capture spontaneous behaviors like arguments or laughter.

EARs minimize participant reactivity since sampling occurs outside of awareness. This reduces the Hawthorne effect, where people change behavior when observed.

The SenseCam is another wearable device that passively captures images documenting daily activities. Though primarily used in memory research currently (Smith et al., 2014), systematic sampling of environments and behaviors via the SenseCam could enable innovative psychological studies in the future.

By being able to observe the flow of behavior in its own setting, studies have greater ecological validity.
Like case studies , naturalistic observation is often used to generate new ideas. Because it gives the researcher the opportunity to study the total situation, it often suggests avenues of inquiry not thought of before.
The ability to capture actual behaviors as they unfold in real-time, analyze sequential patterns of interactions, measure base rates of behaviors, and examine socially undesirable or complex behaviors that people may not self-report accurately.
These observations are often conducted on a micro (small) scale and may lack a representative sample (biased in relation to age, gender, social class, or ethnicity). This may result in the findings lacking the ability to generalize to wider society.
Natural observations are less reliable as other variables cannot be controlled. This makes it difficult for another researcher to repeat the study in exactly the same way.
Highly time-consuming and resource-intensive during the data coding phase (e.g., training coders, maintaining inter-rater reliability, preventing judgment drift).
With observations, we do not have manipulations of variables (or control over extraneous variables), meaning cause-and-effect relationships cannot be established.

Participant Observation

Participant observation is a variant of the above (natural observations) but here, the researcher joins in and becomes part of the group they are studying to get a deeper insight into their lives.

If it were research on animals , we would now not only be studying them in their natural habitat but be living alongside them as well!

Leon Festinger used this approach in a famous study into a religious cult that believed that the end of the world was about to occur. He joined the cult and studied how they reacted when the prophecy did not come true.

Participant observations can be either covert or overt. Covert is where the study is carried out “undercover.” The researcher’s real identity and purpose are kept concealed from the group being studied.

The researcher takes a false identity and role, usually posing as a genuine member of the group.

On the other hand, overt is where the researcher reveals his or her true identity and purpose to the group and asks permission to observe.

It can be difficult to get time/privacy for recording. For example, researchers can’t take notes openly with covert observations as this would blow their cover. This means they must wait until they are alone and rely on their memory. This is a problem as they may forget details and are unlikely to remember direct quotations.
If the researcher becomes too involved, they may lose objectivity and become biased. There is always the danger that we will “see” what we expect (or want) to see. This problem is because they could selectively report information instead of noting everything they observe. Thus reducing the validity of their data.

Recording of Data

With controlled/structured observation studies, an important decision the researcher has to make is how to classify and record the data. Usually, this will involve a method of sampling.

In most coding systems, codes or ratings are made either per behavioral event or per specified time interval (Bakeman & Quera, 2011).

The three main sampling methods are:

Event-based coding involves identifying and segmenting interactions into meaningful events rather than timed units.

For example, parent-child interactions may be segmented into control or teaching events to code. Interval recording involves dividing interactions into fixed time intervals (e.g., 6-15 seconds) and coding behaviors within each interval (Bakeman & Quera, 2011).

Event recording allows counting event frequency and sequencing while also potentially capturing event duration through timed-event recording. This provides information on time spent on behaviors.

Coding Systems

The coding system should focus on behaviors, patterns, individual characteristics, or relationship qualities that are relevant to the theory guiding the study (Wampler & Harper, 2014).

Codes vary in how much inference is required, from concrete observable behaviors like frequency of eye contact to more abstract concepts like degree of rapport between a therapist and client (Hill & Lambert, 2004). More inference may reduce reliability.

Macroanalytic coding systems

Macroanalytic coding systems involve rating or summarizing behaviors using larger coding units and broader categories that reflect patterns across longer periods of interaction rather than coding small or discrete behavioral acts.

For example, a macroanalytic coding system may rate the overall degree of therapist warmth or level of client engagement globally for an entire therapy session, requiring the coders to summarize and infer these constructs across the interaction rather than coding smaller behavioral units.

These systems require observers to make more inferences (more time-consuming) but can better capture contextual factors, stability over time, and the interdependent nature of behaviors (Carlson & Grotevant, 1987).

Microanalytic coding systems

Microanalytic coding systems involve rating behaviors using smaller, more discrete coding units and categories.

For example, a microanalytic system may code each instance of eye contact or head nodding during a therapy session. These systems code specific, molecular behaviors as they occur moment-to-moment rather than summarizing actions over longer periods.

Microanalytic systems require less inference from coders and allow for analysis of behavioral contingencies and sequential interactions between therapist and client. However, they are more time-consuming and expensive to implement than macroanalytic approaches.

Mesoanalytic coding systems

Mesoanalytic coding systems attempt to balance macro- and micro-analytic approaches.

In contrast to macroanalytic systems that summarize behaviors in larger chunks, mesoanalytic systems use medium-sized coding units that target more specific behaviors or interaction sequences (Bakeman & Quera, 2017).

For example, a mesoanalytic system may code each instance of a particular type of therapist statement or client emotional expression. However, mesoanalytic systems still use larger units than microanalytic approaches coding every speech onset/offset.

The goal of balancing specificity and feasibility makes mesoanalytic systems well-suited for many research questions (Morris et al., 2014). Mesoanalytic codes can preserve some sequential information while remaining efficient enough for studies with adequate but limited resources.

For instance, a mesoanalytic couple interaction coding system could target key behavior patterns like validation sequences without coding turn-by-turn speech.

In this way, mesoanalytic coding allows reasonable reliability and specificity without requiring extensive training or observation. The mid-level focus offers a pragmatic compromise between depth and breadth in analyzing interactions.

Preventing Coder Drift

Coder drift results in a measurement error caused by gradual shifts in how observations get rated according to operational definitions, especially when behavioral codes are not clearly specified.

This type of error creeps in when coders fail to regularly review what precise observations constitute or do not constitute the behaviors being measured.

Preventing drift refers to taking active steps to maintain consistency and minimize changes or deviations in how coders rate or evaluate behaviors over time. Specifically, some key ways to prevent coder drift include:

Operationalize codes : It is essential that code definitions unambiguously distinguish what interactions represent instances of each coded behavior.
Ongoing training : Returning to those operational definitions through ongoing training serves to recalibrate coder interpretations and reinforce accurate recognition. Having regular “check-in” sessions where coders practice coding the same interactions allows monitoring that they continue applying codes reliably without gradual shifts in interpretation.
Using reference videos : Coders periodically coding the same “gold standard” reference videos anchors their judgments and calibrate against original training. Without periodic anchoring to original specifications, coder decisions tend to drift from initial measurement reliability.
Assessing inter-rater reliability : Statistical tracking that coders maintain high levels of agreement over the course of a study, not just at the start, flags any declines indicating drift. Sustaining inter-rater agreement requires mitigating this common tendency for observer judgment change during intensive, long-term coding tasks.
Recalibrating through discussion : Having meetings for coders to discuss disagreements openly explores reasons judgment shifts may be occurring over time. Consensus on the application of codes is restored.
Adjusting unclear codes : If reliability issues persist, revisiting and refining ambiguous code definitions or anchors can eliminate inconsistencies arising from coder confusion.

Essentially, the goal of preventing coder drift is maintaining standardization and minimizing unintentional biases that may slowly alter how observational data gets rated over periods of extensive coding.

Through the upkeep of skills, continuing calibration to benchmarks, and monitoring consistency, researchers can notice and correct for any creeping changes in coder decision-making over time.

Reducing Observer Bias

Observational research is prone to observer biases resulting from coders’ subjective perspectives shaping the interpretation of complex interactions (Burghardt et al., 2012). When coding, personal expectations may unconsciously influence judgments. However, rigorous methods exist to reduce such bias.

Coding Manual

A detailed coding manual minimizes subjectivity by clearly defining what behaviors and interaction dynamics observers should code (Bakeman & Quera, 2011).

High-quality manuals have strong theoretical and empirical grounding, laying out explicit coding procedures and providing rich behavioral examples to anchor code definitions (Lindahl, 2001).

Clear delineation of the frequency, intensity, duration, and type of behaviors constituting each code facilitates reliable judgments and reduces ambiguity for coders. Application risks inconsistency across raters without clarity on how codes translate to observable interaction.

Coder Training

Competent coders require both interpersonal perceptiveness and scientific rigor (Wampler & Harper, 2014). Training thoroughly reviews the theoretical basis for coded constructs and teaches the coding system itself.

Multiple “gold standard” criterion videos demonstrate code ranges that trainees independently apply. Coders then meet weekly to establish reliability of 80% or higher agreement both among themselves and with master criterion coding (Hill & Lambert, 2004).

Ongoing training manages coder drift over time. Revisions to unclear codes may also improve reliability. Both careful selection and investment in rigorous training increase quality control.

Blind Methods

To prevent bias, coders should remain unaware of specific study predictions or participant details (Burghardt et al., 2012). Separate data gathering versus coding teams helps maintain blinding.

Coders should be unaware of study details or participant identities that could bias coding (Burghardt et al., 2012).

Separate teams collecting data versus coding data can reduce bias.

In addition, scheduling procedures can prevent coders from rating data collected directly from participants with whom they have had personal contact. Maintaining coder independence and blinding enhances objectivity.

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2017). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Burghardt, G. M., Bartmess-LeVasseur, J. N., Browning, S. A., Morrison, K. E., Stec, C. L., Zachau, C. E., & Freeberg, T. M. (2012). Minimizing observer bias in behavioral studies: A review and recommendations. Ethology, 118 (6), 511-517.

Hill, C. E., & Lambert, M. J. (2004). Methodological issues in studying psychotherapy processes and outcomes. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 84–135). Wiley.

Lindahl, K. M. (2001). Methodological issues in family observational research. In P. K. Kerig & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 23–32). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mehl, M. R., Robbins, M. L., & Deters, F. G. (2012). Naturalistic observation of health-relevant social processes: The electronically activated recorder methodology in psychosomatics. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74 (4), 410–417.

Morris, A. S., Robinson, L. R., & Eisenberg, N. (2014). Applying a multimethod perspective to the study of developmental psychology. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 103–123). Cambridge University Press.

Smith, J. A., Maxwell, S. D., & Johnson, G. (2014). The microstructure of everyday life: Analyzing the complex choreography of daily routines through the automatic capture and processing of wearable sensor data. In B. K. Wiederhold & G. Riva (Eds.), Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine 2014: Positive Change with Technology (Vol. 199, pp. 62-64). IOS Press.

Traniello, J. F., & Bakker, T. C. (2015). The integrative study of behavioral interactions across the sciences. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 119-147). Springer.

Wampler, K. S., & Harper, A. (2014). Observational methods in couple and family assessment. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 490–502). Cambridge University Press.

Research Methodology

Phenomenology In Qualitative Research

Ethnography In Qualitative Research

Narrative Analysis In Qualitative Research

Thematic Analysis: A Step by Step Guide

Metasynthesis Of Qualitative Research

Grounded Theory In Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Wiley Open Access Collection

Evidence‐based medicine—When observational studies are better than randomized controlled trials

Jizzo r. bosdriesz.

1 ERA‐EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC‐location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam The Netherlands

Vianda S. Stel

Merel van diepen.

2 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden The Netherlands

Yvette Meuleman

Friedo w. dekker, carmine zoccali.

3 CNR‐IFC, Clinical Epidemiology and Pathophysiology of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Reggio Calabria Italy

Kitty J. Jager

In evidence‐based medicine, clinical research questions may be addressed by different study designs. This article describes when randomized controlled trials (RCT) are needed and when observational studies are more suitable. According to the Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine, study designs can be divided into analytic and non‐analytic (descriptive) study designs. Analytic studies aim to quantify the association of an intervention (eg, treatment) or a naturally occurring exposure with an outcome. They can be subdivided into experimental (ie, RCT) and observational studies. The RCT is the best study design to evaluate the intended effect of an intervention, because the randomization procedure breaks the link between the allocation of the intervention and patient prognosis. If the randomization of the intervention or exposure is not possible, one needs to depend on observational analytic studies, but these studies usually suffer from bias and confounding. If the study focuses on unintended effects of interventions (ie, effects of an intervention that are not intended or foreseen), observational analytic studies are the most suitable study designs, provided that there is no link between the allocation of the intervention and the unintended effect. Furthermore, non‐analytic studies (ie, descriptive studies) also rely on observational study designs. In summary, RCTs and observational study designs are inherently different, and depending on the study aim, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

SUMMARY AT A GLANCE

In evidence‐based medicine, clinical research questions may be addressed by different study designs. In this article, we explain that randomized controlled trials and observational study designs are inherently different, and depending on the study aim, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

1. INTRODUCTION

A lead editorial in the British Medical Journal by Dave Sackett defined evidence‐based medicine (EBM) as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” 1 In EBM, clinical research questions may be addressed by different study designs, each with their own merits and limitations. In the traditional hierarchy of study designs, the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is placed on top, followed by cohort studies, case‐control studies, case reports and case series. 2 However, the foremost consideration for the choice of study design should be the research question. For some research questions, an RCT might be the most suitable design, whereas for other research questions observational study designs are to be preferred.

According to the Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine, clinical studies can be divided into analytic and non‐analytic studies. 3 The types of clinical studies (analytic vs non‐analytic studies) along with specific study designs and examples of research questions are given in Table Table1. 1 . An analytic study aims to quantify the causal relationship between an intervention (eg, treatment) or a naturally occurring exposure (hereafter indicated as exposure) (eg, the presence of a disease) and an outcome. 3 , 4 To quantify the effect, it is necessary to compare the rates of the outcome in the intervention or exposed group, with that in a control group. Within analytic research, a further distinction can be made between experimental and observational analytic studies. 3 In experimental studies, that is, RCTs, the investigator intentionally manipulates the intervention by randomly allocating participants to the intervention or control group. 4 In contrast, in observational analytic studies, the intervention or exposure as well as the control group are simply measured (observed) without manipulation by the researcher. Non‐analytic or descriptive studies on the other hand aim to describe what is happening in a population (eg, the incidence or prevalence of a disease), without quantifying a causal relationship, using observational study designs. 3 , 4

Types of clinical studies with related study designs and examples

Types of clinical studies	Study designs	Studied association	Examples

Experimental	Randomized controlled trial	Between an intervention and an intended outcome	What is the effect of benazepril plus amlodipine vs benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide on the progression of CKD?
Observational analytic	Cohort study, case‐control study, some cross‐sectional studies	Between an intervention and an intended outcome	What is the difference in survival among ESRD patients on dialysis, on a transplant waiting list, and after receiving a renal transplant?
		Between an exposure and outcome	What is the risk of all‐cause mortality in each stage of CKD?
		Between an intervention and unintended outcome	What are the effects of ACE/AII inhibitors use vs no use, on peritoneal membrane transport characteristic in long‐term PD patients?

Descriptive	Case reports, case series, cross‐sectional studies (surveys)	Not applicable	What is the prevalence of CKD in individual European countries?
			What are the international time trends in the incidence of RRT for ESRD by PRD from 2005 to 2014?

Abbreviations: ACE, angiotensin‐converting enzyme; AII, angiotensin‐II; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CRF, chronic renal failure; ESRD, end‐stage renal disease; PD, peritoneal dialysis; PRD, primary renal disease; RRT, renal replacement therapy.

This article aims to show when RCT are needed, and when observational studies are more suitable than RCT.

2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

When the aim is to evaluate the intended effect of an intervention, the RCT is the gold standard (Figure (Figure1A). 1A ). An intended effect is the outcome the person who prescribes the intervention intends to achieve. For example, a physician may prescribe a certain drug with the intention to prevent mortality. This is different from unintended effects, which will be discussed later in this article. 5 By the strength of the design, the evidence produced by a sufficiently powered RCT is highly convincing in determining the presence or absence of a causal relationship between an intervention and its intended effect on the outcome. 6 In an RCT, randomization is used to allocate participants to the intervention group or the control group (eg, without intervention, with a placebo or an alternative treatment). By randomization, one aims to prevent confounding by indication, also known as selection by prognosis. 7 Confounding by indication usually occurs when clinicians decide who will receive the intervention, as their opinion about the patient's prognosis guides their decision on treatment allocation. 8 For example, patients with more severe symptoms usually receive treatment that is more intensive. As a result, the group receiving more intensive treatment may have worse outcomes due to their worse prognosis at baseline. 9 Without randomization, the intervention and the control group will usually be different with respect to their baseline characteristics and their prognosis. Of note, randomization does not guarantee that the intervention and control group will be exactly the same in terms of baseline characteristics. However, randomization does ensure that any remaining differences between the intervention and control groups are determined by chance. 8

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is NEP-25-737-g001.jpg

Outline of different analytic studies using A, an experimental study (randomized controlled trial) and B, C, D, an observational analytic study. Case‐mix* refers to differences in measured and unmeasured confounders between exposed and unexposed groups

An example of an RCT is the study by Bakris et al in which 11 506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk of cardiovascular events were randomly assigned to receive benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. 10 These patients were followed over time to assess the effect of these different anti‐hypertensive treatments (intervention) with respect to slowing the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (intended outcome). The investigators found that the risk of progression was lower using a combination of benazepril plus amlodipine than with benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52) (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.41‐0.65).

2.1. Limitations of RCT

Randomized controlled trials have several important limitations. First, the generalizability of their results is often limited due to sampling bias. This occurs when the study sample or the groups resulting from randomization are not representative of the source population they were drawn from. 7 , 11 This can be due to strict inclusion criteria. RCTs outside the field of nephrology often routinely exclude CKD patients and therefore the generalizability of their results to patients with CKD may be questionable. 12 Second, RCT are generally expensive to perform, 13 and therefore the study samples are often relatively small and their follow‐up relatively short. As a result, there might be substantial baseline differences remaining in the measured and unmeasured confounders between the two groups after randomization (although these differences are determined by chance). Third, for some research questions on the intended effect of an intervention, an RCT may be impossible, unfeasible or unnecessary. For instance, an RCT might be too costly, it might be unethical to randomize the intervention, or the health benefit of the treatment may be so dramatic that observational studies can demonstrate their effectiveness. These and other reasons are described in more detail elsewhere. 2 , 14 , 15

3. OBSERVATIONAL ANALYTIC STUDIES

In the above‐mentioned situations, when performing an RCT investigating the intended effect of an intervention is not possible or not justified, observational study designs, such as cohort studies (Figure (Figure1B) 1B ) or case‐control studies are needed. 6 An observational study design may also be preferred for other reasons, such as the lack of generalizability in an RCT. Observational studies are also necessary to assess the effect of a naturally occurring exposure on an outcome (Figure (Figure1C). 1C ). Please note that in observational analytic studies investigating the effect of an exposure there are no intended or unintended effects, just outcomes. 16

In cohort studies, participants are free of the outcome at study entry and are followed over time to assess who will develop the outcome and who will not. Cohort studies tend to be less costly to perform than RCTs, as they usually rely on less invasive and intensive methods of data collection. In addition, usually there are less ethical aspects to consider, since there is no intervention. However, a specific limitation of cohort studies is that they typically need to run for several years, and/or include many participants, in order to observe a sufficient number of occurrences of the (potentially rare) outcome. An example of a large cohort study, running for more than a decade, is the study by Wen et al. 17 They studied a large cohort of 462 293 adults to compare the all‐cause mortality risk (outcome) between different stages of CKD (naturally occurring exposure). They found the HR for all‐cause mortality to be lower in CKD stage 1 (HR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.5‐2.2), stage 2 (HR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.5‐1.9), and stage 3 (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4‐1.6) compared with CKD stage 4 (HR: 5.3, 95% CI: 4.5‐6.2) and stage 5 (HR: 9.1, 95% CI: 7.2‐11.4). 17

Case‐control studies are usually more efficient than cohort studies, because instead of selecting individuals on the basis of exposure or intervention, the selection of individuals is based on the outcome. Patients with a certain outcome (cases) are compared with a subset of individuals who did not develop the outcome (controls). 6 As a result, the number of included persons in the control group can be limited. The researchers may then use retrospective data to find out to what extent cases and controls were exposed to the exposure or intervention of interest. The main limitations of case‐control studies may include the difficulty in selecting an appropriate control group, and recall bias as data are always collected retrospectively. An example of a case‐control study is the study by Fored et al on the association between socio‐economic status (SES) (naturally occurring exposure) and chronic renal failure (CRF) (outcome). 18 They defined a source population from which they selected those with CRF as cases, and randomly selected a similar number of people without CRF as controls. They found that in families having a low SES, the risk of developing CRF was significantly higher (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6 [95% CI: 1.0‐2.6] for men and OR = 2.1 [95% CI: 1.1‐4.0] for women) than in families with a high SES.

The main drawback of observational analytic studies is that the intervention or exposure is not randomized, and therefore confounding by indication (in case of an intervention) or differences in case‐mix between the exposed and unexposed groups (in case of a naturally occurring exposure) are likely to exist. 6 This means that there are usually differences in measured and unmeasured confounders between the comparison groups. 11 As a result, any observed effect of the intervention or the exposure on the outcome might be due to these baseline differences. A variety of methods exists aiming to address confounding in observational analytic studies. The most commonly used methods are given in Box Box1. 1 . However, in most cases, residual confounding remains and as a result, it is often not possible to draw firm conclusions about causality from observational analytic studies.

Methods used in observational analytic studies aiming to address confounding

Method	Description	Potential limitations	References
Restriction	Restricting the study sample by including only participants with equal or more similar values of a measured confounding variable, thereby reducing confounding. The association between exposure and outcome is studied in this restricted group only	Lower generalizability of results, reduced sample size and statistical power, less useful if there are many confounders
Stratification	Participants are divided into groups on the basis of a measured confounding variable. The association between exposure and outcome is studied in each group, and usually a weighted average of the association is calculated for the combined groups	Less useful if there are many confounders	,
Multi‐variable regression	The effect of the exposure on the outcome is modelled together with all measured potential confounders (following the criteria for confounding), resulting in an estimated effect size that is adjusted for all confounders	Sample size and number of events determine how many confounders can be included in the model	,
Propensity score matching	The propensity score (PS) is the probability for any individual to be allocated to the treatment condition, calculated (usually by logistic regression) from their baseline characteristics. Thereafter each treated participant can be matched to an untreated participant, who had the same probability of receiving the treatment. Outcomes in both groups are then compared to determine the treatment effect	Finding matches can be difficult, leading to dropping of unmatched cases or accepting less‐than‐ideal matches	, ,
Inverse probability weighting	A probability is calculated for each individual, which is then used to weight the observations. These weights are calculated by taking the inverse of the PS (1/PS) for those in the exposed sample, and 1/1‐PS for those in the unexposed sample. After weighting, regular statistical tests can be used, usually without further need for adjusting for observed confounders	Biased if the model to estimate weights is not specified correctly	,
Instrumental variables	An instrumental variable (IV) or is first identified, this variable should meet three criteria: (a) the IV has a causal effect on the allocation of exposure, (b) the IV has no direct effect on the outcome (only through the actual exposure) and (c) the IV and the outcome do not share common causes. The second step is to estimate the proportion of variance in the allocation of the exposure attributable to the IV. When participants are grouped based on the IV, which is assumed to be pseudo‐randomized, their results can be compared to determine the effect of the exposure	Finding a suitable IV can be difficult, potentially non‐perfect correlation between IV and the exposure, assumed homogeneity in treatment effect may be violated	,

4. STUDY OF UNINTENDED EFFECTS

Unintended effects are all effects on outcomes—harmful, harmless or even beneficial—that are produced by an intervention or treatment, that were not originally intended by the person who prescribed the intervention. 4 In the field of medicine, unintended effects can be side effects, and particularly the side effects of pharmaceutical agents are widely studied. Unintended effects of interventions may be relatively uncommon and often hard to predict, and they are therefore usually not considered in clinicians' decision‐making. 8 When clinicians do not know the unintended effects of an intervention, they cannot base their treatment allocation on these effects and therefore confounding by indication usually does not occur. 8 For this reason randomization is not needed, and thus observational analytic studies can be used to quantify the unintended effects of interventions (Figure (Figure1D). 1D ). Because unintended effects may occur less frequently, these studies may require a large sample size and sometimes extended follow‐up. 8 In this perspective, RCTs are also less suitable as they normally include relatively small patient samples with relatively short follow‐up times, and have limited generalizability as a result of rigid in‐ and exclusion criteria. It should be noted; however, that once the occurrence of an unintended effect of a treatment is well known, physicians may take this into account in their treatment allocation, and consequently confounding by indication may occur. Also, in the situation that the treatment allocation by the physician is related to a certain variable (eg, patients with more severe symptoms receive more intensive treatment) and this specific variable is related to the unintended outcome (eg, patients with more severe symptoms may suffer more from unintended effects) confounding by indication will also occur. In this case, an RCT might be a more appropriate study design provided the unintended effect occurs with sufficient frequency.

Once a treatment has been introduced into clinical practice, one can study its unintended effects. To this end, pharmaceutical companies use so‐called post‐marketing surveillance, which is often mandated by the regulatory agencies, such as the American Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. To monitor the effectiveness and safety of drugs, and the occurrence of unintended effects, they rely on real‐world observational study designs. 19 Most unintended effects, especially those that are adverse and require medical attention, are first brought to attention in case reports. 20 However, some adverse effects might be very common, relatively benign, or only occur long after the treatment start, and not give rise to case reports, leading to underreporting. Therefore, more systematic surveillance systems that can link data from health‐care insurers and government agencies, and observational cohort studies might be employed. 20

An example of an observational study on unintended effects is the study by Kolesnyk et al, who assessed the unintended effects of using angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) and angiotensin‐II (AII) inhibitors vs a control group without such medication on the peritoneal membrane function in a cohort of long‐term peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. 21 The investigators found that ACE/AII inhibitors had a protective effect on peritoneal membrane function ( P =.037). Because the ACE/AII inhibitors were prescribed with the aim to treat hypertension or heart failure, and not intended to prevent peritoneal membrane damage in PD, this is considered to be an unintended effect, albeit a beneficial one.

5. DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES

Observational study designs are also needed for non‐analytic studies (ie, descriptive studies). Such studies examine the frequency of risk factors, diseases or other health outcomes in a population, without assessing causal relationships. 4 Descriptive studies can for example be used to inform health‐care professionals and policymakers on the amount of public health resources needed. 22 For descriptive studies, one can use population statistics, or draw a sample from the population. In this article, we mainly focus on cross‐sectional descriptive studies and descriptive studies describing time trends. A more detailed description of types of descriptive studies can be found elsewhere. 23

Cross‐sectional descriptive studies can usually be implemented in a relatively short timeframe and with a reasonable budget. As the frequency of a disease may differ between groups and may depend on factors such as age and sex, it is common to standardize the results for these factors using a reference population. 24 An example is the study by Brück et al, which describes the prevalence of CKD in 13 European countries. 25 The CKD prevalence was age‐ and sex‐standardized to the population of the 27 Member States of the European Union to enable comparison between countries. The results of that study suggested substantial international differences in the prevalence of CKD across European countries, varying from 3% to 17% for CKD stages 1 to 5, and from 1% to 6% for CKD stages 3 to 5. 25 Descriptive studies may suffer from sampling bias due to their sample selection methods, which may hamper the generalizability of the results.

Other descriptive studies can describe (long‐term) time trends, for instance the incidence or prevalence of a disease. Insight into such trends may allow policymakers, health‐care practitioners and researchers to identify newly emerging health threats, to optimize future allocation of resources, initiate preventive efforts and monitor changes over time. 2 , 22 , 25 However, even if trends indicate favourable changes following preventive efforts, descriptive studies alone cannot establish causal links between prevention and outcome. Another caveat of studies investigating long‐term trends is that they need data collection over several years, preferably using the same methodology. An example of a descriptive study describing time trends is the one by Stel et al that made an international comparison of trends in the incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for patients with end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) by primary renal disease. 26 The incidence of RRT for ESKD due to diabetes mellitus or hypertension was found to strongly increase in Asia between 2005 and 2014, whereas both declined in Europe. Conversely, the incidence of RRT for ESKD due to glomerulonephritis was stable or decreased in all included countries.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The answer to the question “is an observational study better than an RCT?” depends on the research question at hand. There is not one overall gold standard study design for clinical research. With respect to analytic studies, the RCT is the best study design when it comes to evaluating the intended effect of an intervention. However, this type of research represents only a fraction of all clinical research. Observational analytic studies are most suitable if randomization of the intervention or exposure is not feasible or if the research question focuses on unintended effects of interventions. For non‐analytic or descriptive studies, observational study designs are also needed. We conclude that RCT and observational studies are inherently different, and each have their own strengths and weaknesses depending on the study question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ERA‐EDTA Registry is funded by the ERA‐EDTA. This article was written by all the authors on behalf of the ERA‐EDTA Registry, which is an official body of the ERA‐EDTA.

Bosdriesz JR, Stel VS, van Diepen M, et al. Evidence‐based medicine—When observational studies are better than randomized controlled trials . Nephrology . 2020; 25 :737–743. 10.1111/nep.13742 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Jizzo R. Bosdriesz and Vianda S. Stel joint first authors.

Funding information The ERA‐EDTA Registry is funded by the ERA‐EDTA.

Experimental Studies and Observational Studies

Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2022
pp 1748–1756
Cite this reference work entry

Martin Pinquart 3

809 Accesses

1 Citations

Experimental studies: Experiments, Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ; Observational studies: Non-experimental studies, Non-manipulation studies, Naturalistic studies

Definitions

The experimental study is a powerful methodology for testing causal relations between one or more explanatory variables (i.e., independent variables) and one or more outcome variables (i.e., dependent variable). In order to accomplish this goal, experiments have to meet three basic criteria: (a) experimental manipulation (variation) of the independent variable(s), (b) randomization – the participants are randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions, and (c) experimental control for the effect of third variables by eliminating them or keeping them constant.

In observational studies, investigators observe or assess individuals without manipulation or intervention. Observational studies are used for assessing the mean levels, the natural variation, and the structure of variables, as well as...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Atalay K, Barrett GF (2015) The impact of age pension eligibility age on retirement and program dependence: evidence from an Australian experiment. Rev Econ Stat 97:71–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00443

Article Google Scholar

Bergeman L, Boker SM (eds) (2016) Methodological issues in aging research. Psychology Press, Hove

Google Scholar

Byrkes CR, Bielak AMA (under review) Evaluation of publication bias and statistical power in gerontological psychology. Manuscript submitted for publication

Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand-McNally, Chicago

Carpenter D (2010) Reputation and power: organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Cavanaugh JC, Blanchard-Fields F (2019) Adult development and aging, 8th edn. Cengage, Boston

Fölster M, Hess U, Hühnel I et al (2015) Age-related response bias in the decoding of sad facial expressions. Behav Sci 5:443–460. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040443

Freund AM, Isaacowitz DM (2013) Beyond age comparisons: a plea for the use of a modified Brunswikian approach to experimental designs in the study of adult development and aging. Hum Dev 56:351–371. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357177

Haslam C, Morton TA, Haslam A et al (2012) “When the age is in, the wit is out”: age-related self-categorization and deficit expectations reduce performance on clinical tests used in dementia assessment. Psychol Aging 27:778–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027754

Institute for Social Research (2018) The health and retirement study. Aging in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities for americans. Survey Research Center, University of Michigan

Jung J (1971) The experimenter’s dilemma. Harper & Row, New York

Leary MR (2001) Introduction to behavioral research methods, 3rd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

Lindenberger U, Scherer H, Baltes PB (2001) The strong connection between sensory and cognitive performance in old age: not due to sensory acuity reductions operating during cognitive assessment. Psychol Aging 16:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.16.2.196

Löckenhoff CE, Carstensen LL (2004) Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health: the increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices. J Pers 72:1395–1424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00301.x

Maxwell SE (2015) Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? Am Psychol 70:487–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039400

Menard S (2002) Longitudinal research (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

Mitchell SJ, Scheibye-Knudsen M, Longo DL et al (2015) Animal models of aging research: implications for human aging and age-related diseases. Ann Rev Anim Biosci 3:283–303. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-110829

Moher D (1998) CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 279:1489–1491. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.18.1489

Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2011) OCEBM levels of evidence working group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Available at: https://www.cebm.net/category/ebm-resources/loe/ . Retrieved 2018-12-12

Patten ML, Newhart M (2018) Understanding research methods: an overview of the essentials, 10th edn. Routledge, New York

Piccinin AM, Muniz G, Sparks C et al (2011) An evaluation of analytical approaches for understanding change in cognition in the context of aging and health. J Geront 66B(S1):i36–i49. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr038

Pinquart M, Silbereisen RK (2006) Socioemotional selectivity in cancer patients. Psychol Aging 21:419–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.419

Redman LM, Ravussin E (2011) Caloric restriction in humans: impact on physiological, psychological, and behavioral outcomes. Antioxid Redox Signal 14:275–287. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2010.3253

Rutter M (2007) Proceeding from observed correlation to causal inference: the use of natural experiments. Perspect Psychol Sci 2:377–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00050.x

Schaie W, Caskle CI (2005) Methodological issues in aging research. In: Teti D (ed) Handbook of research methods in developmental science. Blackwell, Malden, pp 21–39

Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Sonnega A, Faul JD, Ofstedal MB et al (2014) Cohort profile: the health and retirement study (HRS). Int J Epidemiol 43:576–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu067

Weil J (2017) Research design in aging and social gerontology: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Routledge, New York

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Psychology, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany

Martin Pinquart

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Pinquart .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Population Division, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, NY, USA

Department of Population Health Sciences, Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Matthew E. Dupre

Section Editor information

Department of Sociology and Center for Population Health and Aging, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Kenneth C. Land

Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

Anthony R. Bardo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Pinquart, M. (2021). Experimental Studies and Observational Studies. In: Gu, D., Dupre, M.E. (eds) Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9_573

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9_573

Published : 24 May 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-22008-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-22009-9

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between an observational study and an experiment.

The key difference between observational studies and experimental designs is that a well-done observational study does not influence the responses of participants, while experiments do have some sort of treatment condition applied to at least some participants by random assignment .

Frequently asked questions: Methodology

Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent—for example, in randomized controlled trials for medical research.

Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group . As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who stay in the study. Because of this, study results may be biased .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

To make quantitative observations , you need to use instruments that are capable of measuring the quantity you want to observe. For example, you might use a ruler to measure the length of an object or a thermometer to measure its temperature.

Criterion validity and construct validity are both types of measurement validity . In other words, they both show you how accurately a method measures something.

While construct validity is the degree to which a test or other measurement method measures what it claims to measure, criterion validity is the degree to which a test can predictively (in the future) or concurrently (in the present) measure something.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity . You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity in order to achieve construct validity.

Convergent validity and discriminant validity are both subtypes of construct validity . Together, they help you evaluate whether a test measures the concept it was designed to measure.

Convergent validity indicates whether a test that is designed to measure a particular construct correlates with other tests that assess the same or similar construct.
Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related. This type of validity is also called divergent validity .

You need to assess both in order to demonstrate construct validity. Neither one alone is sufficient for establishing construct validity.

Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related

Content validity shows you how accurately a test or other measurement method taps into the various aspects of the specific construct you are researching.

In other words, it helps you answer the question: “does the test measure all aspects of the construct I want to measure?” If it does, then the test has high content validity.

The higher the content validity, the more accurate the measurement of the construct.

If the test fails to include parts of the construct, or irrelevant parts are included, the validity of the instrument is threatened, which brings your results into question.

Face validity and content validity are similar in that they both evaluate how suitable the content of a test is. The difference is that face validity is subjective, and assesses content at surface level.

When a test has strong face validity, anyone would agree that the test’s questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure.

For example, looking at a 4th grade math test consisting of problems in which students have to add and multiply, most people would agree that it has strong face validity (i.e., it looks like a math test).

On the other hand, content validity evaluates how well a test represents all the aspects of a topic. Assessing content validity is more systematic and relies on expert evaluation. of each question, analyzing whether each one covers the aspects that the test was designed to cover.

A 4th grade math test would have high content validity if it covered all the skills taught in that grade. Experts(in this case, math teachers), would have to evaluate the content validity by comparing the test to the learning objectives.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method . Unlike probability sampling (which involves some form of random selection ), the initial individuals selected to be studied are the ones who recruit new participants.

Because not every member of the target population has an equal chance of being recruited into the sample, selection in snowball sampling is non-random.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method , where there is not an equal chance for every member of the population to be included in the sample .

This means that you cannot use inferential statistics and make generalizations —often the goal of quantitative research . As such, a snowball sample is not representative of the target population and is usually a better fit for qualitative research .

Snowball sampling relies on the use of referrals. Here, the researcher recruits one or more initial participants, who then recruit the next ones.

Participants share similar characteristics and/or know each other. Because of this, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, giving rise to sampling bias .

Snowball sampling is best used in the following cases:

If there is no sampling frame available (e.g., people with a rare disease)
If the population of interest is hard to access or locate (e.g., people experiencing homelessness)
If the research focuses on a sensitive topic (e.g., extramarital affairs)

The reproducibility and replicability of a study can be ensured by writing a transparent, detailed method section and using clear, unambiguous language.

Reproducibility and replicability are related terms.

Reproducing research entails reanalyzing the existing data in the same manner.
Replicating (or repeating ) the research entails reconducting the entire analysis, including the collection of new data .
A successful reproduction shows that the data analyses were conducted in a fair and honest manner.
A successful replication shows that the reliability of the results is high.

Stratified sampling and quota sampling both involve dividing the population into subgroups and selecting units from each subgroup. The purpose in both cases is to select a representative sample and/or to allow comparisons between subgroups.

The main difference is that in stratified sampling, you draw a random sample from each subgroup ( probability sampling ). In quota sampling you select a predetermined number or proportion of units, in a non-random manner ( non-probability sampling ).

Purposive and convenience sampling are both sampling methods that are typically used in qualitative data collection.

A convenience sample is drawn from a source that is conveniently accessible to the researcher. Convenience sampling does not distinguish characteristics among the participants. On the other hand, purposive sampling focuses on selecting participants possessing characteristics associated with the research study.

The findings of studies based on either convenience or purposive sampling can only be generalized to the (sub)population from which the sample is drawn, and not to the entire population.

Random sampling or probability sampling is based on random selection. This means that each unit has an equal chance (i.e., equal probability) of being included in the sample.

On the other hand, convenience sampling involves stopping people at random, which means that not everyone has an equal chance of being selected depending on the place, time, or day you are collecting your data.

Convenience sampling and quota sampling are both non-probability sampling methods. They both use non-random criteria like availability, geographical proximity, or expert knowledge to recruit study participants.

However, in convenience sampling, you continue to sample units or cases until you reach the required sample size.

In quota sampling, you first need to divide your population of interest into subgroups (strata) and estimate their proportions (quota) in the population. Then you can start your data collection, using convenience sampling to recruit participants, until the proportions in each subgroup coincide with the estimated proportions in the population.

A sampling frame is a list of every member in the entire population . It is important that the sampling frame is as complete as possible, so that your sample accurately reflects your population.

Stratified and cluster sampling may look similar, but bear in mind that groups created in cluster sampling are heterogeneous , so the individual characteristics in the cluster vary. In contrast, groups created in stratified sampling are homogeneous , as units share characteristics.

Relatedly, in cluster sampling you randomly select entire groups and include all units of each group in your sample. However, in stratified sampling, you select some units of all groups and include them in your sample. In this way, both methods can ensure that your sample is representative of the target population .

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

An observational study is a great choice for you if your research question is based purely on observations. If there are ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , an observational study may be a good choice. In an observational study, there is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, as well as no control or treatment groups .

It’s often best to ask a variety of people to review your measurements. You can ask experts, such as other researchers, or laypeople, such as potential participants, to judge the face validity of tests.

While experts have a deep understanding of research methods , the people you’re studying can provide you with valuable insights you may have missed otherwise.

Face validity is important because it’s a simple first step to measuring the overall validity of a test or technique. It’s a relatively intuitive, quick, and easy way to start checking whether a new measure seems useful at first glance.

Good face validity means that anyone who reviews your measure says that it seems to be measuring what it’s supposed to. With poor face validity, someone reviewing your measure may be left confused about what you’re measuring and why you’re using this method.

Face validity is about whether a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to measure. This type of validity is concerned with whether a measure seems relevant and appropriate for what it’s assessing only on the surface.

Statistical analyses are often applied to test validity with data from your measures. You test convergent validity and discriminant validity with correlations to see if results from your test are positively or negatively related to those of other established tests.

You can also use regression analyses to assess whether your measure is actually predictive of outcomes that you expect it to predict theoretically. A regression analysis that supports your expectations strengthens your claim of construct validity .

When designing or evaluating a measure, construct validity helps you ensure you’re actually measuring the construct you’re interested in. If you don’t have construct validity, you may inadvertently measure unrelated or distinct constructs and lose precision in your research.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity , because it covers all of the other types. You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity to achieve construct validity.

Construct validity is about how well a test measures the concept it was designed to evaluate. It’s one of four types of measurement validity , which includes construct validity, face validity , and criterion validity.

There are two subtypes of construct validity.

Convergent validity : The extent to which your measure corresponds to measures of related constructs
Discriminant validity : The extent to which your measure is unrelated or negatively related to measures of distinct constructs

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.

You can think of naturalistic observation as “people watching” with a purpose.

A dependent variable is what changes as a result of the independent variable manipulation in experiments . It’s what you’re interested in measuring, and it “depends” on your independent variable.

In statistics, dependent variables are also called:

Response variables (they respond to a change in another variable)
Outcome variables (they represent the outcome you want to measure)
Left-hand-side variables (they appear on the left-hand side of a regression equation)

An independent variable is the variable you manipulate, control, or vary in an experimental study to explore its effects. It’s called “independent” because it’s not influenced by any other variables in the study.

Independent variables are also called:

Explanatory variables (they explain an event or outcome)
Predictor variables (they can be used to predict the value of a dependent variable)
Right-hand-side variables (they appear on the right-hand side of a regression equation).

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

Open-ended and flexible
Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
Unbiased and neutral

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when:

You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyze your data quickly and efficiently.
Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant.

More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.
Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.

Unstructured interviews are best used when:

You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions.
Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualize your initial thoughts and hypotheses.
Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts.

The four most common types of interviews are:

Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research .

In research, you might have come across something called the hypothetico-deductive method . It’s the scientific method of testing hypotheses to check whether your predictions are substantiated by real-world data.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally.

Here are a few common types:

Inductive generalization : You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from.
Statistical generalization: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
Causal reasoning: You make cause-and-effect links between different things.
Sign reasoning: You make a conclusion about a correlational relationship between different things.
Analogical reasoning: You make a conclusion about something based on its similarities to something else.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

In inductive research , you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad scan of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Triangulation can help:

Reduce research bias that comes from using a single method, theory, or investigator
Enhance validity by approaching the same topic with different tools
Establish credibility by giving you a complete picture of the research problem

But triangulation can also pose problems:

It’s time-consuming and labor-intensive, often involving an interdisciplinary team.
Your results may be inconsistent or even contradictory.

There are four main types of triangulation :

Data triangulation : Using data from different times, spaces, and people
Investigator triangulation : Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analyzing data
Theory triangulation : Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research
Methodological triangulation : Using different methodologies to approach the same topic

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:

First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.

You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.

Exploratory research is a methodology approach that explores research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. It is often used when the issue you’re studying is new, or the data collection process is challenging in some way.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.

Clean data are valid, accurate, complete, consistent, unique, and uniform. Dirty data include inconsistencies and errors.

Dirty data can come from any part of the research process, including poor research design , inappropriate measurement materials, or flawed data entry.

Data cleaning takes place between data collection and data analyses. But you can use some methods even before collecting data.

For clean data, you should start by designing measures that collect valid data. Data validation at the time of data entry or collection helps you minimize the amount of data cleaning you’ll need to do.

After data collection, you can use data standardization and data transformation to clean your data. You’ll also deal with any missing values, outliers, and duplicate values.

Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.

These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.

Data cleaning is necessary for valid and appropriate analyses. Dirty data contain inconsistencies or errors , but cleaning your data helps you minimize or resolve these.

Without data cleaning, you could end up with a Type I or II error in your conclusion. These types of erroneous conclusions can be practically significant with important consequences, because they lead to misplaced investments or missed opportunities.

Data cleaning involves spotting and resolving potential data inconsistencies or errors to improve your data quality. An error is any value (e.g., recorded weight) that doesn’t reflect the true value (e.g., actual weight) of something that’s being measured.

In this process, you review, analyze, detect, modify, or remove “dirty” data to make your dataset “clean.” Data cleaning is also called data cleansing or data scrubbing.

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

In multistage sampling , you can use probability or non-probability sampling methods .

For a probability sample, you have to conduct probability sampling at every stage.

You can mix it up by using simple random sampling , systematic sampling , or stratified sampling to select units at different stages, depending on what is applicable and relevant to your study.

Multistage sampling can simplify data collection when you have large, geographically spread samples, and you can obtain a probability sample without a complete sampling frame.

But multistage sampling may not lead to a representative sample, and larger samples are needed for multistage samples to achieve the statistical properties of simple random samples .

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analyzed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions.
Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualize your quantitative findings.
Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

In multistage sampling , or multistage cluster sampling, you draw a sample from a population using smaller and smaller groups at each stage.

This method is often used to collect data from a large, geographically spread group of people in national surveys, for example. You take advantage of hierarchical groupings (e.g., from state to city to neighborhood) to create a sample that’s less expensive and time-consuming to collect data from.

No, the steepness or slope of the line isn’t related to the correlation coefficient value. The correlation coefficient only tells you how closely your data fit on a line, so two datasets with the same correlation coefficient can have very different slopes.

To find the slope of the line, you’ll need to perform a regression analysis .

Correlation coefficients always range between -1 and 1.

The sign of the coefficient tells you the direction of the relationship: a positive value means the variables change together in the same direction, while a negative value means they change together in opposite directions.

The absolute value of a number is equal to the number without its sign. The absolute value of a correlation coefficient tells you the magnitude of the correlation: the greater the absolute value, the stronger the correlation.

These are the assumptions your data must meet if you want to use Pearson’s r :

Both variables are on an interval or ratio level of measurement
Data from both variables follow normal distributions
Your data have no outliers
Your data is from a random or representative sample
You expect a linear relationship between the two variables

Quantitative research designs can be divided into two main categories:

Correlational and descriptive designs are used to investigate characteristics, averages, trends, and associations between variables.
Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to test causal relationships .

Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible. Common types of qualitative design include case study , ethnography , and grounded theory designs.

A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.

The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:

Your research questions and/or hypotheses
Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests or thematic analysis )

A research design is a strategy for answering your research question . It defines your overall approach and determines how you will collect and analyze data.

Questionnaires can be self-administered or researcher-administered.

Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered online or in paper-and-pen formats, in person or through mail. All questions are standardized so that all respondents receive the same questions with identical wording.

Researcher-administered questionnaires are interviews that take place by phone, in-person, or online between researchers and respondents. You can gain deeper insights by clarifying questions for respondents or asking follow-up questions.

You can organize the questions logically, with a clear progression from simple to complex, or randomly between respondents. A logical flow helps respondents process the questionnaire easier and quicker, but it may lead to bias. Randomization can minimize the bias from order effects.

Closed-ended, or restricted-choice, questions offer respondents a fixed set of choices to select from. These questions are easier to answer quickly.

Open-ended or long-form questions allow respondents to answer in their own words. Because there are no restrictions on their choices, respondents can answer in ways that researchers may not have otherwise considered.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

Correlation describes an association between variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other (i.e., there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables). The two variables are correlated with each other, and there’s also a causal link between them.

While causation and correlation can exist simultaneously, correlation does not imply causation. In other words, correlation is simply a relationship where A relates to B—but A doesn’t necessarily cause B to happen (or vice versa). Mistaking correlation for causation is a common error and can lead to false cause fallacy .

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

Random error is almost always present in scientific studies, even in highly controlled settings. While you can’t eradicate it completely, you can reduce random error by taking repeated measurements, using a large sample, and controlling extraneous variables .

You can avoid systematic error through careful design of your sampling , data collection , and analysis procedures. For example, use triangulation to measure your variables using multiple methods; regularly calibrate instruments or procedures; use random sampling and random assignment ; and apply masking (blinding) where possible.

Systematic error is generally a bigger problem in research.

With random error, multiple measurements will tend to cluster around the true value. When you’re collecting data from a large sample , the errors in different directions will cancel each other out.

Systematic errors are much more problematic because they can skew your data away from the true value. This can lead you to false conclusions ( Type I and II errors ) about the relationship between the variables you’re studying.

Random and systematic error are two types of measurement error.

Random error is a chance difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a researcher misreading a weighing scale records an incorrect measurement).

Systematic error is a consistent or proportional difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a miscalibrated scale consistently records weights as higher than they actually are).

On graphs, the explanatory variable is conventionally placed on the x-axis, while the response variable is placed on the y-axis.

If you have quantitative variables , use a scatterplot or a line graph.
If your response variable is categorical, use a scatterplot or a line graph.
If your explanatory variable is categorical, use a bar graph.

The term “ explanatory variable ” is sometimes preferred over “ independent variable ” because, in real world contexts, independent variables are often influenced by other variables. This means they aren’t totally independent.

Multiple independent variables may also be correlated with each other, so “explanatory variables” is a more appropriate term.

The difference between explanatory and response variables is simple:

An explanatory variable is the expected cause, and it explains the results.
A response variable is the expected effect, and it responds to other variables.

In a controlled experiment , all extraneous variables are held constant so that they can’t influence the results. Controlled experiments require:

A control group that receives a standard treatment, a fake treatment, or no treatment.
Random assignment of participants to ensure the groups are equivalent.

Depending on your study topic, there are various other methods of controlling variables .

There are 4 main types of extraneous variables :

Demand characteristics : environmental cues that encourage participants to conform to researchers’ expectations.
Experimenter effects : unintentional actions by researchers that influence study outcomes.
Situational variables : environmental variables that alter participants’ behaviors.
Participant variables : any characteristic or aspect of a participant’s background that could affect study results.

An extraneous variable is any variable that you’re not investigating that can potentially affect the dependent variable of your research study.

A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that not only affects the dependent variable, but is also related to the independent variable.

In a factorial design, multiple independent variables are tested.

If you test two variables, each level of one independent variable is combined with each level of the other independent variable to create different conditions.

Within-subjects designs have many potential threats to internal validity , but they are also very statistically powerful .

Advantages:

Only requires small samples
Statistically powerful
Removes the effects of individual differences on the outcomes

Disadvantages:

Internal validity threats reduce the likelihood of establishing a direct relationship between variables
Time-related effects, such as growth, can influence the outcomes
Carryover effects mean that the specific order of different treatments affect the outcomes

While a between-subjects design has fewer threats to internal validity , it also requires more participants for high statistical power than a within-subjects design .

Prevents carryover effects of learning and fatigue.
Shorter study duration.
Needs larger samples for high power.
Uses more resources to recruit participants, administer sessions, cover costs, etc.
Individual differences may be an alternative explanation for results.

Yes. Between-subjects and within-subjects designs can be combined in a single study when you have two or more independent variables (a factorial design). In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within subjects.

In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.

In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.

The word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.

Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.

In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.

To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .

Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a dice to randomly assign participants to groups.

Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.

In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.

Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalizability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.

In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomization. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.

“Controlling for a variable” means measuring extraneous variables and accounting for them statistically to remove their effects on other variables.

Researchers often model control variable data along with independent and dependent variable data in regression analyses and ANCOVAs . That way, you can isolate the control variable’s effects from the relationship between the variables of interest.

Control variables help you establish a correlational or causal relationship between variables by enhancing internal validity .

If you don’t control relevant extraneous variables , they may influence the outcomes of your study, and you may not be able to demonstrate that your results are really an effect of your independent variable .

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

Including mediators and moderators in your research helps you go beyond studying a simple relationship between two variables for a fuller picture of the real world. They are important to consider when studying complex correlational or causal relationships.

Mediators are part of the causal pathway of an effect, and they tell you how or why an effect takes place. Moderators usually help you judge the external validity of your study by identifying the limitations of when the relationship between variables holds.

If something is a mediating variable :

It’s caused by the independent variable .
It influences the dependent variable
When it’s taken into account, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when it isn’t considered.

A confounder is a third variable that affects variables of interest and makes them seem related when they are not. In contrast, a mediator is the mechanism of a relationship between two variables: it explains the process by which they are related.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

There are three key steps in systematic sampling :

Define and list your population , ensuring that it is not ordered in a cyclical or periodic order.
Decide on your sample size and calculate your interval, k , by dividing your population by your target sample size.
Choose every k th member of the population as your sample.

Systematic sampling is a probability sampling method where researchers select members of the population at a regular interval – for example, by selecting every 15th person on a list of the population. If the population is in a random order, this can imitate the benefits of simple random sampling .

Yes, you can create a stratified sample using multiple characteristics, but you must ensure that every participant in your study belongs to one and only one subgroup. In this case, you multiply the numbers of subgroups for each characteristic to get the total number of groups.

For example, if you were stratifying by location with three subgroups (urban, rural, or suburban) and marital status with five subgroups (single, divorced, widowed, married, or partnered), you would have 3 x 5 = 15 subgroups.

You should use stratified sampling when your sample can be divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups that you believe will take on different mean values for the variable that you’re studying.

Using stratified sampling will allow you to obtain more precise (with lower variance ) statistical estimates of whatever you are trying to measure.

For example, say you want to investigate how income differs based on educational attainment, but you know that this relationship can vary based on race. Using stratified sampling, you can ensure you obtain a large enough sample from each racial group, allowing you to draw more precise conclusions.

In stratified sampling , researchers divide subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, educational attainment).

Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method.

Cluster sampling is more time- and cost-efficient than other probability sampling methods , particularly when it comes to large samples spread across a wide geographical area.

However, it provides less statistical certainty than other methods, such as simple random sampling , because it is difficult to ensure that your clusters properly represent the population as a whole.

There are three types of cluster sampling : single-stage, double-stage and multi-stage clustering. In all three types, you first divide the population into clusters, then randomly select clusters for use in your sample.

In single-stage sampling , you collect data from every unit within the selected clusters.
In double-stage sampling , you select a random sample of units from within the clusters.
In multi-stage sampling , you repeat the procedure of randomly sampling elements from within the clusters until you have reached a manageable sample.

Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which you divide a population into clusters, such as districts or schools, and then randomly select some of these clusters as your sample.

The clusters should ideally each be mini-representations of the population as a whole.

If properly implemented, simple random sampling is usually the best sampling method for ensuring both internal and external validity . However, it can sometimes be impractical and expensive to implement, depending on the size of the population to be studied,

If you have a list of every member of the population and the ability to reach whichever members are selected, you can use simple random sampling.

The American Community Survey is an example of simple random sampling . In order to collect detailed data on the population of the US, the Census Bureau officials randomly select 3.5 million households per year and use a variety of methods to convince them to fill out the survey.

Simple random sampling is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants from a population . Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data is then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset.

Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .

Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.

A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.

Blinding is important to reduce research bias (e.g., observer bias , demand characteristics ) and ensure a study’s internal validity .

If participants know whether they are in a control or treatment group , they may adjust their behavior in ways that affect the outcome that researchers are trying to measure. If the people administering the treatment are aware of group assignment, they may treat participants differently and thus directly or indirectly influence the final results.

In a single-blind study , only the participants are blinded.
In a double-blind study , both participants and experimenters are blinded.
In a triple-blind study , the assignment is hidden not only from participants and experimenters, but also from the researchers analyzing the data.

Blinding means hiding who is assigned to the treatment group and who is assigned to the control group in an experiment .

A true experiment (a.k.a. a controlled experiment) always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment.

However, some experiments use a within-subjects design to test treatments without a control group. In these designs, you usually compare one group’s outcomes before and after a treatment (instead of comparing outcomes between different groups).

For strong internal validity , it’s usually best to include a control group if possible. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables.

An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyze your data.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. It is made up of 4 or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with 5 or 7 possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

In scientific research, concepts are the abstract ideas or phenomena that are being studied (e.g., educational achievement). Variables are properties or characteristics of the concept (e.g., performance at school), while indicators are ways of measuring or quantifying variables (e.g., yearly grade reports).

The process of turning abstract concepts into measurable variables and indicators is called operationalization .

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

Prepare and organize your data.
Review and explore your data.
Develop a data coding system.
Assign codes to the data.
Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Operationalization means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioral avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalize the variables that you want to measure.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.

Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.

To ensure the internal validity of your research, you must consider the impact of confounding variables. If you fail to account for them, you might over- or underestimate the causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables , or even find a causal relationship where none exists.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both!

You want to find out how blood sugar levels are affected by drinking diet soda and regular soda, so you conduct an experiment .

The type of soda – diet or regular – is the independent variable .
The level of blood sugar that you measure is the dependent variable – it changes depending on the type of soda.

Determining cause and effect is one of the most important parts of scientific research. It’s essential to know which is the cause – the independent variable – and which is the effect – the dependent variable.

In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.

Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling, and quota sampling .

Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.

Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .

Using careful research design and sampling procedures can help you avoid sampling bias . Oversampling can be used to correct undercoverage bias .

Some common types of sampling bias include self-selection bias , nonresponse bias , undercoverage bias , survivorship bias , pre-screening or advertising bias, and healthy user bias.

Sampling bias is a threat to external validity – it limits the generalizability of your findings to a broader group of people.

A sampling error is the difference between a population parameter and a sample statistic .

A statistic refers to measures about the sample , while a parameter refers to measures about the population .

Populations are used when a research question requires data from every member of the population. This is usually only feasible when the population is small and easily accessible.

Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.

There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment and situation effect.

The two types of external validity are population validity (whether you can generalize to other groups of people) and ecological validity (whether you can generalize to other situations and settings).

The external validity of a study is the extent to which you can generalize your findings to different groups of people, situations, and measures.

Cross-sectional studies cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship or analyze behavior over a period of time. To investigate cause and effect, you need to do a longitudinal study or an experimental study .

Cross-sectional studies are less expensive and time-consuming than many other types of study. They can provide useful insights into a population’s characteristics and identify correlations for further research.

Sometimes only cross-sectional data is available for analysis; other times your research question may only require a cross-sectional study to answer it.

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long.

The 1970 British Cohort Study , which has collected data on the lives of 17,000 Brits since their births in 1970, is one well-known example of a longitudinal study .

Longitudinal studies are better to establish the correct sequence of events, identify changes over time, and provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships, but they also tend to be more expensive and time-consuming than other types of studies.

Longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies are two different types of research design . In a cross-sectional study you collect data from a population at a specific point in time; in a longitudinal study you repeatedly collect data from the same sample over an extended period of time.

Longitudinal study	Cross-sectional study
observations	Observations at a in time
Observes the multiple times	Observes (a “cross-section”) in the population
Follows in participants over time	Provides of society at a given point

There are eight threats to internal validity : history, maturation, instrumentation, testing, selection bias , regression to the mean, social interaction and attrition .

Internal validity is the extent to which you can be confident that a cause-and-effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

Discrete and continuous variables are two types of quantitative variables :

Discrete variables represent counts (e.g. the number of objects in a collection).
Continuous variables represent measurable amounts (e.g. water volume or weight).

Quantitative variables are any variables where the data represent amounts (e.g. height, weight, or age).

Categorical variables are any variables where the data represent groups. This includes rankings (e.g. finishing places in a race), classifications (e.g. brands of cereal), and binary outcomes (e.g. coin flips).

You need to know what type of variables you are working with to choose the right statistical test for your data and interpret your results .

You can think of independent and dependent variables in terms of cause and effect: an independent variable is the variable you think is the cause , while a dependent variable is the effect .

In an experiment, you manipulate the independent variable and measure the outcome in the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment about the effect of nutrients on crop growth:

The independent variable is the amount of nutrients added to the crop field.
The dependent variable is the biomass of the crops at harvest time.

Defining your variables, and deciding how you will manipulate and measure them, is an important part of experimental design .

Experimental design means planning a set of procedures to investigate a relationship between variables . To design a controlled experiment, you need:

A testable hypothesis
At least one independent variable that can be precisely manipulated
At least one dependent variable that can be precisely measured

When designing the experiment, you decide:

How you will manipulate the variable(s)
How you will control for any potential confounding variables
How many subjects or samples will be included in the study
How subjects will be assigned to treatment levels

Experimental design is essential to the internal and external validity of your experiment.

I nternal validity is the degree of confidence that the causal relationship you are testing is not influenced by other factors or variables .

External validity is the extent to which your results can be generalized to other contexts.

The validity of your experiment depends on your experimental design .

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
Validity refers to the accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.

Email [email protected]
Start live chat
Call +1 (510) 822-8066
WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

A world-class citation generator
Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
Innovative Citation Checker software
Professional proofreading services
Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

PhD dissertations
Research proposals
Personal statements
Admission essays
Motivation letters
Reflection papers
Journal articles
Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The differences in shape stability for hornbeam ( carpinus betulus l.) lumber with and without spiral grain.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. preparation of hornbeam lumber, 2.2. conditions of air drying, 2.3. types of measurement on the lumber, 2.4. measured change of shape by stn en 1309-3 (49 1013), 2.5. classification of lumber according to standards, 2.6. evaluation of shape stability by statistical methods, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. changes of spiral grain, 3.2. the effect of spiral grain on strength properties, 3.3. warp bow, 3.4. warp crook, 3.5. visual evaluation of shape changes, 3.6. classification of lumber strength, 3.7. statistical evaluation—warp bow, 3.8. statistical evaluation—warp crook, 4. conclusions.

Our research confirmed that the spiral grains remarkably affect shape stability. A warped bow with spiral grain values increased by almost 50% compared with lumber without spiral grain. This statement was confirmed even with statistical results where the set limit value of p < 0.05 was not exceeded, either with warp crook ( p = 0.0436) or with warp bow ( p = 0.00001).
Regarding warp crook, statistical significance was also confirmed for different types of lumber (radial or tangential), where the significance value reached p = 0.0120. This result can be explained mainly by the original position of tangential lumber, which was closer to the girth of the log, than radial lumber, which was closer to the pith, which could lead to different shape stability.
According to the measured values, the warps during the warp crook depend on the sizes of the spiral grain and the original position of the lumber, which means whether the lumber is closer to the girth of the log or closer to the pith.
According to DIN standard (4074-5) and sizes of shape change for warp bow, only one piece of lumber would be obtained in the case of lumber with spiral grain and up to twelve pieces of lumber in the case of sawn lumber without spiral grain. This result confirms that the spiral grain remarkably influences the resulting quality of the lumber.

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

Sühlfleisch, K. Wie Krümmung und Drehwuchs die Holzqualität beeinflussen. In Waldarbeit Holzmerkmale Magazine ; April 2020; pp. 38–39. [ Google Scholar ]
Mania, P.; Siuda, F.; Roszyk, E. Effect of Slope Grain on Mechanical Properties of Different Wood Species. Materials 2020 , 13 , 1503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Pope, D.; Marcroft, J.; Whale, L. The effect of global slope of grain on the bending strength of scaffold boards. Holz Als Roh Werkst. 2005 , 63 , 321–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Säll, H. Spiral Grain in Norway Spruce. Acta Wexionensia 2002 , 22 , 171. [ Google Scholar ]
Pyszyński, W. Mechanism of formation of spiral grain in Aesculus stems: Dissymmetry of deformation of stems caused by cyclic torsion. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 1977 , 46 , 501–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mattheck, G.C. Case Studies ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991; pp. 20–115. ISBN 978-3-540-54276-6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Eklund, L.; Säll, H. The influence of wind on spiral grain formation in conifer trees. Trees 2000 , 14 , 324–328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Leelavanichkul, S.; Cherkaev, A. Why the grain in tree trunks spirals: A mechanical perspective. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 2004 , 28 , 127–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zagórska-Marek, B.; Little, C.H.A. Control of fusiform initial orientation in the vascular cambium of Abies balsamea stems by indol-3-ylacetic acid. Can. J. Bot. 1986 , 64 , 1120–1128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kubler, H. Function of spiral grain in trees. Trees 1991 , 5 , 125–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chester, T.; Stith, D.; Morse, K.; Fidler, W. Spiral of Wood Grain in Tree Trunks at San Jacinto Mountain/Possible Causes for Spiral Grain. 2014. Available online: http://tchester.org/sj/analysis/tree_wood_grain_helicity.html (accessed on 10 June 2024).
Wellner, C.A.; Lowery, D.P. Spiral Grain: A Cause of Pole Twisting ; Intermountain Forest a Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Ogden, UT, USA, 1967; Volume 38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fodor, F.; Lankveld, C.; Németh, R. Testing common hornbeam ( Carpinus betulus L.) acetylated with the Accoya method under industrial conditions. Ifor. Biogeosci. For. 2017 , 10 , 948–954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ormarsson, S.; Dahlblom, O.; Petersson, H. A numerical study of the shape stability of sawn timber subjected to moisture variation—Part 1: Theory. Wood Sci. Technol. 1998 , 32 , 325–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Forsberg, D.; Warensjö, M. Grain Angle Variation: A Major Determinant of Twist in Sawn Picea abies (L.) Karst. Scand. J. For. Res. 2001 , 16 , 269–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ekevad, M. Twist of wood studs: Dependence on spiral grain gradient. J. Wood Sci. 2005 , 51 , 455–461. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ormarsson, S. Numerical Analysis of Moisture-Related Distortion in Sawn Timber. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Structural Mech, Gothenburg, Sweden, 1999; p. 213. [ Google Scholar ]
Ormarsson, S.; Dahlblom, O.; Petersson, H. A numerical study of the shape stability of sawn timber subjected to moisture variation—Part 2: Simulation of drying board. Wood Sci. Technol. 1999 , 33 , 407–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ormarsson, S.; Dahlblom, O.; Petersson, H. A numerical study of the shape stability of sawn timber subjected to moisture variation—Part 3: Influence of annual ring orientation. Wood Sci. Technol. 2000 , 34 , 207–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ormarsson, S.; Dahlblom, O.; Johansson, M. Finite element study of growth stress formation in wood and related distortion of sawn timber. Wood Sci. Technol. 2009 , 43 , 387–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Straže, A.; Kliger, R.; Johansson, M.; Gorišek, Ž. The influence of material properties on the amount of twist of spruce wood during kiln drying. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2011 , 69 , 239–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
STN EN 1309-3 (49 1013) ; Guľatina a Rezivo, Metódy Merania Rozmerov, Časť 3: Znaky a Biologické Poškodenie. (Logs and lumber, Methods of Measuring Dimensions, Part 3: Signs and Biological Damage). Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2018.
DIN 4074-5:2008-12 ; Sortierung von Holz nach der Tragfähigkeit—Teil 5: Laubschnittholz. (Sorting Wood According to Load-Bearing Capacity—Part 5: Hardwood Lumber). German Institute for Standardization: Berlin, Germany, 2008.
ASTM D245 ; Standard Practice for Establishing Structural Grades and Related Allowable Properties for Visually Graded Lumber. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2000.
Sandberg, D. Radially sawn timber. Holz Als Roh Werkst. 1997 , 55 , 175–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bratasz, L.; Kozłowska, A.; Kozłowski, R. Analysis of water adsorption by wood using the Guggenheim-Anderson-de Boer equation. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2012 , 70 , 445–451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Spiral Grain in Degrees (°)		Strength Reduction in Bending (Experimental)	Strength Reduction in Bending (Numerical Simulation)
Spiral Grain in Degrees (°)		(%)
4-1/To/R	13	60	50
2-1/To/T	12	60	50
10-1/To/T	10	60	50
5-1/To/R	9	60	50
3-2/To/T	9	60	50
2-1/N/T	3	0	10

Classification of Lumber with Spiral Grain According to the Standard (DIN 4074-5)
Sample	Bow (mm)-O	LS	LS	LS	Reclaimed Wood
3-2/To/T	21.49				O
5-1/To/R	18.93				O
2-1/To/T	23.23				O
4-1/To/R	21.94				O
10-1/To/T	17.35				O
7-1/To/R	36.92				O
6-1/To/R	9.68	O
6-2/To/T	32.59				O
8-2/To/T	26.63				O
3-1/To/T	13.65				O
9-1/To/T	16.26				O
7-2/To/T	26.2				O
8-1/To/R	20.16				O
5-1/To/R	13.34				O

Classification of Lumber with No Spiral Grain According to the Standard (DIN 4074-5)
Sample	Bow (mm)-O	LS	LS	LS	Reclaimed Wood
1-1/N/R	12.74				O
8-2/N/T	13.14				O
8-1/N/R	10.55	O
10-2/N/T	10.51	O
7-1/N/R	11,92	O
3-3/N/R-T	6.71		O
2-2/N/T	7.89		O
11-1/N/T	16.63				O
3-2/N/R	8.68	O
10-1/N/T	12.98				O
5-2/N/T	17.11				O
6-1/N/R	6.86		O
2-1/N/T	4.97			O
6-3/N/R	6.89		O
9-2/N/T	1.81			O
8-3/N/T	3.32			O
9-1/N/T	1			O

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Vilkovský, P.; Uličný, H.M.; Klement, I.; Vilkovská, T. The Differences in Shape Stability for Hornbeam ( Carpinus betulus L.) Lumber with and without Spiral Grain. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 5250. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125250

Vilkovský P, Uličný HM, Klement I, Vilkovská T. The Differences in Shape Stability for Hornbeam ( Carpinus betulus L.) Lumber with and without Spiral Grain. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(12):5250. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125250

Vilkovský, Peter, Hugo Miroslav Uličný, Ivan Klement, and Tatiana Vilkovská. 2024. "The Differences in Shape Stability for Hornbeam ( Carpinus betulus L.) Lumber with and without Spiral Grain" Applied Sciences 14, no. 12: 5250. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125250

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

IMAGES

case study vs naturalistic observation vs survey
case study vs naturalistic observation vs survey
types of observational case study
types of observational case study
PPT
Written case study vs video case study -observation takeout

VIDEO

Basic difference b/w observational and experimental study
Descriptive Research definition, types, and its use in education
Chapter 5.2
Difference between Case Study and Case presentation #Medical term#@AnitaSharmaGyan NCLEX IN HINDI
Difference between observational studies and randomized experiments?
PSYCHOLOGY CASE PROFILE

COMMENTS

Case Study Observational Research: A Framework for Conducting Case
Observation methods have the potential to reach beyond other methods that rely largely or solely on self-report. This article describes the distinctive characteristics of case study observational research, a modified form of Yin's 2014 model of case study research the authors used in a study exploring interprofessional collaboration in primary ...
What Is an Observational Study?
Revised on June 22, 2023. An observational study is used to answer a research question based purely on what the researcher observes. There is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, and no control and treatment groups. These studies are often qualitative in nature and can be used for both exploratory and explanatory research ...
Case Studies and Observation Studies
Case Studies & Observation Studies. A case study is a detailed study of a particular person, group or organisation. Focus is placed on the case study because the basic facts tend to help us understand a wider scientific truth. On the other hand they can also be used to challenge an accepted theory and so prompt scientists to change their thinking.
6.5 Observational Research
Naturalistic observation is an observational method that involves observing people's behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic observation is a type of field research (as opposed to a type of laboratory research). Jane Goodall's famous research on chimpanzees is a classic example of naturalistic observation.
6.6: Observational Research
The only difference between naturalistic observation and participant observation is that researchers engaged in participant observation become active members of the group or situations they are studying. ... Case studies are also often the only way to study rare conditions because it may be impossible to find a large enough sample of ...
Distinguishing case study as a research method from case reports as a
The purpose of this editorial is to distinguish between case reports and case studies. In health, case reports are familiar ways of sharing events or efforts of intervening with single patients with previously unreported features. ... which considers an individual patient as the sole unit of observation in a study investigating the efficacy or ...
What Is a Case Study?
Case studies are good for describing, comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem. Table of contents. When to do a case study. Step 1: Select a case. Step 2: Build a theoretical framework. Step 3: Collect your data. Step 4: Describe and analyze the case.
PDF Case Study Observational Research: A Framework for Conducting Case
based studies, observation methods were incorporated from the outset in the design of the research. However, as conventional case study models, such as Yin (2014), do not distinguish observation data from other types of data collection in terms of their unique significance and poten-tial, we modified Yin's CSR method. This observation-
What is an Observational Study: Definition & Examples
This example illustrates a key difference between an observational study vs experiment. In a randomized experiment, the randomization would have equalized the characteristics of those the researchers assigned to the treatment and control groups. Instead, the study works with self-sorted groups that have numerous pre-existing differences!
PDF Comparing the Five Approaches
The differences are apparent in terms of emphasis (e.g., more observations in ethnog-raphy, more interviews in grounded theory) and extent of data collection (e.g., only interviews in phenomenology, multiple forms in case study research to provide the in-depth case picture). At the data analysis stage, the differences are most pronounced.
Observational Studies: Cohort and Case-Control Studies
Cohort studies and case-control studies are two primary types of observational studies that aid in evaluating associations between diseases and exposures. In this review article, we describe these study designs, methodological issues, and provide examples from the plastic surgery literature. Keywords: observational studies, case-control study ...
Case Study Methodology of Qualitative Research: Key Attributes and
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research. This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate ...
Observational studies: a review of study designs, challenges and
Cohort studies follow one group that is exposed to an intervention of interest and another group that is non-exposed to determine the occurrence of the outcome (the relative risk). Cohort studies can examine multiple outcomes of a single exposure. Case-control studies compare the proportion of cases with a specific exposure to the proportion of controls with the same exposure (the odds ratio).
2.2 Approaches to Research
Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of case studies, naturalistic observation, surveys, and archival research; ... While cross-sectional research requires a shorter-term investment, it is also limited by differences that exist between the different generations (or cohorts) that have nothing to do with age per se, but rather reflect the social ...
Naturalistic Observation
Naturalistic observation is one of the research methods that can be used for an observational study design. Another common type of observation is the controlled observation . In this case, the researcher observes the participant in a controlled environment (e.g., a lab).
Observation Methods: Naturalistic, Participant and Controlled
Compared with controlled observations, it is like the difference between studying wild animals in a zoo and studying them in their natural habitat. With regard to human subjects, ... Like case studies, naturalistic observation is often used to generate new ideas. Because it gives the researcher the opportunity to study the total situation, it ...
Observational studies and experiments (article)
Actually, the term is "Sample Survey" and you may search online for it. I think the difference lies in the aim of the three types of studies, sample surveys want to get data for a parameter while observational studies and experiments want to convert some data into information, i.e., correlation and causation respectively.
Observational Case Studies
An observational case study is a study of a real-world case without performing an intervention. Measurement may influence the measured phenomena, but as in all forms of research, the researcher tries to restrict this to a minimum. The researcher may study a sample of two or even more cases, but the goal of case study research is not to acquire ...
Evidence‐based medicine—When observational studies are better than
The main drawback of observational analytic studies is that the intervention or exposure is not randomized, and therefore confounding by indication (in case of an intervention) or differences in case‐mix between the exposed and unexposed groups (in case of a naturally occurring exposure) are likely to exist. 6 This means that there are ...
Experimental Studies and Observational Studies
A main limitation of case studies is the limited generalizability of their results to larger populations. Because most observational studies assess more than one variable, their data can also be used for correlational study designs. Correlational studies analyze the relationship between two or more quantitative variables.
Difference between case study and naturalistic observation
The main difference between a case study and naturalistic observation lies in the approach and purpose of each method. 1. Case Study: A case study is an in-depth analysis of an individual, group, or event. It involves collecting detailed information about the subject through various sources like interviews, observations, and documents.
What is the difference between an observational study and an ...
Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent—for example, in randomized controlled trials for medical research. Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group.As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who ...
Applied Sciences
In the case of lumber with spiral grain, the spiral grain increased by up to 8° within three months. The warp of both types (bow, crook) increased exponentially throughout the study, peaking between the third and fourth week with an increase in warp bow of 26 mm and 17 mm in warp crook.

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Case Study Observational Research: A Framework for Conducting Case Study Research Where Observation Data Are the Focus

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Other Literature Sources

Research Methods (Case Studies & Observation Studies) 0 Pages | Leaving School | 18/06/2024

Observation Studies

ADVERTISEMENTS

6.5 Observational Research

What Is Observational Research?

Naturalistic Observation

Participant Observation

Structured Observation

Case Studies

The Case of “Anna O.”

Archival Research

Key Takeaways

Share This Book

Margin Size

6.6: Observational Research

Learning Objectives

What Is Observational Research?

Naturalistic Observation

Participant Observation

Structured Observation

Case Studies

The Case of “Anna O.”

Archival Research

What is an Observational Study: Definition & Examples

What is an Observational Study?

Observational Study Definition

Observational Study vs Experiment

Observational Study Examples

Types of Observational Studies

Drawbacks of Observational Studies

Accounting for Confounding Variables in an Observational Study

Matching in Observational Studies

Using Multiple Regression in Observational Studies

Vitamin Supplement Observational Study Example

Using Multiple Regression to Statistically Control for Confounders

Raw results

Adjusted results

Share this:

Reader Interactions

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

2.2 Approaches to Research

Clinical or Case Studies

Link to Learning

Naturalistic Observation

Archival Research

Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Research

Observation Method in Psychology: Naturalistic, Participant and Controlled

Controlled Observation

Limitations

Naturalistic Observation

Collecting Naturalistic Behavioral Data

Participant Observation

Recording of Data

Coding Systems

Macroanalytic coding systems

Microanalytic coding systems

Mesoanalytic coding systems

Preventing Coder Drift

Reducing Observer Bias

Coding Manual

Coder Training

Blind Methods

Evidence‐based medicine—When observational studies are better than randomized controlled trials

Vianda S. Stel

Yvette Meuleman

Kitty J. Jager

SUMMARY AT A GLANCE

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

2.1. Limitations of RCT

3. OBSERVATIONAL ANALYTIC STUDIES

4. STUDY OF UNINTENDED EFFECTS

5. DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES

6. CONCLUSIONS