one shot case study meaning

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Pre-experimental designs.

Pre-experiments are the simplest form of research design. In a pre-experiment either a single group or multiple groups are observed subsequent to some agent or treatment presumed to cause change.

Types of Pre-Experimental Design

One-shot case study design, one-group pretest-posttest design, static-group comparison.

A single group is studied at a single point in time after some treatment that is presumed to have caused change. The carefully studied single instance is compared to general expectations of what the case would have looked like had the treatment not occurred and to other events casually observed. No control or comparison group is employed.

A single case is observed at two time points, one before the treatment and one after the treatment. Changes in the outcome of interest are presumed to be the result of the intervention or treatment. No control or comparison group is employed.

A group that has experienced some treatment is compared with one that has not. Observed differences between the two groups are assumed to be a result of the treatment.

Validity of Results

An important drawback of pre-experimental designs is that they are subject to numerous threats to their  validity . Consequently, it is often difficult or impossible to dismiss rival hypotheses or explanations. Therefore, researchers must exercise extreme caution in interpreting and generalizing the results from pre-experimental studies.

One reason that it is often difficult to assess the validity of studies that employ a pre-experimental design is that they often do not include any control or comparison group. Without something to compare it to, it is difficult to assess the significance of an observed change in the case. The change could be the result of historical changes unrelated to the treatment, the maturation of the subject, or an artifact of the testing.

Even when pre-experimental designs identify a comparison group, it is still difficult to dismiss rival hypotheses for the observed change. This is because there is no formal way to determine whether the two groups would have been the same if it had not been for the treatment. If the treatment group and the comparison group differ after the treatment, this might be a reflection of differences in the initial recruitment to the groups or differential mortality in the experiment.

Advantages and Disadvantages

As exploratory approaches, pre-experiments can be a cost-effective way to discern whether a potential explanation is worthy of further investigation.

Disadvantages

Pre-experiments offer few advantages since it is often difficult or impossible to rule out alternative explanations. The nearly insurmountable threats to their validity are clearly the most important disadvantage of pre-experimental research designs.

One-Group Posttest Only Design: An Introduction

The one-group posttest-only design (a.k.a. one-shot case study ) is a type of quasi-experiment in which the outcome of interest is measured only once after exposing a non-random group of participants to a certain intervention.

The objective is to evaluate the effect of that intervention which can be:

• A training program
• A policy change
• A medical treatment, etc.

As in other quasi-experiments, the group of participants who receive the intervention is selected in a non-random way (for example according to their choosing or that of the researcher).

The one-group posttest-only design is especially characterized by having:

• No control group
• No measurements before the intervention

It is the simplest and weakest of the quasi-experimental designs in terms of level of evidence as the measured outcome cannot be compared to a measurement before the intervention nor to a control group.

So the outcome will be compared to what we assume will happen if the intervention was not implemented. This is generally based on expert knowledge and speculation.

Next we will discuss cases where this design can be useful and its limitations in the study of a causal relationship between the intervention and the outcome.

Advantages and Limitations of the one-group posttest-only design

Advantages of the one-group posttest-only design, 1. advantages related to the non-random selection of participants:.

• Ethical considerations: Random selection of participants is considered unethical when the intervention is believed to be harmful (for example exposing people to smoking or dangerous chemicals) or on the contrary when it is believed to be so beneficial that it would be malevolent not to offer it to all participants (for example a groundbreaking treatment or medical operation).
• Difficulty to adequately randomize subjects and locations: In some cases where the intervention acts on a group of people at a given location, it becomes infeasible to adequately randomize subjects (ex. an intervention that reduces pollution in a given area).

2. Advantages related to the simplicity of this design:

• Feasible with fewer resources than most designs: The one-group posttest-only design is especially useful when the intervention must be quickly introduced and we do not have enough time to take pre-intervention measurements. Other designs may also require a larger sample size or a higher cost to account for the follow-up of a control group.
• No temporality issue: Since the outcome is measured after the intervention, we can be certain that it occurred after it, which is important for inferring a causal relationship between the two.

Limitations of the one-group posttest-only design

1. selection bias:.

Because participants were not chosen at random, it is certainly possible that those who volunteered are not representative of the population of interest on which we intend to draw our conclusions.

2. Limitation due to maturation:

Because we don’t have a control group nor a pre-intervention measurement of the variable of interest, the post-intervention measurement will be compared to what we believe or assume would happen was there no intervention at all.

The problem is when the outcome of interest has a natural fluctuation pattern (maturation effect) that we don’t know about.

So since certain factors are essentially hard to predict and since 1 measurement is certainly not enough to understand the natural pattern of an outcome, therefore with the one-group posttest-only design, we can hardly infer any causal relationship between intervention and outcome.

3. Limitation due to history:

The idea here is that we may have a historical event, which may also influence the outcome, occurring at the same time as the intervention.

The problem is that this event can now be an alternative explanation of the observed outcome. The only way out of this is if the effect of this event on the outcome is well-known and documented in order to account for it in our data analysis.

This is why most of the time we prefer other designs that include a control group (made of people who were exposed to the historical event but not to the intervention) as it provides us with a reference to compare to.

Example of a study that used the one-group posttest-only design

In 2018, Tsai et al. designed an exercise program for older adults based on traditional Chinese medicine ideas, and wanted to test its feasibility, safety and helpfulness.

So they conducted a one-group posttest-only study as a pilot test with 31 older adult volunteers. Then they evaluated these participants (using open-ended questions) after receiving the intervention (the exercise program).

The study concluded that the program was safe, helpful and suitable for older adults.

What can we learn from this example?

1. work within the design limitations:.

Notice that the outcome measured was the feasibility of the program and not its health effects on older adults.

The purpose of the study was to design an exercise program based on the participants’ feedback. So a pilot one-group posttest-only study was enough to do so.

For studying the health effects of this program on older adults a randomized controlled trial will certainly be necessary.

2. Be careful with generalization when working with non-randomly selected participants:

For instance, participants who volunteered to be in this study were all physically active older adults who exercise regularly.

Therefore, the study results may not generalize to all the elderly population.

• Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference . 2nd Edition. Cengage Learning; 2001.
• Campbell DT, Stanley J. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research . 1st Edition. Cengage Learning; 1963.

Further reading

• Understand Quasi-Experimental Design Through an Example
• Experimental vs Quasi-Experimental Design
• Static-Group Comparison Design
• One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design

Pre-Experimental Design

Pre-experimental design refers to the simplest form of research design often used in the field of psychology, sociology, education, and other social sciences. These designs are called “pre-experimental” because they precede true experimental design in terms of complexity and rigor.

In pre-experimental designs, researchers observe or measure subjects without manipulating variables or controlling conditions. Often, these designs lack certain elements of a true experiment, such as random assignment, control groups, or pretest measurements, making it difficult to determine causality.

Three common types of pre-experimental designs include the one-shot case study, the one-group pretest-posttest design, and the static-group comparison. These designs offer a starting point for researchers but are typically seen as less reliable than more controlled experimental designs due to the lack of randomization and the potential for confounding variables.

Characteristics of Pre-Experimental Design

Pre-experimental designs are characterized by their simplicity and ease of execution. They are typically used when resources are limited, or when the research question does not require a high degree of control or precision. Key characteristics of these designs include the use of a single group, the lack of a control group, and the absence of random assignment.

Single Group

In a pre-experimental design, there is typically only one group of subjects, and this group is measured or observed both before and after an intervention or treatment.

Lack of Control Group

Pre-experimental designs often lack a control group for comparison. As a result, it’s difficult to determine whether observed changes are the result of the intervention or due to extraneous factors.

Absence of Random Assignment

Another characteristic of pre-experimental design is the absence of random assignment. Subjects are not randomly assigned to groups, which can lead to selection bias and limits the generalizability of the findings.

There are several types of pre-experimental designs, including the one-shot case study, the one-group pretest-posttest design, and the static-group comparison.

One-Shot Case Study

In a one-shot case study, a single group or case is studied at a single point in time after some intervention or treatment that is presumed to cause change.

One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design

In the one-group pretest-posttest design, a single group is observed at two time points, one before the treatment and one after the treatment.

Static-Group Comparison

In a static-group comparison, there are two groups that are not created through random assignment. One group receives the treatment and the other does not, and the outcomes are compared.

Limitations

While pre-experimental designs offer advantages in terms of simplicity and convenience, they also come with notable limitations. The lack of a control group and the absence of random assignment limits the ability to establish causality. There is also a risk of selection bias, and the findings may not be generalizable to other populations or settings.

Despite these limitations, pre-experimental designs can serve as valuable starting points in exploratory research, laying the groundwork for more rigorous experimental designs in the future.

In conclusion, pre-experimental design, while limited in its ability to provide strong evidence of causality, plays a crucial role in exploratory research. It presents a simplified and cost-effective approach to experimentation that is especially useful when resources are limited or when the goal is to explore a new area of study. However, the inherent limitations of pre-experimental designs necessitate caution in interpreting their results. Consequently, they are often used as stepping stones towards more rigorous research designs. As such, understanding pre-experimental designs is a fundamental part of the researcher’s toolkit, paving the way for more comprehensive and controlled investigations.

• Experimental Research Designs: Types, Examples & Methods

Experimental research is the most familiar type of research design for individuals in the physical sciences and a host of other fields. This is mainly because experimental research is a classical scientific experiment, similar to those performed in high school science classes.

Imagine taking 2 samples of the same plant and exposing one of them to sunlight, while the other is kept away from sunlight. Let the plant exposed to sunlight be called sample A, while the latter is called sample B.

If after the duration of the research, we find out that sample A grows and sample B dies, even though they are both regularly wetted and given the same treatment. Therefore, we can conclude that sunlight will aid growth in all similar plants.

What is Experimental Research?

Experimental research is a scientific approach to research, where one or more independent variables are manipulated and applied to one or more dependent variables to measure their effect on the latter. The effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables is usually observed and recorded over some time, to aid researchers in drawing a reasonable conclusion regarding the relationship between these 2 variable types.

The experimental research method is widely used in physical and social sciences, psychology, and education. It is based on the comparison between two or more groups with a straightforward logic, which may, however, be difficult to execute.

Mostly related to a laboratory test procedure, experimental research designs involve collecting quantitative data and performing statistical analysis on them during research. Therefore, making it an example of quantitative research method .

What are The Types of Experimental Research Design?

The types of experimental research design are determined by the way the researcher assigns subjects to different conditions and groups. They are of 3 types, namely; pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, and true experimental research.

Pre-experimental Research Design

In pre-experimental research design, either a group or various dependent groups are observed for the effect of the application of an independent variable which is presumed to cause change. It is the simplest form of experimental research design and is treated with no control group.

Although very practical, experimental research is lacking in several areas of the true-experimental criteria. The pre-experimental research design is further divided into three types

• One-shot Case Study Research Design

In this type of experimental study, only one dependent group or variable is considered. The study is carried out after some treatment which was presumed to cause change, making it a posttest study.

• One-group Pretest-posttest Research Design: 

This research design combines both posttest and pretest study by carrying out a test on a single group before the treatment is administered and after the treatment is administered. With the former being administered at the beginning of treatment and later at the end.

• Static-group Comparison: 

In a static-group comparison study, 2 or more groups are placed under observation, where only one of the groups is subjected to some treatment while the other groups are held static. All the groups are post-tested, and the observed differences between the groups are assumed to be a result of the treatment.

Quasi-experimental Research Design

  The word “quasi” means partial, half, or pseudo. Therefore, the quasi-experimental research bearing a resemblance to the true experimental research, but not the same.  In quasi-experiments, the participants are not randomly assigned, and as such, they are used in settings where randomization is difficult or impossible.

 This is very common in educational research, where administrators are unwilling to allow the random selection of students for experimental samples.

Some examples of quasi-experimental research design include; the time series, no equivalent control group design, and the counterbalanced design.

True Experimental Research Design

The true experimental research design relies on statistical analysis to approve or disprove a hypothesis. It is the most accurate type of experimental design and may be carried out with or without a pretest on at least 2 randomly assigned dependent subjects.

The true experimental research design must contain a control group, a variable that can be manipulated by the researcher, and the distribution must be random. The classification of true experimental design include:

• The posttest-only Control Group Design: In this design, subjects are randomly selected and assigned to the 2 groups (control and experimental), and only the experimental group is treated. After close observation, both groups are post-tested, and a conclusion is drawn from the difference between these groups.
• The pretest-posttest Control Group Design: For this control group design, subjects are randomly assigned to the 2 groups, both are presented, but only the experimental group is treated. After close observation, both groups are post-tested to measure the degree of change in each group.
• Solomon four-group Design: This is the combination of the pretest-only and the pretest-posttest control groups. In this case, the randomly selected subjects are placed into 4 groups.

The first two of these groups are tested using the posttest-only method, while the other two are tested using the pretest-posttest method.

Examples of Experimental Research

Experimental research examples are different, depending on the type of experimental research design that is being considered. The most basic example of experimental research is laboratory experiments, which may differ in nature depending on the subject of research.

Administering Exams After The End of Semester

During the semester, students in a class are lectured on particular courses and an exam is administered at the end of the semester. In this case, the students are the subjects or dependent variables while the lectures are the independent variables treated on the subjects.

Only one group of carefully selected subjects are considered in this research, making it a pre-experimental research design example. We will also notice that tests are only carried out at the end of the semester, and not at the beginning.

Further making it easy for us to conclude that it is a one-shot case study research. 

Employee Skill Evaluation

Before employing a job seeker, organizations conduct tests that are used to screen out less qualified candidates from the pool of qualified applicants. This way, organizations can determine an employee’s skill set at the point of employment.

In the course of employment, organizations also carry out employee training to improve employee productivity and generally grow the organization. Further evaluation is carried out at the end of each training to test the impact of the training on employee skills, and test for improvement.

Here, the subject is the employee, while the treatment is the training conducted. This is a pretest-posttest control group experimental research example.

Evaluation of Teaching Method

Let us consider an academic institution that wants to evaluate the teaching method of 2 teachers to determine which is best. Imagine a case whereby the students assigned to each teacher is carefully selected probably due to personal request by parents or due to stubbornness and smartness.

This is a no equivalent group design example because the samples are not equal. By evaluating the effectiveness of each teacher’s teaching method this way, we may conclude after a post-test has been carried out.

However, this may be influenced by factors like the natural sweetness of a student. For example, a very smart student will grab more easily than his or her peers irrespective of the method of teaching.

What are the Characteristics of Experimental Research?  

Experimental research contains dependent, independent and extraneous variables. The dependent variables are the variables being treated or manipulated and are sometimes called the subject of the research.

The independent variables are the experimental treatment being exerted on the dependent variables. Extraneous variables, on the other hand, are other factors affecting the experiment that may also contribute to the change.

The setting is where the experiment is carried out. Many experiments are carried out in the laboratory, where control can be exerted on the extraneous variables, thereby eliminating them.

Other experiments are carried out in a less controllable setting. The choice of setting used in research depends on the nature of the experiment being carried out.

• Multivariable

Experimental research may include multiple independent variables, e.g. time, skills, test scores, etc.

Why Use Experimental Research Design?  

Experimental research design can be majorly used in physical sciences, social sciences, education, and psychology. It is used to make predictions and draw conclusions on a subject matter. 

Some uses of experimental research design are highlighted below.

• Medicine: Experimental research is used to provide the proper treatment for diseases. In most cases, rather than directly using patients as the research subject, researchers take a sample of the bacteria from the patient’s body and are treated with the developed antibacterial

The changes observed during this period are recorded and evaluated to determine its effectiveness. This process can be carried out using different experimental research methods.

• Education: Asides from science subjects like Chemistry and Physics which involves teaching students how to perform experimental research, it can also be used in improving the standard of an academic institution. This includes testing students’ knowledge on different topics, coming up with better teaching methods, and the implementation of other programs that will aid student learning.
• Human Behavior: Social scientists are the ones who mostly use experimental research to test human behaviour. For example, consider 2 people randomly chosen to be the subject of the social interaction research where one person is placed in a room without human interaction for 1 year.

The other person is placed in a room with a few other people, enjoying human interaction. There will be a difference in their behaviour at the end of the experiment.

• UI/UX: During the product development phase, one of the major aims of the product team is to create a great user experience with the product. Therefore, before launching the final product design, potential are brought in to interact with the product.

For example, when finding it difficult to choose how to position a button or feature on the app interface, a random sample of product testers are allowed to test the 2 samples and how the button positioning influences the user interaction is recorded.

What are the Disadvantages of Experimental Research?  

• It is highly prone to human error due to its dependency on variable control which may not be properly implemented. These errors could eliminate the validity of the experiment and the research being conducted.
• Exerting control of extraneous variables may create unrealistic situations. Eliminating real-life variables will result in inaccurate conclusions. This may also result in researchers controlling the variables to suit his or her personal preferences.
• It is a time-consuming process. So much time is spent on testing dependent variables and waiting for the effect of the manipulation of dependent variables to manifest.
• It is expensive.
• It is very risky and may have ethical complications that cannot be ignored. This is common in medical research, where failed trials may lead to a patient’s death or a deteriorating health condition.
• Experimental research results are not descriptive.
• Response bias can also be supplied by the subject of the conversation.
• Human responses in experimental research can be difficult to measure.

What are the Data Collection Methods in Experimental Research?  

Data collection methods in experimental research are the different ways in which data can be collected for experimental research. They are used in different cases, depending on the type of research being carried out.

1. Observational Study

This type of study is carried out over a long period. It measures and observes the variables of interest without changing existing conditions.

When researching the effect of social interaction on human behavior, the subjects who are placed in 2 different environments are observed throughout the research. No matter the kind of absurd behavior that is exhibited by the subject during this period, its condition will not be changed.

This may be a very risky thing to do in medical cases because it may lead to death or worse medical conditions.

2. Simulations

This procedure uses mathematical, physical, or computer models to replicate a real-life process or situation. It is frequently used when the actual situation is too expensive, dangerous, or impractical to replicate in real life.

This method is commonly used in engineering and operational research for learning purposes and sometimes as a tool to estimate possible outcomes of real research. Some common situation software are Simulink, MATLAB, and Simul8.

Not all kinds of experimental research can be carried out using simulation as a data collection tool . It is very impractical for a lot of laboratory-based research that involves chemical processes.

A survey is a tool used to gather relevant data about the characteristics of a population and is one of the most common data collection tools. A survey consists of a group of questions prepared by the researcher, to be answered by the research subject.

Surveys can be shared with the respondents both physically and electronically. When collecting data through surveys, the kind of data collected depends on the respondent, and researchers have limited control over it.

Formplus is the best tool for collecting experimental data using survey s. It has relevant features that will aid the data collection process and can also be used in other aspects of experimental research.

Differences between Experimental and Non-Experimental Research 

1. In experimental research, the researcher can control and manipulate the environment of the research, including the predictor variable which can be changed. On the other hand, non-experimental research cannot be controlled or manipulated by the researcher at will.

This is because it takes place in a real-life setting, where extraneous variables cannot be eliminated. Therefore, it is more difficult to conclude non-experimental studies, even though they are much more flexible and allow for a greater range of study fields.

2. The relationship between cause and effect cannot be established in non-experimental research, while it can be established in experimental research. This may be because many extraneous variables also influence the changes in the research subject, making it difficult to point at a particular variable as the cause of a particular change

3. Independent variables are not introduced, withdrawn, or manipulated in non-experimental designs, but the same may not be said about experimental research.

Experimental Research vs. Alternatives and When to Use Them

1. experimental research vs causal comparative.

Experimental research enables you to control variables and identify how the independent variable affects the dependent variable. Causal-comparative find out the cause-and-effect relationship between the variables by comparing already existing groups that are affected differently by the independent variable.

For example, in an experiment to see how K-12 education affects children and teenager development. An experimental research would split the children into groups, some would get formal K-12 education, while others won’t. This is not ethically right because every child has the right to education. So, what we do instead would be to compare already existing groups of children who are getting formal education with those who due to some circumstances can not.

Pros and Cons of Experimental vs Causal-Comparative Research

• Causal-Comparative:   Strengths:  More realistic than experiments, can be conducted in real-world settings.  Weaknesses:  Establishing causality can be weaker due to the lack of manipulation.

2. Experimental Research vs Correlational Research

When experimenting, you are trying to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between different variables. For example, you are trying to establish the effect of heat on water, the temperature keeps changing (independent variable) and you see how it affects the water (dependent variable).

For correlational research, you are not necessarily interested in the why or the cause-and-effect relationship between the variables, you are focusing on the relationship. Using the same water and temperature example, you are only interested in the fact that they change, you are not investigating which of the variables or other variables causes them to change.

Pros and Cons of Experimental vs Correlational Research

3. experimental research vs descriptive research.

With experimental research, you alter the independent variable to see how it affects the dependent variable, but with descriptive research you are simply studying the characteristics of the variable you are studying.

So, in an experiment to see how blown glass reacts to temperature, experimental research would keep altering the temperature to varying levels of high and low to see how it affects the dependent variable (glass). But descriptive research would investigate the glass properties.

Pros and Cons of Experimental vs Descriptive Research

4. experimental research vs action research.

Experimental research tests for causal relationships by focusing on one independent variable vs the dependent variable and keeps other variables constant. So, you are testing hypotheses and using the information from the research to contribute to knowledge.

However, with action research, you are using a real-world setting which means you are not controlling variables. You are also performing the research to solve actual problems and improve already established practices.

For example, if you are testing for how long commutes affect workers’ productivity. With experimental research, you would vary the length of commute to see how the time affects work. But with action research, you would account for other factors such as weather, commute route, nutrition, etc. Also, experimental research helps know the relationship between commute time and productivity, while action research helps you look for ways to improve productivity

Pros and Cons of Experimental vs Action Research

Conclusion  .

Experimental research designs are often considered to be the standard in research designs. This is partly due to the common misconception that research is equivalent to scientific experiments—a component of experimental research design.

In this research design, one or more subjects or dependent variables are randomly assigned to different treatments (i.e. independent variables manipulated by the researcher) and the results are observed to conclude. One of the uniqueness of experimental research is in its ability to control the effect of extraneous variables.

Experimental research is suitable for research whose goal is to examine cause-effect relationships, e.g. explanatory research. It can be conducted in the laboratory or field settings, depending on the aim of the research that is being carried out. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• examples of experimental research
• experimental research methods
• types of experimental research
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

What is Experimenter Bias? Definition, Types & Mitigation

In this article, we will look into the concept of experimental bias and how it can be identified in your research

Response vs Explanatory Variables: Definition & Examples

In this article, we’ll be comparing the two types of variables, what they both mean and see some of their real-life applications in research

Simpson’s Paradox & How to Avoid it in Experimental Research

In this article, we are going to look at Simpson’s Paradox from its historical point and later, we’ll consider its effect in...

Experimental Vs Non-Experimental Research: 15 Key Differences

Differences between experimental and non experimental research on definitions, types, examples, data collection tools, uses, advantages etc.

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Ip S, Paulus JK, Balk EM, et al. Role of Single Group Studies in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Jan.

Role of Single Group Studies in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet].

Evidence from randomized controlled trials is often unavailable or insufficient to answer all questions posed in a comparative effectiveness review (CER). Thus, following a best-available-evidence approach, 1 systematic reviewers often use observational studies including a comparison group to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of alternative therapeutic strategies. However, there are many instances where even observational studies with a comparison group are unavailable. Therefore, single group studies—those that evaluate a single intervention given to all subjects included in the study design—are often part of the evidence available to systematic reviewers conducting CERs.

We define a single group study as a study that consists of only a single group of subjects included in the study design, in which all subjects received a single intervention and the outcomes are assessed over time (i.e., not a cross-sectional study). These studies may be prospective or retrospective cohort studies. A number of study types would be included in this category, including investigations described as “single arm studies,” case series, registries, “before-after designs,” and time series studies. A classification scheme developed by Campbell and Stanley describes two single group studies consistent with our definition: the “one-shot case study” and the “one-group pretest–post-test design.” 2 In the one-shot case study, a single group is studied only once after a treatment is applied. In the one-group pretest–post-test design, a pretest evaluation is followed by a treatment and then a post-test. For the rest of this paper, we will use the simplified term “single group study” when describing these designs in general.

Single group studies are often conducted in the setting of strong therapy preferences (e.g., hyperbaric oxygen therapy for arterial gas embolism 3 ). This is especially true for transplantation studies of vital organs in the setting of rapid and fatal disease progression. For example, in patients with end-stage liver disease, the natural history of disease is so well known that it would be difficult to carry out a trial with an untransplanted study arm. Also, a field of clinical inquiry that is relatively new may not be sufficiently mature to rationalize a comparative hypothesis. For example, novel procedures or drugs are often initially evaluated in single group studies that are used to inform the design of a subsequent study with an internal comparison group.

Single group study designs are commonly used to monitor adverse events that may become evident only with long-term followup of large numbers of treated patients, which is not practical or efficient with other study designs. For example, phase 4 studies to monitor postmarketing adverse events and evaluations of therapies often include a single group of patients managed with the same treatment strategy and followed over time. Open-label extensions of clinical trials present another type of clinical investigation that often lacks an internal, concurrent comparison group. Although they are designed to follow patients for an extended period of time, they also usually evaluate a more highly selected population of patients who completed the randomized trial, tolerated the medication, and agreed to participate in the extension. Expanded access programs (or “compassionate use”) allow the use of an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial to treat a patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition lacking satisfactory alternative treatment options. These investigations commonly describe the experience of a single group of patients without a comparison group (for example, see Janne 2004 4 ). Finally, registries of patients who have been exposed to a single drug or device may also be assembled for monitoring long-term sequelae without an internal comparison group. An example includes the coordinated effort to study newly introduced devices through the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support, established to capture detailed clinical data on all patients receiving implantable ventricular assist pumps in the United States. 5

Since single group studies do not include a direct, concurrent comparison group, their role in informing comparative effectiveness questions is not straightforward. Observational study designs in general suffer from a potential lack of exchangeability of exposed and unexposed subjects. In other words, the outcome in the untreated group may differ from what would have occurred in the treated in the absence of treatment (the “counterfactual outcome”). The absence of a direct, concurrent untreated comparator in single group studies presents an added challenge to identifying a proxy for the counterfactual, or an answer to the question: “What would have been the treated person's experience if there had been no treatment?” Extrapolations based on the expected outcomes in the “missing” untreated arm are required for inference about treatment effects. In fact, explicit and implicit comparisons are frequently made in single group studies even in the absence of a direct, concurrent comparator. The appropriate interpretation of these implicit and explicit comparisons and their potential utility in CERs must include consideration of the key assumptions underlying each single group design.

The ability of observational studies to answer questions about the benefits or intended effects of pharmacotherapeutic agents, devices, or procedural interventions has been a matter of debate. 6 Guidance has been developed for systematic reviewers for decisionmaking on the inclusion of observational studies in general in CERs. 6 However, to the best of our knowledge, the use of single group observational studies in CERs has not been specifically addressed in this methods guide or elsewhere. While the value of using single group studies to identify and quantify the occurrence of harms a of interventions is well recognized, the role of these studies in evaluating comparative effectiveness and safety is not well developed. Given that single group studies may comprise a substantial portion of the evidence base for a given clinical question, and in light of the challenges in their interpretation and relevance to questions that are comparative in nature, it is important to clarify whether they are useful in informing comparative effectiveness assessments, and if so, to clarify the assumptions required to support their use.

In order to illuminate the use of single group studies in CERs, we conducted an empirical review of current practices in using single group studies in CERs conducted by Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The summary findings should serve as an impetus for future work in reaching a consensus across EPCs as to when and how single group studies should be used in CERs specifically and systematic reviews in general. In addition to the empirical review, we also provided a narrative review section describing the common single group study designs and the key considerations and assumptions required for their interpretation to help guide comparative effectiveness reviewers who encounter this type of evidence.

Includes adverse events of interventions as well as other harmful events that may be indirectly related to the intervention.

• Cite this Page Ip S, Paulus JK, Balk EM, et al. Role of Single Group Studies in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Jan. Background.
• PDF version of this title (544K)

Other titles in these collections

• AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care
• Health Services/Technology Assessment Texts (HSTAT)

Recent Activity

• Background - Role of Single Group Studies in Agency for Healthcare Research and ... Background - Role of Single Group Studies in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Comparative Effectiveness Reviews

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

For the best experience, please use Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.

Pre-Experimental Designs

Pre-experiments are the simplest form of research design. In a pre-experiment either a single group or multiple groups are observed subsequent to some agent or treatment presumed to cause change.

Types of Pre-Experimental Design

One-shot case study design, one-group pretest-posttest design, static-group comparison.

A single group is studied at a single point in time after some treatment that is presumed to have caused change. The carefully studied single instance is compared to general expectations of what the case would have looked like had the treatment not occurred and to other events casually observed. No control or comparison group is employed.

A single case is observed at two time points, one before the treatment and one after the treatment. Changes in the outcome of interest are presumed to be the result of the intervention or treatment. No control or comparison group is employed.

A group that has experienced some treatment is compared with one that has not. Observed differences between the two groups are assumed to be a result of the treatment.

Validity of Results

An important drawback of pre-experimental designs is that they are subject to numerous threats to their validity . Consequently, it is often difficult or impossible to dismiss rival hypotheses or explanations. Therefore, researchers must exercise extreme caution in interpreting and generalizing the results from pre-experimental studies.

One reason that it is often difficult to assess the validity of studies that employ a pre-experimental design is that they often do not include any control or comparison group. Without something to compare it to, it is difficult to assess the significance of an observed change in the case. The change could be the result of historical changes unrelated to the treatment, the maturation of the subject, or an artifact of the testing.

Even when pre-experimental designs identify a comparison group, it is still difficult to dismiss rival hypotheses for the observed change. This is because there is no formal way to determine whether the two groups would have been the same if it had not been for the treatment. If the treatment group and the comparison group differ after the treatment, this might be a reflection of differences in the initial recruitment to the groups or differential mortality in the experiment.

Advantages and Disadvantages

As exploratory approaches, pre-experiments can be a cost-effective way to discern whether a potential explanation is worthy of further investigation.

Disadvantages

Pre-experiments offer few advantages since it is often difficult or impossible to rule out alternative explanations. The nearly insurmountable threats to their validity are clearly the most important disadvantage of pre-experimental research designs.

• Voxco Online
• Voxco Panel Management
• Voxco Panel Portal
• Voxco Audience
• Voxco Mobile Offline
• Voxco Dialer Cloud
• Voxco Dialer On-premise
• Voxco TCPA Connect
• Voxco Analytics
• Voxco Text & Sentiment Analysis

• 40+ question types
• Drag-and-drop interface
• Skip logic and branching
• Multi-lingual survey
• Text piping
• Question library
• CSS customization
• White-label surveys
• Customizable ‘Thank You’ page
• Customizable survey theme
• Reminder send-outs
• Survey rewards
• Social media
• Website surveys
• Correlation analysis
• Cross-tabulation analysis
• Trend analysis
• Real-time dashboard
• Customizable report
• Email address validation
• Recaptcha validation
• SSL security

Take a peek at our powerful survey features to design surveys that scale discoveries.

Download feature sheet.

• Hospitality
• Academic Research
• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Product Experience
• Market Research
• Social Research
• Data Analysis

Explore Voxco 

Need to map Voxco’s features & offerings? We can help!

Watch a Demo 

Download Brochures 

Get a Quote

• NPS Calculator
• CES Calculator
• A/B Testing Calculator
• Margin of Error Calculator
• Sample Size Calculator
• CX Strategy & Management Hub
• Market Research Hub
• Patient Experience Hub
• Employee Experience Hub
• NPS Knowledge Hub
• Market Research Guide
• Customer Experience Guide
• Survey Research Guides
• Survey Template Library
• Webinars and Events
• Feature Sheets
• Try a sample survey
• Professional Services

Get exclusive insights into research trends and best practices from top experts! Access Voxco’s ‘State of Research Report 2024 edition’ .

We’ve been avid users of the Voxco platform now for over 20 years. It gives us the flexibility to routinely enhance our survey toolkit and provides our clients with a more robust dataset and story to tell their clients.

VP Innovation & Strategic Partnerships, The Logit Group

• Client Stories
• Voxco Reviews
• Why Voxco Research?
• Careers at Voxco
• Vulnerabilities and Ethical Hacking

Explore Regional Offices

• Survey Software The world’s leading omnichannel survey software
• Online Survey Tools Create sophisticated surveys with ease.
• Mobile Offline Conduct efficient field surveys.
• Text Analysis
• Close The Loop
• Automated Translations
• NPS Dashboard
• CATI Manage high volume phone surveys efficiently
• Cloud/On-premise Dialer TCPA compliant Cloud on-premise dialer
• IVR Survey Software Boost productivity with automated call workflows.
• Analytics Analyze survey data with visual dashboards
• Panel Manager Nurture a loyal community of respondents.
• Survey Portal Best-in-class user friendly survey portal.
• Voxco Audience Conduct targeted sample research in hours.
• Predictive Analytics
• Customer 360
• Customer Loyalty
• Fraud & Risk Management
• AI/ML Enablement Services
• Credit Underwriting

Find the best survey software for you! (Along with a checklist to compare platforms)

Get Buyer’s Guide

• 100+ question types
• SMS surveys
• Financial Services
• Banking & Financial Services
• Retail Solution
• Risk Management
• Customer Lifecycle Solutions
• Net Promoter Score
• Customer Behaviour Analytics
• Customer Segmentation
• Data Unification

Explore Voxco 

Watch a Demo 

Download Brochures 

• CX Strategy & Management Hub
• The Voxco Guide to Customer Experience
• Professional services
• Blogs & White papers
• Case Studies

Find the best customer experience platform

Uncover customer pain points, analyze feedback and run successful CX programs with the best CX platform for your team.

Get the Guide Now

VP Innovation & Strategic Partnerships, The Logit Group

• Why Voxco Intelligence?
• Our clients
• Client stories
• Featuresheets

Pre-experimental Design: Definition, Types & Examples

• October 1, 2021

SHARE THE ARTICLE ON

Experimental research is conducted to analyze and understand the effect of a program or a treatment. There are three types of experimental research designs – pre-experimental designs, true experimental designs, and quasi-experimental designs . 

In this blog, we will be talking about pre-experimental designs. Let’s first explain pre-experimental research. 

What is Pre-experimental Research?

As the name suggests, pre- experimental research happens even before the true experiment starts. This is done to determine the researchers’ intervention on a group of people. This will help them tell if the investment of cost and time for conducting a true experiment is worth a while. Hence, pre-experimental research is a preliminary step to justify the presence of the researcher’s intervention. 

The pre-experimental approach helps give some sort of guarantee that the experiment can be a full-scale successful study. 

What is Pre-experimental Design?

The pre-experimental design includes one or more than one experimental groups to be observed against certain treatments. It is the simplest form of research design that follows the basic steps in experiments. 

The pre-experimental design does not have a comparison group. This means that while a researcher can claim that participants who received certain treatment have experienced a change, they cannot conclude that the change was caused by the treatment itself. 

The research design can still be useful for exploratory research to test the feasibility for further study. 

Let us understand how pre-experimental design is different from the true and quasi-experiments:

The above table tells us pretty much about the working of the pre-experimental designs. So we can say that it is actually to test treatment, and check whether it has the potential to cause a change or not. For the same reasons, it is advised to perform pre-experiments to define the potential of a true experiment.

See Voxco survey software in action with a Free demo.

Types of Pre-experimental Designs

Assuming now you have a better understanding of what the whole pre-experimental design concept is, it is time to move forward and look at its types and their working:

One-shot case study design

• This design practices the treatment of a single group.
• It only takes a single measurement after the experiment.
• A one-shot case study design only analyses post-test results.

The one-shot case study compares the post-test results to the expected results. It makes clear what the result is and how the case would have looked if the treatment wasn’t done. 

A team leader wants to implement a new soft skills program in the firm. The employees can be measured at the end of the first month to see the improvement in their soft skills. The team leader will know the impact of the program on the employees.

One-group pretest-posttest design

• Like the previous one, this design also works on just one experimental group.
• But this one takes two measures into account. 
• A pre-test and a post-test are conducted. 

As the name suggests, it includes one group and conducts pre-test and post-test on it. The pre-test will tell how the group was before they were put under treatment. Whereas post-test determines the changes in the group after the treatment. 

This sounds like a true experiment , but being a pre-experiment design, it does not have any control group. 

Following the previous example, the team leader here will conduct two tests. One before the soft skill program implementation to know the level of employees before they were put through the training. And a post-test to know their status after the training.

Now that he has a frame of reference, he knows exactly how the program helped the employees. 

Static-group comparison

• This compares two experimental groups.
• One group is exposed to the treatment.
• The other group is not exposed to the treatment.
• The difference between the two groups is the result of the experiment.

As the name suggests, it has two groups, which means it involves a control group too. 

In static-group comparison design, the two groups are observed as one goes through the treatment while the other does not. They are then compared to each other to determine the outcome of the treatment.

The team lead decides one group of employees to get the soft skills training while the other group remains as a control group and is not exposed to any program. He then compares both the groups and finds out the treatment group has evolved in their soft skills more than the control group. 

Due to such working, static-group comparison design is generally perceived as a quasi-experimental design too. 

Characteristics of Pre-experimental Designs

In this section, let us point down the characteristics of pre-experimental design:

• Generally uses only one group for treatment which makes observation simple and easy.
• Validates the experiment in the preliminary phase itself. 
• Pre-experimental design tells the researchers how their intervention will affect the whole study. 
• As they are conducted in the beginning, pre-experimental designs give evidence for or against their intervention.
• It does not involve the randomization of the participants. 
• It generally does not involve the control group, but in some cases where there is a need for studying the control group against the treatment group, static-group comparison comes into the picture. 
• The pre-experimental design gives an idea about how the treatment is going to work in case of actual true experiments.  

Validity of results in Pre-experimental Designs

Validity means a level to which data or results reflect the accuracy of reality. And in the case of pre-experimental research design, it is a tough catch. The reason being testing a hypothesis or dissolving a problem can be quite a difficult task, let’s say close to impossible. This being said, researchers find it challenging to generalize the results they got from the pre-experimental design, over the actual experiment. 

As pre-experimental design generally does not have any comparison groups to compete for the results with, that makes it pretty obvious for the researchers to go through the trouble of believing its results. Without comparison, it is hard to tell how significant or valid the result is. Because there is a chance that the result occurred due to some uncalled changes in the treatment, maturation of the group, or is it just sheer chance. 

Let’s say all the above parameters work just in favor of your experiment, you even have a control group to compare it with, but that still leaves us with one problem. And that is what “kind” of groups we get for the true experiments. It is possible that the subjects in your pre-experimental design were a lot different from the subjects you have for the true experiment. If this is the case, even if your treatment is constant, there is still going to be a change in your results. 

Advantages of Pre-experimental Designs

• Cost-effective due to its easy process. 
• Very simple to conduct.
• Efficient to conduct in the natural environment. 
• It is also suitable for beginners. 
• Involves less human intervention. 
• Determines how your treatment is going to affect the true experiment. 

Disadvantages of Pre-experimental Designs

• It is a weak design to determine causal relationships between variables. 
• Does not have any control over the research. 
• Possess a high threat to internal validity. 
• Researchers find it tough to examine the results’ integrity. 
• The absence of a control group makes the results less reliable. 

This sums up the basics of pre-experimental design and how it differs from other experimental research designs. Curious to learn how you can use survey software to conduct your experimental research, book a meeting with us . 

Pre-experimental design is a research method that happens before the true experiment and determines how the researcher’s intervention will affect the experiment.

An example of a pre-experimental design would be a gym trainer implementing a new training schedule for a trainee.

Characteristics of pre-experimental design include its ability to determine the significance of treatment even before the true experiment is performed.

Researchers want to know how their intervention is going to affect the experiment. So even before the true experiment starts, they carry out a pre-experimental research design to determine the possible results of the true experiment.

The pre-experimental design deals with the treatment’s effect on the experiment and is carried out even before the true experiment takes place. While a true experiment is an actual experiment, it is important to conduct its pre-experiment first to see how the intervention is going to affect the experiment.

The true experimental design carries out the pre-test and post-test on both the treatment group as well as a control group. whereas in pre-experimental design, control group and pre-test are options. it does not always have the presence of those two and helps the researcher determine how the real experiment is going to happen.

The main difference between a pre-experimental design and a quasi-experimental design is that pre-experimental design does not use control groups and quasi-experimental design does. Quasi always makes use of the pre-test post-test model of result comparison while pre-experimental design mostly doesn’t.

Non-experimental research methods majorly fall into three categories namely: Cross-sectional research, correlational research and observational research.

Explore Voxco Survey Software

+ Omnichannel Survey Software 

+ Online Survey Software 

+ CATI Survey Software 

+ IVR Survey Software 

+ Market Research Tool

+ Customer Experience Tool 

+ Product Experience Software 

+ Enterprise Survey Software 

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Survey Questions

15+ Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion Survey Questions You Should Ask in 2024 SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table of Contents In this world with dynamic workplaces,

Version 6.10 of Voxco online features is live!

Version 6.10 of Voxco online is live! Experience a new feature and exciting new feature updates. Today, we have released one new feature and four

Top X QuestionPro Alternatives

Top 10 QuestionPro Alternatives SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table of Contents Are you looking for survey software to replace QuestionPro? Did you use it to

Voice of the customer financial services

Voice of the customer financial services SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Table of Contents It isn’t a surprise how the voice of customers has been helping

Sentiment Analysis: Definition, Types, Significance and Examples

Sentiment Analysis: Definition, Types, Significance and Examples SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin Table of Contents Sentiment analysis

What is Causation?

What is Causation? SHARE THE ARTICLE ON Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin Table of Contents What is Causation? Causation implies a

We use cookies in our website to give you the best browsing experience and to tailor advertising. By continuing to use our website, you give us consent to the use of cookies. Read More

ONE-SHOT CASE STUDY

a research model wherein a sole group is viewed only one time after some occurrence was assumed to have been the facilitator of alterations. The amount of control in this model is so minimal that most research methodologists consider the model to be unscientific.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

What Happens At An ADHD Assessment

A Quick Look at the History Behind Hypnosis

A Brief History of Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control

A Deep Dive into the Social Psychology of Leadership

Counseling Approaches to Client Care: Theories to Apply in Practice

The Future Of Education: Can You Earn A Psychology Degree Online?

Insomnia & Mental Illness: What is the Correlation?

Stop Guessing: Here Are 3 Steps to Data-Driven Psychological Decisions

Getting Help with Grief: Understanding Therapy & How It Can Help

Exploring the Psychology of Risk and Reward

Understanding ADHD in Women: Symptoms, Treatment & Support

Meeting the Milestones: A Guide to Piaget's Child Developmental Stages

Popular psychology terms, medical model, hypermnesia, affirmation, brainwashing, backup reinforcer, affiliative behavior, message-learning approach, posttraumatic stress disorder (ptsd), behavioral consistency, sensory adaptation.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

8.2 Quasi-experimental and pre-experimental designs

Learning objectives.

• Identify and describe the various types of quasi-experimental designs
• Distinguish true experimental designs from quasi-experimental and pre-experimental designs
• Identify and describe the various types of quasi-experimental and pre-experimental designs

As we discussed in the previous section, time, funding, and ethics may limit a researcher’s ability to conduct a true experiment. For researchers in the medical sciences and social work, conducting a true experiment could require denying needed treatment to clients, which is a clear ethical violation. Even those whose research may not involve the administration of needed medications or treatments may be limited in their ability to conduct a classic experiment. When true experiments are not possible, researchers often use quasi-experimental designs.

Quasi-experimental designs

Quasi-experimental designs are similar to true experiments, but they lack random assignment to experimental and control groups. Quasi-experimental designs have a comparison group that is similar to a control group except assignment to the comparison group is not determined by random assignment. The most basic of these quasi-experimental designs is the nonequivalent comparison groups design (Rubin & Babbie, 2017).  The nonequivalent comparison group design looks a lot like the classic experimental design, except it does not use random assignment. In many cases, these groups may already exist. For example, a researcher might conduct research at two different agency sites, one of which receives the intervention and the other does not. No one was assigned to treatment or comparison groups. Those groupings existed prior to the study. While this method is more convenient for real-world research, it is less likely that that the groups are comparable than if they had been determined by random assignment. Perhaps the treatment group has a characteristic that is unique–for example, higher income or different diagnoses–that make the treatment more effective.

Quasi-experiments are particularly useful in social welfare policy research. Social welfare policy researchers often look for what are termed natural experiments , or situations in which comparable groups are created by differences that already occur in the real world. Natural experiments are a feature of the social world that allows researchers to use the logic of experimental design to investigate the connection between variables. For example, Stratmann and Wille (2016) were interested in the effects of a state healthcare policy called Certificate of Need on the quality of hospitals. They clearly could not randomly assign states to adopt one set of policies or another. Instead, researchers used hospital referral regions, or the areas from which hospitals draw their patients, that spanned across state lines. Because the hospitals were in the same referral region, researchers could be pretty sure that the client characteristics were pretty similar. In this way, they could classify patients in experimental and comparison groups without dictating state policy or telling people where to live.

Matching is another approach in quasi-experimental design for assigning people to experimental and comparison groups. It begins with researchers thinking about what variables are important in their study, particularly demographic variables or attributes that might impact their dependent variable. Individual matching involves pairing participants with similar attributes. Then, the matched pair is split—with one participant going to the experimental group and the other to the comparison group. An ex post facto control group , in contrast, is when a researcher matches individuals after the intervention is administered to some participants. Finally, researchers may engage in aggregate matching , in which the comparison group is determined to be similar on important variables.

Time series design

There are many different quasi-experimental designs in addition to the nonequivalent comparison group design described earlier. Describing all of them is beyond the scope of this textbook, but one more design is worth mentioning. The time series design uses multiple observations before and after an intervention. In some cases, experimental and comparison groups are used. In other cases where that is not feasible, a single experimental group is used. By using multiple observations before and after the intervention, the researcher can better understand the true value of the dependent variable in each participant before the intervention starts. Additionally, multiple observations afterwards allow the researcher to see whether the intervention had lasting effects on participants. Time series designs are similar to single-subjects designs, which we will discuss in Chapter 15.

Pre-experimental design

When true experiments and quasi-experiments are not possible, researchers may turn to a pre-experimental design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).  Pre-experimental designs are called such because they often happen as a pre-cursor to conducting a true experiment.  Researchers want to see if their interventions will have some effect on a small group of people before they seek funding and dedicate time to conduct a true experiment. Pre-experimental designs, thus, are usually conducted as a first step towards establishing the evidence for or against an intervention. However, this type of design comes with some unique disadvantages, which we’ll describe below.

A commonly used type of pre-experiment is the one-group pretest post-test design . In this design, pre- and posttests are both administered, but there is no comparison group to which to compare the experimental group. Researchers may be able to make the claim that participants receiving the treatment experienced a change in the dependent variable, but they cannot begin to claim that the change was the result of the treatment without a comparison group.   Imagine if the students in your research class completed a questionnaire about their level of stress at the beginning of the semester.  Then your professor taught you mindfulness techniques throughout the semester.  At the end of the semester, she administers the stress survey again.  What if levels of stress went up?  Could she conclude that the mindfulness techniques caused stress?  Not without a comparison group!  If there was a comparison group, she would be able to recognize that all students experienced higher stress at the end of the semester than the beginning of the semester, not just the students in her research class.

In cases where the administration of a pretest is cost prohibitive or otherwise not possible, a one- shot case study design might be used. In this instance, no pretest is administered, nor is a comparison group present. If we wished to measure the impact of a natural disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina for example, we might conduct a pre-experiment by identifying  a community that was hit by the hurricane and then measuring the levels of stress in the community.  Researchers using this design must be extremely cautious about making claims regarding the effect of the treatment or stimulus. They have no idea what the levels of stress in the community were before the hurricane hit nor can they compare the stress levels to a community that was not affected by the hurricane.  Nonetheless, this design can be useful for exploratory studies aimed at testing a measures or the feasibility of further study.

In our example of the study of the impact of Hurricane Katrina, a researcher might choose to examine the effects of the hurricane by identifying a group from a community that experienced the hurricane and a comparison group from a similar community that had not been hit by the hurricane. This study design, called a static group comparison , has the advantage of including a comparison group that did not experience the stimulus (in this case, the hurricane). Unfortunately, the design only uses for post-tests, so it is not possible to know if the groups were comparable before the stimulus or intervention.  As you might have guessed from our example, static group comparisons are useful in cases where a researcher cannot control or predict whether, when, or how the stimulus is administered, as in the case of natural disasters.

As implied by the preceding examples where we considered studying the impact of Hurricane Katrina, experiments, quasi-experiments, and pre-experiments do not necessarily need to take place in the controlled setting of a lab. In fact, many applied researchers rely on experiments to assess the impact and effectiveness of various programs and policies. You might recall our discussion of arresting perpetrators of domestic violence in Chapter 2, which is an excellent example of an applied experiment. Researchers did not subject participants to conditions in a lab setting; instead, they applied their stimulus (in this case, arrest) to some subjects in the field and they also had a control group in the field that did not receive the stimulus (and therefore were not arrested).

Key Takeaways

• Quasi-experimental designs do not use random assignment.
• Comparison groups are used in quasi-experiments.
• Matching is a way of improving the comparability of experimental and comparison groups.
• Quasi-experimental designs and pre-experimental designs are often used when experimental designs are impractical.
• Quasi-experimental and pre-experimental designs may be easier to carry out, but they lack the rigor of true experiments.
• Aggregate matching – when the comparison group is determined to be similar to the experimental group along important variables
• Comparison group – a group in quasi-experimental design that does not receive the experimental treatment; it is similar to a control group except assignment to the comparison group is not determined by random assignment
• Ex post facto control group – a control group created when a researcher matches individuals after the intervention is administered
• Individual matching – pairing participants with similar attributes for the purpose of assignment to groups
• Natural experiments – situations in which comparable groups are created by differences that already occur in the real world
• Nonequivalent comparison group design – a quasi-experimental design similar to a classic experimental design but without random assignment
• One-group pretest post-test design – a pre-experimental design that applies an intervention to one group but also includes a pretest
• One-shot case study – a pre-experimental design that applies an intervention to only one group without a pretest
• Pre-experimental designs – a variation of experimental design that lacks the rigor of experiments and is often used before a true experiment is conducted
• Quasi-experimental design – designs lack random assignment to experimental and control groups
• Static group design – uses an experimental group and a comparison group, without random assignment and pretesting
• Time series design – a quasi-experimental design that uses multiple observations before and after an intervention

Image attributions

cat and kitten   matching avocado costumes on the couch looking at the camera by Your Best Digs CC-BY-2.0

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

2. The “One Shot” Case Study Revisited

Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.———.(2000). Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ragin, Charles C. and Howard Becker, eds.(1992). What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Savolainen, Jukka.(1994).“The Rationality of Drawing Big Conclusions Based on Small Samples: In Defense of Mill's Methods.” Social Forces 72 (2), 1217–1224. Stinchcombe, Arthur.(1968). Constructing Social Theories.

Related Papers

Papers Revista De Sociologia

Mihaela Vancea

Journal of Politics

Bear Braumoeller

Papers: revista de sociologia

Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics

Attilia Ruzzene

Mohammed Faruque Uddin

This article exemplifies Yager’s theory of fuzzy logic for interpersonal communication to the area of social research. Taking the dilemma between qualitative and quantitative approaches into the account, there is an anticipation to make a merge between these two. There is an enormous prospect to turn up scientists’ philanthropic innovations if they could use fuzzy logic in social science researches! However, by using fuzzy logic in sociological research there is a great deal of opportunity to study the social facts related to poverty, consumption, employment, intersubjectivity, social capital, environment, gender etc. How can we use Yager’s theory of Fuzzy Logic to analyze the relationship between social capital and labor market partcicpation? From the experiential connection in Bangladesh society, I try to seek this answer using a hypothetical quantification of attributes.

David Collier

Analysts who developed the set-theoretic comparative method (STCM) have formulated admirable goals for researchers who work in the qualitative and multi-method tradition. STCM includes above all Charles Ragin’s innovative approach of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). However, the analytic tools employed by STCM have in many ways become an obstacle to achieving these goals. For example, the system of fuzzy-set scoring appears to be problematic, poorly matched to a standard under-standing of conceptual structure, and perhaps unnecessary in its present form. Computer simulations suggest that findings suffer from serious problems of stability and validity; and while the choice of simulations that appropriately evaluate the method is a matter of some controversy, the cumulative weight of simulation results raises major concerns about STCM’s algorithms—i.e., its basic, formalized analytic procedures. Questions also arise about the cumbersome formulation of findings in what is often a remarkably large number of causal paths. Relatedly, some scholars question the STCM’s rejection of the parsimonious findings, in the form of “net effects,” routinely reported in other methodological traditions. Regarding applications, readily available software has encouraged publication of dozens of articles that appear to abandon key foundations of the method and rely far too heavily on these algorithms. Finally, STCM appears inattentive to the major, recent rethinking of standards and procedures for causal inference from observational data. These problems raise the concern that the set-theoretic comparative method, as applied and practiced, has become disconnected from the underlying analytic goals that motivated Charles Ragin to create it.

American Journal of Sociology

Edgar Ojeda

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

The Sociological Ninety ten rules that are proposed in this paper, are based on the fundamental premise that various branches of social sciences like sociology, anthropology and economics are human-centric and are therefore inexact, and vary fundamentally from the more precise and exact sciences like physics, chemistry and mathematics which are characterized by precision and exactitude. A high degree of precision and certainty may not therefore manifest themselves in various branches of the social sciences, even if they at times make use of mathematical models or statistical techniques. Therefore, for every postulated rule in most fields in the social sciences, there are likely to be many different exceptions. These may be described as cultural variations and cultural exceptions, and exceptions over time or space. The name 'Ninety ten' is only an easy-to-understand and easy-to-use nomenclature. Real world exceptions to any given observation could be twenty per cent, five per cent, or take on any other value, but the above nomenclature is chosen for convenience. Variations across or within cultures or within or in between socio-cultural groups, socioeconomic groups, occupational groups or any other parameter must be assessed based on the principles that we propose. This may be a basis for splitting up such groups if necessary for further study and evaluation, and the prerogative for this lies with the researcher. Thus, not only rule-based reasoning but also case-based reasoning must be used for various fields in the social sciences. Therefore, a fundamental premise of this paper is that exceptions must be sought actively, as these will lead to better research and hypothesis formulation. Thus, every researcher must think of rules and exceptions to those rules, and this must become a mindset. If exceptions are significant, they may warrant an altogether different line of research. This process will also greatly aid in inductive analysis, nomothetic rule-building and theorization, and play a major role in the 'Globalization of science', particularly social sciences.

Sociological Methods & Research

Charles Ragin , Paul Pennings

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Gary Thomas

ignoramus financio

angelo fusari

revistapuce

Pablo Garces Velastegui

elizabeth kier

Farshid Shams

PHILIPPE SCHMITTER

Yolanda Suarez-balcazar

Crossing Dialogues

Robert J Henman

Abdulla Alghalai

David Arellano-Gault

In Bent Flyvbjerg, Todd Landman, and Sanford Schram, eds., Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-14

Bent Flyvbjerg

Super Kmaleon

Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 219-245

rocky victoria

Jorge J E Gracia

International Studies …

Valerie Hudson

Nagalaxmi Lucky

Working Papers

Ipsita Sapra

The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods

Lars Mjøset

Dr. Awais H. Gillani

Marriage & Family Review

Walter Schumm

Qualitative Inquiry

christian lund

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Experimental research designs.

R=Random Assignment X= Treatment O=Observation (Assessment)

R = Random Assignment X = Treatment O = Observation (test or measurement of some type)

Del Siegle, Ph.D. Neag School of Education – University of Connecticut [email protected] www.delsiegle.com

ONE-SHOT CASE STUDY

One-Shot Case Studies: A Review of Their Characteristics and Utility

Case studies are a form of qualitative research that provide a valuable tool for understanding the complexities and intricacies of real-world phenomena. One-shot case studies are those that are conducted over a brief period of time and focus on a single event or issue. This type of research is particularly useful for studying emergent phenomena or for examining the short-term effects of an intervention. The present review provides an overview of one-shot case studies, including their characteristics, utility, and limitations.

Characteristics

One-shot case studies are characterized by their focus on a single event or issue, their short time frame, and their holistic approach to data collection and analysis. The focus of the study is often on a single individual, group, organization, or event, although more than one subject or event may be included in a given study. The study is typically conducted over a brief period of time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks. The data collection and analysis are typically conducted in a holistic manner, utilizing a variety of data sources and using multiple methods of data collection and analysis.

One-shot case studies are useful for studying emergent phenomena or for examining the short-term effects of an intervention. The short timeframe of the study allows the researcher to capture phenomena that may be fleeting or highly variable over time. This type of study is also useful for capturing data from a variety of sources in a short period of time, which is particularly useful when dealing with complex phenomena.

Limitations

Despite the usefulness of one-shot case studies, there are some limitations that must be taken into consideration. One-shot case studies are limited in scope in terms of the amount of data that can be collected and analyzed. The study is also limited in its ability to provide an in-depth examination of the phenomenon or to draw causal conclusions due to its brief timeframe and holistic approach. Additionally, the results of the study may be difficult to generalize to other contexts due to the unique nature of the study.

One-shot case studies are a useful tool for studying emergent phenomena or for examining the short-term effects of an intervention. This type of research is characterized by its focus on a single event or issue, its short timeframe, and its holistic approach to data collection and analysis. Despite its utility, one-shot case studies are limited in scope and may be difficult to generalize to other contexts.

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Morse, J.M. (2015). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Related terms

Opd syndrome, open-book exam, operations research, opinion seeker, opium alkaloids.