Non-Experiemental Research Design Flashcards Preview

Research Methods > Non-Experiemental Research Design > Flashcards

Flashcards in Non-Experiemental Research Design Deck (34):


Design which researchers investigate existing conditions or differences without manipulating them
Typically include plans to observe and describe behaviors, to determine relationships among measures of different skills, or to compare persons with different characteristics.


Examples of non-experiemental research

descriptive studies such as surveys, opinion polls, case studies, and prevalence studies;
relationship studies involving correlation and prediction; case-control studies, and other
comparisons of existing groups to identify differences by presence of a disorder, age,
socioeconomic status, and so forth; and causal-comparative and cohort studies that examine the impact of possible causal factors over time


Types of survey questions

yes/no, categorical, rating, cumulative, and open-ended


Case Study

Rare disease - Interesting noise exposure scenario.
Researchers might complete an in-depth evaluation using speech, language, and hearing tests that yield numerical scores; and in addition, they could include interviews and direct observations.


Case studies features

"multiple sources of evidence", and typical setting


Cohort study

longitudinal research that allows you to study emergence of disorders over time, log term effects of disorder or treatment.


Longitudinal research

Case study, cohort study



strength of relationship



strength of the relationship and the predictive power.


correlation and regression studies

non-experimental type of study investigating the relationship between two variables


Case-control studies
(group comparison)

studies that involve a
comparison of individuals with a disorder and a control group that is free of the disorder.
When researchers design this type of study, they usually plan to test at least two different groups, such as persons with hearing loss and those with normal hearing, or children with
phonological delays and those with normal phonological development


cause and effect studies?

Experimental is the strongest for establishing cause and effect but It is UNETHICAL.


Causal-Comparitive study

similar to a comparison study because the researchers
investigate existing differences. However, one unique feature of causal-comparative studies is
that researchers try to obtain several pieces of information about each participant. This feature
is included in an attempt to identify possible “competing” causal factors in the participants'
background and thus to strengthen the evidence for the causal variable under study

potential causal factors co-vary with other factors that also could cause speech, language, and
hearing disorders. For example, poor medical care, inadequate housing, and poor nutrition are
all factors associated with living in poverty. If researchers wanted to study poor nutrition as a
causal factor in developmental disorders, they would have to consider if these other variables,
poor medical care or inadequate housing, also could be causal factors. In a well-designed
causal-comparative study, researchers obtain information about many variables, not just the
variable under study, as a way to control for possible alternative explanations of their findings


retrospective causal-comparitive

researchers identify persons who vary on some condition (Patten, 2009). Usually, this
variable is the presence or absence of a medical or behavioral disorder, such as a speech,
language, or hearing disorder. After identifying their participants, they obtain an extensive
amount of information about their participants' medical history and family and social
background (Patten, 2009). Usually, this information will include the variable that is the focus
of their study, as well as information about possible alternative causal explanations. For
example, if the variable under study was poor nutrition, the researchers would also obtain
information about other important factors such as medical complications at birth, number of
siblings, parent income and/or occupation, maternal and paternal education, and so forth.


prospective study

Researchers identify a potential causal factor, identify groups of persons who vary on this
factor, and then obtain an extensive amount of information about their participants. However,
the difference is that researchers in a prospective study identify their participants at the onset
of the potential causal factor, and then follow them in a longitudinal research study.

if the causal factor was employment in an occupation where workers were exposed
to environmental toxins, the researchers would identify the workers when they started their
employment. They also would recruit a similar group who worked in an environment that was
free of toxins. Over the course of their study, the researchers would periodically evaluate their
participants to determine if any had developed a medical disorder, or perhaps communication
disorder, and to determine if the occurrence of disorders was greater in the group exposed to
the environmental toxins.


Qualitative research reasoning

inductive reasoning- gather data, identify trends, create theory.


Quantitative research reasoning

deductive reasoning - begin with one more theories about possible outcomes. theory to hypotheses to gather data to test their predictions


Quantitative research environment

simulation and do activities they may not do in a typical day. need same conditions for all participants.


Qualitative research environment

natural environments and situations



participant observation and field research

immerse themselves into culture


Grounded theory

goal of developing conceptual or theoretical models to account for observed behaviors, events, situations, and so forth.

reoccurring process ofcollecting data, examining and coding and generating theoretical concepts.

similar to ethnography (interviews observations in field etc) but grounded theory methods are more formally structured than most qualitative research


types of case studies

intrinsic - entity they are studying
instrumental - questions of general interest in the field
collective - several instrumental causes (conclusions)



study a phenomenon or sutaiton from the viewpoint of participants

researchers try to discover what participants perceive, how the interpret a situation, and what meanings they assign to events


conversation analysis

recordings of conversational intereactiions



Researchers consider their previous
experiences and beliefs associated with the topic of the study and reflect on how these
experiences and beliefs might have influenced how they approached the research question, data
collection, and interpretation


negative case sampling

Given an awareness of how their prior
experiences and beliefs could influence their findings, researchers might test their conclusions
by a deliberate attempt to find instances in their data, or perhaps to collect new data, that are at
odds with these conclusions


researcher triangulation

more than one person participates in
developing the research question, collecting data, and analyzing and interpreting the findings


descriptive adequacy

researchers need to show that they provided an
accurate factual account of the events they observed and experiences participants reported. In
addition, researchers try to demonstrate that they collected sufficient data to provide
meaningful insights into the phenomenon under study


Prolonged engagement

By spending more time in the field, researchers build greater rapport with participants, are
more likely to observe significant events, and have opportunities to observe phenomena


methods triangulation

a researcher uses several different strategies to collect
data, such as observation in the field, interview of participants, and review of documents


data triangulation

n, a researcher collects data from several different
participants using a similar strategy.


thick description

a highly detailed, specific description of a
phenomenon. A researcher could prepare a factual account of a situation or event without
achieving the level of a thick description. What sets a thick description apart is how thoroughly
the researcher describes an event. For example, if researchers were describing an interaction
between a parent and child, they would include details about the sur


interpretive adequacy

depends on how well the researchers
captured and conveyed the meaning of an experience


participant feedback

The researchers might ask participants to read a factual
description or an interpretation of an event, conversation, series of behaviors, and so forth