Quasi-Experimentation¶
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Regression to the Mean
- T2 — Name: Prevention Through Design versus Correction Through Analysis. The most reliable way to address RTM is design-based: randomized controlled trials with equivalent selection in both arms; regression-discontinuity designs with cutoff-based assignment; crossover designs with within-subject comparisons
This sourceHoughton Mifflin. regression-discontinuity and quasi-experimental defense against RTM.
- T2 — Name: Prevention Through Design versus Correction Through Analysis. The most reliable way to address RTM is design-based: randomized controlled trials with equivalent selection in both arms; regression-discontinuity designs with cutoff-based assignment; crossover designs with within-subject comparisons
Domain-specific¶
- External Validity
- It is one of four analytically separable validity facets in Cook and Campbell's framework (alongside statistical-conclusion validity, internal validity, and construct validity) and is logically independent of the others: a study can be internally valid — its in-sample causal estimate unconfounded and precise — while externally invalid because the sample, setting, or treatment version is unrepresentative of any target to which an analyst wishes to apply the result
This sourceOrigin of the four-facet validity typology - statistical-conclusion, internal, construct and external validity - and of the claim that the facets are analytically separable.
SupportedVerified against the source
- It is one of four analytically separable validity facets in Cook and Campbell's framework (alongside statistical-conclusion validity, internal validity, and construct validity) and is logically independent of the others: a study can be internally valid — its in-sample causal estimate unconfounded and precise — while externally invalid because the sample, setting, or treatment version is unrepresentative of any target to which an analyst wishes to apply the result
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:62d218e55a67 · see in the full table