Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Houghton Mifflin.

Type

Book

Intellectual base

Review or monograph

Year

1963

Link

https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=435150

Cited from

cognitive_science, statistics_experimental_design

Cited by

5 citations across 5 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Comparison
  • Campbell and Stanley's (1963) treatment of internal validity is, at its core, an enumeration of the failure modes of the alignment rule in controlled comparisons — selection, history, maturation, and the rest are all ways the frame fails to hold the comparands commensurable.

    This sourceCanonical enumeration of internal-validity threats (history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection, mortality, interaction) — supports the claim that these are the failure modes of the alignment rule in controlled comparisons.

• Control Sample
  • Without a control, every observed change is exposed to an open list of alternative explanations — placebo, regression to the mean, batch drift, instrument warm-up, secular trend, maturation, demand characteristics.

    This sourceEnumerates the threats to internal validity (history, maturation, regression to the mean, testing, instrumentation) that an uncontrolled one-group design fails to rule out.

• Regression to the Mean

  • This sourceHoughton Mifflin. Canonical enumeration of internal-validity threats (history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection, mortality, interaction) as the failure modes of the alignment rule in controlled comparisons.

Domain-specific

• Internal validity
  • The operative framework for internal validity, developed by Campbell and Stanley (1963) and elaborated by Cook and Campbell (1979), is a finite enumerable catalog of named threats: history (events co-occurring with the intervention that could account for the change), maturation (natural development of participants over time), testing effects (practice or sensitization from repeated measurement), instrumentation (changes in measurement tools or raters), regression to the mean (extreme scorers returning toward average on re-test), selection (pre-existing differences between treatment and control groups), attrition (differential dropout that leaves non-comparable groups), and several interaction effects among these

Mechanisms

• Pre/Post Capacity Assessment
  • The sharpest trap is regression to the mean: people selected or tested when they happened to score low will tend to score higher next time regardless of any intervention, so a naive pre/post can manufacture an effect from noise.

    This sourceCampbell and Stanley show that groups selected at low extreme scores tend to score higher later regardless of genuine intervention effects, so naive pre/post comparisons can manufacture an apparent effect. They do not call regression to the mean the single sharpest trap.

Verification

This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 2 other ways.

• https://archive.org/details/experimentalquas0000camp ×1
• https://books.google.com/books/about/Experimental_and_Quasi_experimental_Desi.html?id=ThC7jtICXH8C ×1

Registry ID ref:709585fa2182 · see in the full table