Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research¶
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Houghton Mifflin.
Cited by¶
10 citations across 10 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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¶
Mechanisms¶
- Attribution-Claim Review Gate
- Its evidence ladder operationalizes the long tradition of grading causal claims against the threats to internal validity a design leaves open — of which the regression artifact is a named one.
This sourceIdentifies the regression artifact as a named threat to internal validity.
- Its evidence ladder operationalizes the long tradition of grading causal claims against the threats to internal validity a design leaves open — of which the regression artifact is a named one.
- Condition Coverage Test Suite
- Its strength is that it is the only sibling that demonstrates conditions empirically and at scale, and it is uniquely good at catching conditions that hold in the lab but fail in a specific field configuration — a failure of external validity
This sourceIdentifies failure to generalize from experimental conditions to a target field configuration as an external-validity problem.
- Its strength is that it is the only sibling that demonstrates conditions empirically and at scale, and it is uniquely good at catching conditions that hold in the lab but fail in a specific field configuration — a failure of external validity
- Context-Swap Protocol
- Its strength is directness: a swap that changes the outcome is hard to argue with, and it surfaces context-dependence that no amount of inside-the-frame reasoning would reveal — the classic gap between internal and external validity.
This sourceDistinguishes internal validity from external validity, the latter concerning whether a result generalizes across settings and populations.
- Its strength is directness: a swap that changes the outcome is hard to argue with, and it surfaces context-dependence that no amount of inside-the-frame reasoning would reveal — the classic gap between internal and external validity.
- Elasticity Experiment
- It misleads chiefly through external validity: a small, watched slice may not behave like the full rollout, and elasticity itself drifts with scale and time, so a clean trial number can quietly expire.
This sourceExplains that selected samples and reactive experimental arrangements can limit whether an observed effect generalizes to wider populations and ordinary settings.
- It misleads chiefly through external validity: a small, watched slice may not behave like the full rollout, and elasticity itself drifts with scale and time, so a clean trial number can quietly expire.
- Longitudinal Retention and Transfer Probe
- Differential attrition makes the survivors look better than the cohort ever did;
This sourceExplains that a group selected for unusually low scores can improve on later measurement through statistical regression rather than a genuine intervention effect.
- Differential attrition makes the survivors look better than the cohort ever did;
- 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.
- 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.
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 10 citations: 1 supported in part. 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.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 6 other ways.
- https://books.google.com/books/about/Experimental_and_Quasi_experimental_Desi.html?id=ThC7jtICXH8C ×2
- https://archive.org/details/experimentalquas0000camp ×1
- https://archive.org/details/experimentalquas00camp ×1
- https://books.google.com/books/about/Experimental_and_Quasi_experimental_Desi.html?id=UNYqhmZH5UwC ×1
- https://search.worldcat.org/es/title/500132735 ×1
- https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=435150 ×1
Registry ID ref:d70aeefe2a7c · see in the full table