Although I know that an experimental / control group design is better at establishing cause and effect and increases validity, I am considering using a within group measure. I am trying to compare the effectiveness of coaching method before an after pre-post evaluation. However, within group measurements are not as valid as experimental/control group. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to make within group/ pre-post assessment more effective, or do you suggest just going with an experimental approach?
Pre - post design and quasi experimental designs are useful when researcher cant do full control, manipulation and randomization. Also when the sampling is difficult. So, based on what is available for you and what resources you have within the allowed time, you can choose the appropriate design for your study.
Good luck
Thank you for your input. Resources and time are limited. That's another reason why I felt pre-post measure would be ideal.
Hi Dawn. The advantage of within group/ repeated design is that you get to establish main and interaction effects with a small group of people. There is no issue of random allocation here. However, the group can become familiar with the design after certain iterations and that may create issue with internal validity.
Hi Pratyush, I believe randomization is indeed a problem in within group design. Could you please explain why do you suggest otherwise?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology