GCU Ecperimental & Non Experimental Research Discussion Response

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on GCU Ecperimental & Non Experimental Research Discussion Response  completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Do my paper

Reply to Sofia:

According to Polit and Beck (2017), in an experimental research, researchers actively introduce an intervention or treatment, or have  variable that they manipulate, while in a non-experimental research, the researchers act as mere bystanders and simply collect data without intervening or applying any treatment or experimental variable.  Quasi-experimental research, typically called controlled trials without randomization, focus on intervention, but generally lack randomization, which is considered the major tenet of a true experiment.  Not all quasi-experimental studies also have a control group (Pol

According to Polit and Beck (2017), in an experimental research, researchers actively introduce an intervention or treatment, or have  variable that they manipulate, while in a non-experimental research, the researchers act as mere bystanders and simply collect data without intervening or applying any treatment or experimental variable.  Quasi-experimental research, typically called controlled trials without randomization, focus on intervention, but generally lack randomization, which is considered the major tenet of a true experiment.  Not all quasi-experimental studies also have a control group (Polit & Beck, 2017).

A study by Manjula and Premkuman titled Effects of a Behavioral Intervention on Self-Efficacy, Self-Care Behavior and HbA1c Values among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, is an example of a true experimental study.  This research study has a pretest and posttest control groups, as well as longitudinal measurement of outcomes.  The researchers used standardized tools for interviewing participants, random allocation to experimental and control groups using b lock randomization technique.  Subjects in the experimental group received routine hospital treatment as well as behavioral intervention, while the control group received routine hospital treatment which included drug therapy and nutritional counseling, but no behavioral intervention was included.  Collected data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.  This is an example of a true experimental study because it had an experimental group, as well as control group. There was a total of 300 participants.  The treatment that the experimental group received was different from the treatment that the control group received.  The measured intervention effect was “the difference between the initial value and subsequent values of self-efficacy, self-care behavior and HbA1c values” (Manjula & Premkuman, 2016, p. 2).  Also, another notable difference for an experimental study is the need for ethical consideration and protection of human participants’ rights.  Thus, because they are working with human subjects, the authors note that they obtained ethical clearance from the institution review board.

A nonexperimental study, on the other hand, does not involve manipulation of any particular variable, application of any treatment, but rather pure observation as a non-participant (often times).  An example of a nonexperimental study from the GCU library is A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Literature on Connectivity, Contest, and the Ties of Self-management Support for Type 2 Diabetes by Foss, Knutsen, Kennedy, Todorova, et al.. (2016). There is no experimental treatment implemented, and no control or experimental group.  Instead, the researchers performed a systematic literature review, and generated 587 abstracts, which were then refined based on thematic constructs relating to self-management.

Finally, an example of a quasi-experimental study is a study conducted by dos Santos Moura et al. (2019) titled Literacy in Health and Self-Care in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.  The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of educational intervention on the adherence to self-care activities and functional health literacy in the numeracy domain in individuals with diabetes mellitus type 2.   The researchers used two instruments for data collection: a semi-structured interview form, and the second was the translated to Brazilian Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure (SDSCA).  Data was analyzed using the SPSS software, version 20.

Experimental studies are typically quantitative, while nonexperimental studies are often qualitative.  Additionally, in quantitative experimental studies, when the researchers are directly involved in manipulating the study variable, it is imperative to ensure that no bias is present and that the study yields the highest levels of validity and reliability.  Most experimental studies are expected to have high degree of internal validity because it refers to the degree to which independent variable influences or causes the occurrence of the dependent variable.  At the same time, quasi-experimental, pre-experimental, and correlational studies are highly susceptible to threats to internal validity.  These threats represent alternative explanations that compete with the independent variable as a cause of the dependent variable.  According to Polit & Tatano Beck (2017), “The aim of a good quantitative research design is to rule out these competing explanations.”