Compare And Contrast The Characteristics Of Experimental And

Compare and contrast the characteristics of experimental and nonexperimental quantitative research

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, read the instructor guidance, the quantitative section of Chapter 7 and all of Chapter 8 in the Creswell and Creswell text, the chapter by Meltzoff and Cooper titled Chapter 6: Research Designs and Threats to Internal Validity, and the article by Henrich et al. titled "Most People Are Not WEIRD." Also review Standard 8 of the APA Ethical Principles for Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Your instructor will post an announcement with the reference for the quantitative research study you will discuss and critique in this discussion. The study will be found in the UAGC Library. Refer to the Library resource "How Do I Find An Article When I Have A Citation?" if you need help finding the article.

In your initial post, consider the following: compare and contrast the characteristics of experimental and nonexperimental quantitative research; state the research question the researchers were trying to answer in the study; identify the type of quantitative research design used; evaluate whether the researchers’ conclusion follows logically from the evidence; identify threats to internal and external validity; determine if these threats were addressed; summarize ethical considerations mentioned; assess what ethical issues apply but were not discussed; suggest how you might conduct a different study on the same topic and why; evaluate whether a quantitative approach is suitable for your own Week 1 research topic; describe actions to ensure ethical standards in your proposed quantitative study; support your points with scholarly references.

Paper For Above instruction

The discussion of research methodologies, particularly the comparison between experimental and nonexperimental quantitative research, is fundamental in understanding how scientists approach scientific questions and interpret their findings. Experimental research involves manipulation of independent variables to observe effects on dependent variables, often incorporating control groups and randomization. This approach allows for establishing cause-and-effect relationships, thus providing high internal validity. Conversely, nonexperimental research observes variables as they naturally occur without manipulation, primarily focusing on correlations and relationships, which limits causal inference but is often more feasible and ethical in certain contexts (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

The experimental design is characterized by rigorous control, randomization, and manipulation to test hypotheses under controlled conditions. Such designs include true experiments, where participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. Nonexperimental designs encompass descriptive studies, correlational research, and observational studies, which primarily aim to describe phenomena or examine relationships without establishing causation (Meltzoff & Cooper, 2018). For instance, a correlational study might investigate the relationship between social media use and anxiety levels without manipulative interventions.

The specific research question addressed in the assigned study revolves around understanding how certain variables influence a particular outcome in a real-world setting. While the precise question depends on the article, generally, it asks whether a relationship exists or whether a difference can be observed across groups. The employed research design may be a correlational or descriptive type, depending on whether the goal was to identify relationships or to characterize a population (Henrich et al., 2010).

Regarding the logical coherence between conclusions and evidence, an essential aspect is whether the researchers have accurately interpreted their findings within the scope of their methodology. For example, if the study is correlational, claiming causality would be inappropriate. Validity threats such as confounding variables, selection bias, and measurement errors could compromise internal validity, while external validity concerns relate to the extent to which findings generalize to broader populations (Creswell & Creswall, 2018). Researchers can mitigate internal validity threats through proper controls, randomization, and robust measurement instruments, as well as through statistical controls; external validity can be enhanced by selecting representative samples.

In my review of the assigned study, I assess whether the researchers explicitly addressed potential validity threats, such as through mention of random sampling, controlling extraneous variables, or validation of measurement tools. Ethical considerations are crucial, including informed consent, confidentiality, and minimizing harm, and these are outlined based on the APA Ethical Principles (APA, 2023). Any ethical concerns that were not explicitly discussed might involve issues like researcher bias, data integrity, or participant vulnerability. Conducting a different study on the same topic could involve a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative data with qualitative insights to provide a richer understanding of the research question, potentially addressing limitations such as lack of context or depth.

For my own research topic, I believe a quantitative approach would be appropriate if the goal is to quantify variables such as attitudes, behaviors, or perceptions. Ensuring ethical conduct would involve obtaining institutional review board approval, securing informed consent, ensuring data confidentiality, and accurately reporting findings (Resnik, 2015). Overall, selecting the suitable design depends on the research questions, feasibility, and ethical considerations, with rigorous adherence to ethical principles being vital throughout.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2023). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. APA.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
• Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most People Are Not WEIRD. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 1–57.
• Meltzoff, A. N., & Cooper, R. P. (2018). Chapter 6: Research Designs and Threats to Internal Validity. In Creswell & Creswell, Research Design.
• Resnik, D. B. (2015). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm