Quantitative Design Selecting Treatment And Control G 876383

Quantitative Design Selecting Treatment and Control Groups A field experiment occurs in a natural setting or a real-life environment of a participant. In a experimental field design, the conduct is more likely to indicate a real-life situation. The researchers impose treatment on a group or subjects of interest for instance ex-prisoners to observe the response (Gerber & Green, 2012). For the program of training the ex-prisoners, the method to be implemented when selecting the treatment will involve randomly selecting a sample from the participants who have agreed to participate in the survey. The selected sample will then be divided into three groups.

The first group will be the ex-offenders, the second group will be employers who have employed ex-prisoners in the community and the last group will be professionals from a criminal justice system. For this program, the professionals from the criminal justice system and a group of employers who have employed ex-prisoners will be the treatment group while ex-offenders will be used as the control group. The survey will then be conducted on the three groups to determine responses from the three groups. The responses from the two treatment groups will be compared to responses from the controlled group (Duke & Mallette, 2011). Treatment group responses will be used to manipulate the training services offered to the ex-prisoners to get the most out of the training.

The use of random selection for both treatment and control group will ensure that bias in the field experiment is reduced and the effects of participant variables are limited. Techniques to Address Selection Bias for Quasi-Experiment Design Quasi-experiment design uses a comparison group that captures what the outcome would have been if the policy had not been implemented (Duke & Mallette, 2011). As a result, the policy can be seen to cause any difference in the outcome of the experiment between comparison and treatment groups. Selection bias suggests that the chance of eligible or those who volunteer to take part in the study have been systematically different from those who do not take part. Some of the techniques that might be implemented to control selection bias include regression discontinuity designs and propensity score matching.

Propensity score matching involves matching an individual on their propensity score such that the likelihood of an individual participating in the study is given by their observable characteristics. The method matches the treatment group with a similar comparison group and then calculates the difference in the indicators thus obtaining an unbiased impact estimate. In regression discontinuity designs, a given criterion is used in getting participants. A cutoff used in the selection ensures that limited resources are distributed to people who need them rather than distributing the resources randomly (Gerber & Green, 2012). For instance, in the training of ex-prisoners, more of the training services could be offered to ex-prisoner who just left the prison.

Internal Validity for Non-Experimental Design Non-experimental design measures the variable as they happen naturally. The design has low internal validity since it does not implement the use of manipulation on a variable or control. Internal validity refers to the degree to which the design used in the study is in agreement with the conclusion, (Carter, 2005). To reduce the threats which lower internal validity while using non-experimental design, biases during the selection of the sample must be avoided. When selecting a sample to participate in the research, the participants should be selected randomly to give every member of the population an equal chance of participating.

As a result, selection biases are reduced which in turn reduces bias threat to internal validity. Since non-experimental design does not include the use of controls, incorporating a control group in the study would counter the threats due to a single-group study. For example, instead of having all the ex-prisoners participants in one group, the sample population would be divided into two groups. The first group receiving treatment while the second group to be used as the control with only program differences between the two groups. Increasing the size of the sample to be used would reduce variability in the outcome.

This would counter threats due to testing increasing internal validity (Carter, 2005). Another way of handling internal validity in non-experimental design is by researching multiple perspectives. For instance, researching how to improve the training program for ex-prisoner would involve performing surveys to various professionals from the criminal justice system, ex-offenders, and employers who have employed ex-prisons from different locations using the same survey data and then comparing responses. Besides, when conducting a study, getting enough information such as detailed information about where the study is to occur will reduce internal threats brought about by history. References Carter, . (2005). Rehabilitation Research: Principles and Applications. Elsevier. Duke, N. K., & Mallette, M. H. (2011). Literacy research methodologies. New York: Guilford Press. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton & Company.

Paper For Above instruction

Quantitative research design plays a pivotal role in evaluating interventions, policies, and programs through structured, numerical data collection and analysis. In particular, selecting treatment and control groups effectively determines the validity and reliability of the study outcomes, especially in field experiments where real-world environments are simulated (Gerber & Green, 2012). This paper explores the methodologies for choosing treatment and control groups, techniques to address selection bias in quasi-experimental studies, and strategies to enhance internal validity in non-experimental designs, all within the context of a program aimed at the reintegration of ex-prisoners into society.

In designing an effective field experiment to evaluate a training program for ex-prisoners, a random sampling approach is fundamental to mitigate biases associated with participant selection. As outlined by Gerber and Green (2012), random allocation minimizes systematic differences among participants, ensuring that the impact observed is attributable to the intervention rather than pre-existing differences. Once selected, the sample should be divided into distinct treatment and control groups. For example, the treatment group might consist of professionals from the criminal justice system and employers who have employed ex-prisoners, while the control group would comprise ex-offenders not receiving the intervention. This setup allows for a comparative analysis of responses, measuring the program's effectiveness in changing perceptions and employment outcomes (Duke & Mallette, 2011).

Addressing selection bias in quasi-experimental designs is crucial because such studies lack full randomization. Techniques such as propensity score matching (PSM) serve as robust statistical methods to create comparable groups based on observable characteristics, thereby mimicking randomization. For instance, individuals with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, education levels, and support systems can be matched across treatment and comparison groups to ensure that the differences in outcomes are due to the intervention rather than confounding variables. Propensity scores are calculated using logistic regression models and are instrumental in reducing bias (Gerber & Green, 2012).

Regression discontinuity design (RDD) presents an alternative method by leveraging a cutoff or threshold in the assignment process. For example, ex-prisoners who have recently been released might be prioritized for training services, creating a natural division based on legal or administrative criteria. RDD capitalizes on this assignment rule, comparing individuals just above and below the cutoff to determine the intervention's true effect while controlling for selection bias (Gerber & Green, 2012). Both PSM and RDD enhance the credibility of estimates derived from quasi-experimental studies, providing more accurate insights.

In non-experimental or observational studies, internal validity is typically lower due to the absence of manipulation or random assignment. Nonetheless, strategies such as random sampling and the inclusion of a comparison group can mitigate some threats. Randomly selecting participants from the target population ensures that the sample is representative and reduces selection bias (Carter, 2005). Creating a control group that does not receive the intervention, but is similar in key characteristics, is also vital to discern the intervention's effect more confidently. The larger the sample size, the more variability in the data is accounted for, improving the robustness of findings.

Further, incorporating multiple perspectives through surveys and qualitative data collection from diverse stakeholders—ex-offenders, criminal justice professionals, and community members—can enhance the internal validity by providing a comprehensive understanding of the contextual factors influencing reintegration success (Carter, 2005). Detailed contextual information about the study environment, timing, and external events can also help control threats like history and maturation effects. Collectively, these strategies align with best practices in observational research, fostering more credible and actionable insights.

References

• Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Duke, N. K., & Mallette, M. H. (2011). Literacy research methodologies. New York: Guilford Press.
• Carter, J. (2005). Rehabilitation Research: Principles and Applications. Elsevier.
• Mbatha, C. M., Kerre, B. W., Ferej, A., Kitainge, K. M., & Fred, K. C. (2020). Learning Strategies Employed in Vocational Education Training on Integration of Prisoners into the Society. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(5), 389-397.
• Duwe, G. (2017). The use and impact of correctional programming for inmates on pre-and post-release outcomes. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
• Ganapathy, N. (2018). Rehabilitation, reintegration, and recidivism: a theoretical and methodological reflection. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 28(3), 150-162.
• McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2019). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Urban Institute. (2014). Outcome indicators project. Retrieved from https://urban.org/research/publication/outcome-indicators-project
• Ahmad, T., Ashraf, H., & Ahmad, M. (2017). Challenges faced to ex-prisoners in social reintegration. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 7(5), 321-326.
• Economics, L. (2018). Evaluation of prisoner learning: Initial impacts and delivery. Educational Review, 70(4), 423-439.