This research article is a very interesting one on quasi-experiments. The article deals with the validity of quasi-experiments and their construct validity.
The idea is that quasi-experiments are supposed to be the only way to obtain independent data about a variable. The article goes into some detail about how that’s true in the context of psychology, but I’ll just say that this article is a very good read for anyone who wants to know what’s going on under the hood of your own thoughts or behaviors.
This article is not about a psychological experiment or any other way to get independent data but rather it is about the construct validity of quasi-experiments. The article goes into some detail about how the construct validity is defined and why you shouldn’t rely on it as your only method of obtaining an independent dataset.
Although the article is written a little bit differently from most articles on quasi-experiments, the underlying idea is the same. In quasi-experiments, the independent variable is used to determine what subjects in the experiment will do. For this article, the independent variable is how often the subject speaks to you at the end of the pseudo-experiment. You know, the independent variable when you have more independent variables and when the variables are independent.
To use an example of quasi-experiment: in a quasi-experiment, you have a study in which you measure the effects of two independent variables on the dependent variable. This is what quasi-experiments do. By using the independent variable I’ve used here, I’ve got subjects who are more likely to speak to me after they’ve completed the study. You can see this in the figure I’ve attached.
Construct validity is a fancy way for the researchers to say “a lot of people agree with me.” It’s an objective measure of how much people agree with a hypothesis based on a survey of people, but it doesn’t tell you anything about the independent variable, it only tells you how much people agree with the hypothesis.
this is a pretty good example of quasi-experiments, because they don’t really have a hypothesis. They’re just a bunch of people who, for whatever reason, agreed to take part in them. In this case Ive used the fact that people who have a history of having good things happen to them tend to do well in them.
They also show up in the study of construct validity, and we know that when we do quasi-experiments people tend to agree with the independent variables. In this case I’ve used the fact that people who have a history of good will tend to do well on these experiments.
So, what this means is that the people who do the quasi-experiments and the people who agree to take part in them are similar in certain ways, so there is a bit of commonality between the two groups. Ive said that my hypothesis is that people who are more successful tend to agree to take part.
