Two basic kinds of research design exist:
- Experimental design in which
- the researcher manipulates some variable,

- the participants are randomly assigned to groups, &
- one group is a control group that gets a placebo or some inert treatment so that outcomes in that group can be compared to the group(s) that did get the treatment.
- the researcher manipulates some variable,
- Non-experimental design in which the researcher doesn’t manipulate anything, but just observes & records what is going on. Some of these are descriptive, correlational, case, or cohort study designs for example.
One particularly interesting “experimental” design is one in which 1 or 2 of the experimental design ideal requirements as listed above are missing. These are called quasi-experimental designs.
In a quasi experimental design
- The researcher manipulates some variable, but….
- Either the participants are NOT randomly assigned to groups
- &/OR there is no control group.
A quasi-experimental design is not as strong as a true experiment in showing that the manipulated variable X causes changes in the outcome variable Y. For example, a true experimental study with manipulation, randomization, and a control group would create much stronger evidence that hospital therapy dogs really reduced patient pain and anxiety. We would not be as confident in the results of a quasi-experimental design examining the exact same thing. In the next blog, we’ll examine why.
For more info: Check out earlier blog: “What is an RCT anyway?” at https://discoveringyourinnerscientist.com/2015/01/23/whats-a-randomized-controlled-trial/
Critical thinking: Go to PubMed & use search terms “experiment AND nurse” (without the quotation marks). Open an interesting abstract and look for the 3 elements of a classic experimental design. Now look for “quasi experiment AND nurse” (without the quotation marks.) See what element is missing!

You may even know that meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are the strongest type of research evidence and that case studies are considered the weakest. (Expert opinion that is not research at all is even below that.)
controlled trial is? If not or if you want a review,
will know the technical things you need to plan into your study in order to make the study ‘sparkle’ and to get approval from human subjects review committees. The person doesn’t have to be an expert on your topic. You fill that role, or soon will!
librarians are worth their weight in gold! Librarians can help you find what others have learned about your topic already, and then you can build on that knowledge. [note: check out
This will help you to establish whether or not there really is a problem to be solved. Descriptive studies are much simpler to conduct and analyze than experimental studies in which you measure something, make an improvement, and then see if the improvement improved things. For example, you would measure sleep interruptions, institute a quiet time, and then measure sleep interruptions again to see if there were fewer. [check out
Every researcher from time to time can feel ‘bogged down’ or bored with what they are doing, & one of the best protections against that is making sure you think the topic is super-interesting in the first place. If you get a little bored or stuck later don’t be surprised; it just means you’re pretty normal. Those stuck times might even feel like “hitting the wall” in a long race, and once you get past it things get better. Remind yourself why you loved the topic in the first place. Talk to your PhD friend or a mentor for encouragement. Take a little break. Read something really interesting about your topic.




KEY POINTS:
no, the response tells us only how the patient remembers it.
see
(
measures

You don’t merely ask them how much they weigh
en directly measure how many patients started using it after you started your intervention and their pain scores.

workplace compassion influence patient perceptions?


FOR MORE INFORMATION: Check our Nurse Author & Editor for sure! http://naepub.com/