thank you. quick question when you were explaining about the reading comprehension. How would you test their comprehension after the coffee(s)/no kind sir?
This video does not really show a Quasi-Experiment, but rather a standard correlational study. A "quasi-experiment" as I've always known it, and as most methods books describe it, is a case where we start with 2 (or more) intact groups that are hopefully similar. However, the members of each group were NOT randomly assigned to those groups. Example: You wonder if a new teaching technique will improve learning about a certain math concept. You find two classes that are similar, and then RANDOMLY assign one class to be taught with the new technique, but not the other. In other words, Quasi designs do involve RANDOM Assignment, but not of participants to groups. Instead they involve random assignment of a treatment to one or more previously constructed groups. Conclusions about causation are much more difficult with this design (compared to a true experiment, where SUBJECTS are randomly assigned), but if a few replications yield the same outcome each time, the evidence for causation builds. For example, imagine you ran 5 separate Quasi-experiments, where in each one the new teaching technique was assigned randomly to one of two intact classes. If the "new technique" class performed better 5 out of 5 times on a test of the target math concept, this would suggest that the new technique had caused this improvement. Five successes in 5 attempts, given a chance probability of success of .5 on each test, would occur only .03 (3%) of the time (p
"Correlation analysis" is actually another type of Quasi experiment. The experiment in the video is Quasi is because the intervention 'X' (the personality trait) isn't randomly assigned by the researcher (it is 'randomly' assigned by nature). (Your experiment is also Quasi because the intervention of "teaching technique" isn't randomly assigned.
I don't think this is a Quasi-Experiment as there is no treatment or intervention given to the different groups! I think that in a Quasi-Experiment you must have a treatment assigned to one of the groups and not the other (e.g., a training for enhancing cognitive skills). The problem with the Quasi-Experiment is that you cannot be certain that the post-test scores of the groups differ due to the effectiveness of the treatment! (It could be that the groups were inherently different from the start, e.g. one group being more intelligent). This diminishes the internal validity as you didn't control all the confounding variables. Thus, the causal inference is limited.
Hi, could I ask, if a study involves letting participant watch a video of a well dressed person, and a second video of a causally dressed person, and getting them to select which person they find more trustworthy. If the hypothesis is that people would find the well dressed person more trustworthy, Would this entire study be considered an experimental study?
Hi, could I ask, if a study involves letting participant watch a video of a well dressed person, and a second video of a causally dressed person, and getting them to select which person they find more trustworthy. If the hypothesis is that people would find the well dressed person more trustworthy, Would this entire study be considered an experimental study?
Thank you, finally I get the glimpse of what is quasi experimental design.
These 2 minutes and 17 seconds have been more valuable to me than my psychology teachers of over a year.
us bhai us
that's concerning
Very well and easily explained, thanks 😊
loved your presentation! thank you for your work
thank you. quick question when you were explaining about the reading comprehension. How would you test their comprehension after the coffee(s)/no kind sir?
Very good, love narrators voice
Thank you... this makes so much sense to me now.
Great explanation
This video does not really show a Quasi-Experiment, but rather a standard correlational study. A "quasi-experiment" as I've always known it, and as most methods books describe it, is a case where we start with 2 (or more) intact groups that are hopefully similar. However, the members of each group were NOT randomly assigned to those groups. Example: You wonder if a new teaching technique will improve learning about a certain math concept. You find two classes that are similar, and then RANDOMLY assign one class to be taught with the new technique, but not the other. In other words, Quasi designs do involve RANDOM Assignment, but not of participants to groups. Instead they involve random assignment of a treatment to one or more previously constructed groups. Conclusions about causation are much more difficult with this design (compared to a true experiment, where SUBJECTS are randomly assigned), but if a few replications yield the same outcome each time, the evidence for causation builds. For example, imagine you ran 5 separate Quasi-experiments, where in each one the new teaching technique was assigned randomly to one of two intact classes. If the "new technique" class performed better 5 out of 5 times on a test of the target math concept, this would suggest that the new technique had caused this improvement. Five successes in 5 attempts, given a chance probability of success of .5 on each test, would occur only .03 (3%) of the time (p
"Correlation analysis" is actually another type of Quasi experiment. The experiment in the video is Quasi is because the intervention 'X' (the personality trait) isn't randomly assigned by the researcher (it is 'randomly' assigned by nature).
(Your experiment is also Quasi because the intervention of "teaching technique" isn't randomly assigned.
@@kazim5335 does quasi-experiments usually happen in a lab or natural environment
I don't think this is a Quasi-Experiment as there is no treatment or intervention given to the different groups!
I think that in a Quasi-Experiment you must have a treatment assigned to one of the groups and not the other (e.g., a training for enhancing cognitive skills).
The problem with the Quasi-Experiment is that you cannot be certain that the post-test scores of the groups differ due to the effectiveness of the treatment! (It could be that the groups were inherently different from the start, e.g. one group being more intelligent). This diminishes the internal validity as you didn't control all the confounding variables.
Thus, the causal inference is limited.
🤓
@@kazim5335 🤓
Is it possible to determine causation from a quasi experiment?
Is the sampling method used to define the big five groups probability clustered sampling?
Wow,perfect
i need to learn english grammar to understand all of this
Hi, could I ask, if a study involves letting participant watch a video of a well dressed person, and a second video of a causally dressed person, and getting them to select which person they find more trustworthy.
If the hypothesis is that people would find the well dressed person more trustworthy,
Would this entire study be considered an experimental study?
If they're not randomly assigned, then how are they assigned? Deliberately on set conditions?
Sorry man I don’t understand anything , slow down next time
very nice
Thank you so much
Thanks so much
O
Hi, could I ask, if a study involves letting participant watch a video of a well dressed person, and a second video of a causally dressed person, and getting them to select which person they find more trustworthy.
If the hypothesis is that people would find the well dressed person more trustworthy,
Would this entire study be considered an experimental study?
Yes, this quasi-experiment study is called a non-equivalent comparison group.