Which of the following best describes the difference between observational and experimental studies?
Before assessing the effectiveness of observational studies and experiments for producing evidence of a causal relationship between two variables, we will illustrate the essential differences between these two designs. Show
Every day, a huge number of people are engaged in a struggle whose outcome could literally affect the length and quality of their life: they are trying to quit smoking. Just the array of techniques, products, and promises available shows that quitting is not easy, nor is its success guaranteed. Researchers would like to determine which of the following is the best method:
The explanatory variable is the method (1, 2, 3, or 4) , while the response variable is eventual success or failure in quitting. In an observational study, values of the explanatory variable occur naturally. In this case, this means that the participants themselves choose a method of trying to quit smoking. In an experiment, researchers assign the values of the explanatory variable. In other words, they tell people what method to use. Let us consider how we might compare the four techniques, via either an observational study or an experiment.
The following figures illustrate the two study designs:
Both the observational study and the experiment begin with a random sample from the population of smokers just now beginning to quit. In both cases, the individuals in the sample can be divided into categories based on the values of the explanatory variable: method used to quit. The response variable is success or failure after one year. Finally, in both cases, we would assess the relationship between the variables by comparing the proportions of success of the individuals using each method, using a two-way table and conditional percentages. The only difference between the two methods is the way the sample is divided into categories for the explanatory variable (method). In the observational study, individuals are divided based upon the method by which they choose to quit smoking. The researcher does not assign the values of the explanatory variable, but rather records them as they naturally occur. In the experiment, the researcher deliberately assigns one of the four methods to each individual in the sample. The researcher intervenes by controlling the explanatory variable, and then assesses its relationship with the response variable. Now that we have outlined two possible study designs, let’s return to the original question: which of the four methods for quitting smoking is most successful? Suppose the study’s results indicate that individuals who try to quit with the combination drug/therapy method have the highest rate of success, and those who try to quit with neither form of intervention have the lowest rate of success, as illustrated in the hypothetical two-way table below: Can we conclude that using the combination drugs and therapy method caused the smokers to quit most successfully? Which type of design was implemented will play an important role in the answer to this question. When people read about a research study, they may not pay attention to how the study was designed. But to understand the quality of the findings, it’s important to know a bit about study design. According to the widely-accepted hierarchy of evidence, the most reliable evidence comes from systematic reviews, followed by evidence from randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and then case control studies. The latter three are research studies that fall into one of two main categories: observational studies or experimental studies. Observational studiesObservational studies are ones where researchers observe the effect of a risk factor, diagnostic test, treatment or other intervention without trying to change who is or isn’t exposed to it. Cohort studies and case control studies are two types of observational studies. Cohort study: For research purposes, a cohort is any group of people who are linked in some way. For instance, a birth cohort includes all people born within a given time frame. Researchers compare what happens to members of the cohort that have been exposed to a particular variable to what happens to the other members who have not been exposed. Case control study: Here researchers identify people with an existing health problem (“cases”) and a similar group without the problem (“controls”) and then compare them with respect to an exposure or exposures. Experimental studiesExperimental studies are ones where researchers introduce an intervention and study the effects. Experimental studies are usually randomized, meaning the subjects are grouped by chance. Randomized controlled trial (RCT): Eligible people are randomly assigned to one of two or more groups. One group receives the intervention (such as a new drug) while the control group receives nothing or an inactive placebo. The researchers then study what happens to people in each group. Any difference in outcomes can then be linked to the intervention. Strengths and weaknessesThe strengths and weaknesses of a study design should be seen in light of the kind of question the study sets out to answer. Sometimes, observational studies are the only way researchers can explore certain questions. For example, it would be unethical to design a randomized controlled trial deliberately exposing workers to a potentially harmful situation. If a health problem is a rare condition, a case control study (which begins with the existing cases) may be the most efficient way to identify potential causes. Or, if little is known about how a problem develops over time, a cohort study may be the best design. However, the results of observational studies are, by their nature, open to dispute. They run the risk of containing confounding biases. Example: A cohort study might find that people who meditated regularly were less prone to heart disease than those who didn’t. But the link may be explained by the fact that people who meditate also exercise more and follow healthier diets. In other words, although a cohort is defined by one common characteristic or exposure, they may also share other characteristics that affect the outcome. The RCT is still considered the “gold standard” for producing reliable evidence because little is left to chance. But there’s a growing realization that such research is not perfect, and that many questions simply can’t be studied using this approach. Such research is time-consuming and expensive — it may take years before results are available. Also, intervention research is often restricted by how many participants researchers can manage or how long participants can be expected to live in controlled conditions. As a result, an RCT would not be the right kind of study to pick up on outcomes that take a long time to appear or that are expected to affect a very minute number of people. Source: At Work, Issue 83, Winter 2016: Institute for Work & Health, Toronto [This column updates a previous column describing the same term, which was originally published in 2005.] What is the difference between an observation and an experiment?Teacher Background Information: An “experiment” is defined as a test, trial or procedure used to discover something unknown. An “observational study” is a measurement or survey of members of a sample (without trying to affect them).
Which of the following statements best describes the difference between an observational study and an experiment?In an experiment, treatments are deliberately imposed upon individuals and their responses are observed. However, in an observational study without any attempt to influence the responses, individuals are observed and variables of interest are measured.
What is the difference between observational study and experiment quizlet?What is the difference between an observational study and an experiment? In an experiment, a treatment is applied to part of a population and responses are observed. In an observational study, a researcher measures characteristics of interest of a part of a population but does not change existing conditions.
|