Psychology and related fields

Psychology and related fields

Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 59






n The distinction between experimental and nonexperimental research rests on the manipulation of treatments and on random assignment.

n Any quantitative study without manipulation of treatments or random assign- ment is a nonexperimental study.

n Nonexperimental research is used when variables of interest cannot be manipu- lated because they are naturally existing attributes or when random assignment of individuals to a given treatment condition would be unethical.

n Numbers are used to represent different amounts of quantitative variables and different classifications of categorical variables.

n Nonexperimental studies may be classified along two dimensions: one based on the purpose of the study and the other on the time frame of the data collection.

n Evidence of a relationship is not convincing evidence of causality.

n Alternative explanations for results in nonexperimental research should be ex- plored and ruled out.

NOTE: My thanks to Professor Bill Frakes, from the Computer Science Department at Virginia Tech, and to

students, including many from my Research Methods class in Fall 2007, for reviewing a prior draft of this chapter.

Their insightful comments and suggestions helped improve this version. I take responsibility for any remaining

elements of confusion that may remain.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 60

60 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research


QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH is empirical, using numeric and quantifiable data. Conclusions are

based on experimentation and on objective and systematic observations. Quantitative research may

be divided into two general categories: experimental and nonexperimental. The essential elements

of experimental research, which was discussed in detail in the previous chapter, are presented

here first as a contrast to nonexperimental research. A primary goal for experimental research is

to provide strong evidence for cause-and-effect relationships. This is done by demonstrating that

manipulations of at least one variable, called the treatment or independent variable (IV), produce

different outcomes in another variable, called the dependent variable (DV). An experimental study

involves at least one IV that is manipulated or controlled by the researcher, random assignment to

different treatment conditions, and the measurement of some DV after treatments are applied.

Any resulting differences in the DV across the treatment groups can then be attributed to the

differences in the treatment conditions that were applied.

In contrast to experimental research, nonexperimental research involves variables

that are not manipulated by the researcher and instead are studied as they exist. One

reason for using nonexperimental research is that many variables of interest in social

science cannot be manipulated because they are attribute variables, such as gender,

socioeconomic status, learning style, or any other personal characteristic or trait. For

example, a researcher cannot randomly place individuals into different groups based on

gender or learning style because these are naturally existing attributes.

Another reason to use nonexperimental research is that, in some cases, it would

be unethical to randomly assign individuals to different treatment conditions. A classic

example of this is that one could not study the effects of smoking by randomly assigning

individuals to either a smoking or a nonsmoking group for a given number of years. The

only ethical way to investigate the potential effects of smoking would be to identify a

group of smokers and a group of nonsmokers and compare them for differences in their

current state of health. The researcher, however, would also need to take other variables

into account, such as how long people had smoked, their gender, age, and general health

level. To do so would be important because the researcher cannot take for granted that

the groups are comparable in aspects other than smoking behavior. This is in contrast

to experimental groups, which, due to the process of random assignment, start out

equal in all respects except for the treatment condition in which they are placed. In

nonexperimental research, groups based on different traits or on self-selection, such as

being or not being a smoker, may differ for any number of reasons other than the variable

under investigation. Therefore, in nonexperimental studies, one cannot be as certain as

in experimental studies that outcome differences are due to the independent variable

under investigation. The researcher needs to consider possible alternative explanations,

to jointly analyze several variables, and to present conclusions without making definitive

causal statements.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 61

Variables and Their Measurement 61

In this chapter, you will learn how to characterize nonexperimental studies that do

not rely on either manipulation of variables or random assignment of subjects to groups.

Different types of nonexperimental studies will be explained, and you will learn how

to characterize them using a two-dimensional classification system. By the end of the

chapter, you will understand the basic elements of nonexperimental studies, as well

as the rationale for their use. Nonexperimental research examples, including published

studies, will be incorporated into the discussion to facilitate understanding. At the end

of the chapter, text and Web resources are provided to help you locate supplemental

materials and additional information.


To facilitate reading the remainder of the chapter, a brief review of variables and some

of their different aspects is presented. A variable is any characteristic or attribute

that can differ across people or things; it can take on different values. Some variables

are inherent traits, such as gender or height. Others may vary due to experimenter

manipulation, such as treatment groups of drug versus placebo, or due to self-selection,

such as attending a two- or a four-year college. In quantitative research, variables are

measured in some way and those numerical values are then used in statistical analyses.

The nature of variables is important because, to some extent, it dictates the way research

questions are asked and which analysis is used.

One basic distinction is that variables can be either categorical or quantitative.

Categorical variables are those that differ across two or more distinct categories. The

researcher assigns arbitrary numbers to the categories, but the numbers have no inter-

pretable numerical meaning. For example, for categories of the variable “employment

status,” we could assign the value “1” to employed full-time, “2” to employed part-time,

and “3” to not employed. Additional examples of categorical variables that are indi-

vidual traits are gender, ethnicity, and learning style; some that are self-selected are

marital status, political party affiliation, and field of study.

Quantitative variables can be measured across a scale, their numeric values have

meaning, and they can be subjected to arithmetic operations. The following are all

examples of quantitative variables: age, height, weight, grade point average (GPA), job

satisfaction, and motivation. There is an important distinction between the first three and

the last three variables in this list. For such variables as age, height, and weight, zero

is a meaningful value that indicates the absence of the characteristic being measured,

as in something that is brand new or has no weight. The numbers have interpretable

meaning. We know what five years or five feet means because there is no arbitrariness

about these values or how to interpret them.

In contrast, zero is an arbitrary value for variables such as GPA, satisfaction,

or motivation. A zero motivation score does not mean one has no motivation, but

merely that one attained the lowest possible score for the particular instrument

being used. GPA in most schools in the United States is given on a continuum from

0.0 to 4.0 but, for example, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), it

goes from 0.0 to 5.0 (see GPA calculation and unit conversion in MIT Web page

at The International Baccalaureate grades

range from 1 to 7, based on a rubric developed from the standardized curriculum.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 62

62 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research

For another example, consider measurements for temperature. The freezing point of

water is represented as zero on a Celsius thermometer, but as 32 on a Fahrenheit

thermometer. In neither case does a zero represent the absence of temperature. In each

case, we understand what the numbers mean because specific interpretations have been

assigned to them.

Interpretation of different grading schemes or thermometers is possible because

of commonly understood unit descriptors. This is not so for such variables as job

satisfaction or motivation, where scores are arbitrary and depend on the measurement

instrument being used and how it has been designed. Typically, such scores are the

sum or the average of responses to a set of items. The items may be statements,

constructed so that all are related to the variable to be measured, and responses are

often, but not always, on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

The terms scale and index are often used to describe such sets of related items that,

together, produce a score about some characteristic or phenomenon. For example, the

Multidimensional Job Satisfaction Scale (Shouksmith, Pajo, & Jepsen, 1990) contains

eleven different subscales, each a multi-item scale measure of a different dimension

of job satisfaction. Another instrument, the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985),

consists of nine four-item subscales to assess employee attitudes about the job. As you

can see from this example, different researchers developed different measures of the

same construct, job satisfaction.

Exact interpretation of a scale score’s value, or measure, for variables such as moti-

vation or satisfaction is not important. What is important is to know that the higher the

score, the more one has of the characteristic being measured and vice versa. One could,

for example, examine whether males or females had higher levels of job satisfaction

or if people with higher levels of job satisfaction also tended to have higher levels of

motivation. To be confident of results, it is also important to know that the measures

being used are reliable and have been validated.

Reliability relates to the consistency or dependability of a measure. Basically, if

it is reliable, you can be confident that all the items that make up the measure are

consistent with each other and that, if you were to use the measure again with the

same individuals, they would be rated similarly to the first time. Validity relates to

whether it is measuring what we intend it to measure, and represents the overarching

quality of the measure. The purpose of using the measure is an important consideration

in evaluating validity because it could be valid for one use but not for another. These

concepts are complex and beyond the scope of this chapter (see Trochim, 2005 for a

very understandable description of validity and reliability of measures). As a consumer

of research, you should at least be aware of them and look for how research authors

deal with these concepts. Do they describe their measures in detail and provide some

indication of reliability and validity?

Defining Variables

Although some variables are inherently categorical or quantitative, others may be

defined in either way. Imagine, for example, that you are interested in measuring the

education level of a group of individuals. You could do this categorically, by defining



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 63

Variables and Their Measurement 63

education as “highest degree earned” and using five values representing none, high

school, college, masters, or doctorate as different levels of education. Or, you could

do this quantitatively by defining education as “number of years of schooling,” where

the resulting values would be meaningfully interpreted. This distinction is important

if one is interested in studying the relationship between educational level and salary,

a quantitative variable, because it relates to how the data might be analyzed and how

research questions would be phrased. Using the categorical definition, you could com-

pare the median salary value across the five categories of “highest degree earned.” The

median represents the midpoint when all the salaries are listed from lowest to highest.

One could then determine if there were any appreciable differences in salary across

the five groups and whether more education (represented by having a higher degree)

corresponded to higher salary.

Using the quantitative definition, you could graph the two variables in a scatter plot

or compute a correlation coefficient (a measure of strength and direction of relationship

for two variables) for the number of years of schooling and salary. The first would

provide a visual representation of their relationship and the second a numerical one.

Figure 4.1 shows how resulting data might be depicted in the two cases described. The

table shows the number of people in each group and their median salary. The scatter

plot shows all the data points. The correlation for this data set is 0.66. Correlation

FIGURE 4.1. Two Representations of the Relationship Between Salary and Education Level

Educational Level (years)


C u

rr e

n t

S a

la ry









Highest Degree N Median Salary

Doctorate 30 68,438

Master’s 20 65,938

Bachelor 181 33,150

High School 190 24,975

None 53 24,000

Total 474 28,875

Education is measured as a categorical

variable (highest degree). The size of

each group (N) and the median salary

are given in the table.

Education is measured as a quantitative

variable (number of years in school). Each

point in the scatter plot represents years in

school and salary for a single individual.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 64

64 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research

values range from −1 to +1, with zero indicating no relationship and 1 indicating

either a negative or a positive perfect relationship depending on the sign. We could say

these data showed a moderate positive relationship. Fewer years of schooling tend to

correspond to lower salaries and more schooling to higher salaries.

Phrasing Questions

In the first case demonstrated in Figure 4.1, you would be comparing groups with

different levels of education on some measure (salary), and in the second case, you

would be relating two sets of numeric scores (years and salary). The research questions

of interest in the two cases would be: (1) how do groups, based on highest degree

earned, differ from each other with respect to salary? and (2) how does number of

years of schooling relate to salary? Phrased generically, the key questions in the two

situations are: How do groups differ from each other on some measure? How are the

variables related to each other? The distinction between these two cases depends only

on the fact that education was conceptualized as either categorical or quantitative and

not on the nature of the relationship involved.


By now, you should be able to:

1. Describe the difference between experimental and nonexperimental studies

2. Give an example of an independent and a dependent variable within the context of

a research question

3. Give an example of a categorical and a measured, quantitative variable


In the literature on experimental studies, there is agreement on the distinction between

true- and quasi-experiments. Although both involve treatment manipulation, true-

experiments use random assignment of subjects to groups and random assignment

of groups to treatments. Quasi-experiments use preexisting intact groups, which are

randomly assigned to treatment conditions.

For nonexperimental designs, there appears to be no consistent agreement on typol-

ogy. In 1991, Elazar Pedhazur and Liora Schmelkin stated that “there is no consensus

regarding the term used to refer to designs” which were presented in their chapter

on nonexperimental designs (p. 305). Two commonly used terms for nonexperimental

studies are “correlational research” and “survey research.” However, the term correla-

tion relates more to an analysis strategy than to a research design and the term survey

describes a method of gathering data that can be used in different types of research.

Ten years later, Burke Johnson (2001) came to the same conclusion. Based on

a review of twenty-three leading methods textbooks in education and related fields

(thirteen explicitly from education and the rest from anthropology, psychology, political

science, and sociology), he found little consistency in how nonexperimental studies

were classified. He discovered over two dozen different labels being used, sometimes



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 65

Classifying Nonexperimental Research 65

with slight variations in the wording. The most frequently used labels in these texts

were survey (twelve times), correlational (ten times), descriptive (eight times), and

causal-comparative (five times). The result of my informal review of six additional

research methods texts was consistent with Johnson’s findings.

In an attempt to remedy this confusion, Johnson (2001) proposed a categoriza-

tion scheme consisting of two basic dimensions, each with three categories. The first

dimension represents a characterization of the basic goal or main purpose for conduct-

ing the nonexperimental quantitative study. The second dimension allows the research

to be classified according to the time frame in which data were collected. These two

dimensions will be presented here and discussed separately in the next two sections.

In your reading of published articles or research methods textbooks, you will proba-

bly encounter other terms for nonexperimental research. You may want to read Johnson

(2001) to familiarize yourself with these terms and with the problems that arise because

of their use.

Classification Based on Purpose (Dimension 1)

The categories of the first dimension for classifying nonexperimental studies, which are

based on the main purpose of the study, are:

1. Descriptive nonexperimental research, in which the primary focus for the research

is to describe some phenomenon or to document its characteristics. Such studies

are needed in order to document the status quo or do a needs assessment in a

given area of interest.

2. Predictive nonexperimental research, in which the primary focus for the research

is to predict some variable of interest (typically called the criterion) using infor-

mation from other variables (called predictors). The development of the proper

set of predictors for a given variable is often the focus of such studies.

3. Explanatory nonexperimental research, in which the primary focus for the

research is to explain how some phenomenon works or why it operates. The

objective is often to test a theory about the phenomenon. Hypotheses derived

from a given theoretical orientation are tested in attempts to validate the theory.

The three categories could be seen as answers to the question: Was the main purpose

of the research to describe a phenomenon, to study how to predict some future event,

or to understand how something operates or what drives it?

To help explain these three categories, consider the use of exit interviews. Such

interviews are often conducted by organizations with employees who leave or by school

systems with departing teachers and graduating seniors. An exit interview study can be

descriptive if the purpose is to collect data in order to get a comprehensive picture of

reasons for employees leaving their organization or school. These descriptions might be

used to determine if people leave for reasons related to the organization or for personal

reasons. On the other hand, the study would be predictive if exit data were collected

and then related to hiring data for the same individuals for the purpose of using the

results to screen potential employees and hiring people who might be less likely to

leave. Finally, the study would be explanatory if the data were analyzed with the



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 66

66 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research

purpose of testing hypotheses about how personal characteristics might be related to

employee or student feelings about their organization or school.

A good example of a published descriptive study is the 39th Annual Phi Delta

Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes toward the Public Schools (Rose & Gallup,

2007). Begun as an effort to inform educators, the annual survey now provides infor-

mation that has policy implications. Although the accumulated database can be used

to track changes in attitudes about Pre-K–12 schooling over a long period of time, the

design for each yearly survey is purely descriptive in terms of its purpose. Results are

a descriptive representation of how the general public feels about different aspects of

public schools.

A study by Leslie Halpern and Thomas Dodson (2006) to develop a set of indicators

that could identify women likely to report injuries related to intimate partner violence

is an example of a predictive study. They tried to develop markers that could be used

in hospital settings to make predictions about likelihood of intimate partner violence.

They identified two variables as potential predictors: injury location and responses

to a standard screening questionnaire. They included them, along with demographic

variables, in developing a prediction model.

An explanatory study was done to examine the relationships among the variables

of attachment, work satisfaction, marital satisfaction, parental satisfaction, and life sat-

isfaction (Perrone, Webb, & Jackson, 2007). This research was informed by attachment

theory, which describes “parental attachment as a stable connection that provides a feel-

ing of safety and security for the child” (p. 238). The researchers used five published

instruments and present a very good description of reliability and validity for each one.

Classification Based on Time (Dimension 2)

The categories of the second dimension for classifying nonexperimental research, which

refer to time, are:

1. Cross-sectional research, in which data are collected at one point in time, often in

order to make comparisons across different types of respondents or participants.

2. Prospective or longitudinal research, in which data are collected on multiple

occasions starting with the present and going into the future for comparisons

across time. Data are sometimes collected on different groups over time in order

to determine subsequent differences on some other variable.

3. Retrospective research, in which the researcher looks back in time using existing

or available data to explain or explore an existing occurrence. This backwards

examination may be an attempt to find potential explanations for current group


These categories could be seen as answers to the question: Were the data collected

at a single time point, across some time span into the future, or were already exist-

ing data explored? You could think of them as representing the past (retrospective),

present (cross-sectional), and future (prospective) with respect to timing of data collec-

tion. As an example, suppose you were interested in assessing differences in college

students’ attitudes toward potential careers. In a cross-sectional study, you might take a



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 67

Classifying Nonexperimental Research 67

random sample of first-year college students (freshmen) and fourth-year college students

(seniors) and compare their attitudes. Your purpose might be to show that more mature

students (seniors) view career options differently from less mature students (freshmen).

Now consider assessing career attitudes in a prospective study. There are actually

three options: trend, cohort, or panel study. To distinguish among these three approaches,

think of a four-year prospective study starting in 2008 with college freshmen. The pop-

ulation of interest is all college freshmen in the United States. In 2008, a random

sample of college freshman is taken for all three approaches. Table 4.1 describes the

samples in the subsequent three years for each approach. In the trend study, the same

general population (college freshmen) is tracked. In the cohort study, the same specific

population (college freshmen in 2008) is tracked. In the panel study, the same individu-

als are tracked. One of the advantages of a panel study is that you can look for changes

and not simply report on trends. A disadvantage is that you have to start with a fairly

large sample due to attrition over time, particularly for a lengthy study.

An example of a retrospective study could be an examination of the educational

background and experience of very successful teachers and less successful teachers.

The idea is to look backward in time and examine what differences existed that might

provide an explanation for the present differences in success. To the extent that such a

study needed to depend on people’s memories of relevant background information, it

would be less accurate than if prior data were available for examination.

For a published example, consider one question addressed by Michael Heise (2004),

which was whether key actors in a criminal court case view case complexity in the same

way. The results of his cross-sectional comparison of three key actor groups (juries,

attorneys, and judges) suggest that they do possess slightly different views on whether

crimes are complex.

Examples of both prospective and retrospective research are based on the Nurses’

Health Study, a large scale longitudinal study started in 1976 with a mailed survey of

121,700 female registered nurses between thirty and fifty-five years of age who lived in

eleven states. Descriptive information about risk factors for major chronic diseases and

related issues were gathered every two years. Although most of the information gathered

TABLE 4.1. Description of Samples After Initial 2008 Sampling of College Freshmen

2009 2010 2011

Trend New sample—college


New sample—college


New sample—college


Cohort New sample—college


New sample—college


New sample—college


Panel Same sample from

2008, who are now


Same sample from 2008,

who are now juniors

Same sample from

2008, who are now




Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 68

68 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research

was identical, new questions were added periodically. The Nurses’ Health Study Web

page ( contains a complete list of publications based on

these data.

One such study was conducted by Francine Laden et al. (2000). They examined

the responses from the 87,497 women who answered newly included questions about

lifetime use of electric blankets and heated waterbeds. Using data from the larger study,

Laden and her colleagues focused their attention on the relationship between electric

blanket use and breast cancer from both a prospective and retrospective view. This was

done because electric blanket use is a source of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs)

exposure, and EMF exposure had been hypothesized to increase the risk of breast

cancer. The relevant year is 1992, when information about use of electric blankets and

waterbeds was first documented. For the prospective part of their study, they considered

women who had not been diagnosed with cancer as of 1992 and analyzed the occurrence

of breast cancer from 1992 to 1996 for groups according to electric blanket or waterbed

usage. For the retrospective part, they used records from 1976 to 1992, considering only

women who were cancer free in 1976. In the prospective part of the study “exposure

to electric blankets and waterbed use was assessed prior to the occurrence of breast

cancer,” while in the retrospective analysis “exposure was ascertained after diagnosis”

(Laden et al., 2000, p. 42).

Retrospective studies may be based on past records, as in the previous example,

or on retrospective questions, that is, on questions about past behaviors or experiences.

Merely using already existing data, however, does not make it retrospective. The key

distinction is the study’s purpose. Are you looking backwards to discover some potential

cause or explanation for a current situation, or are you using data from one point in

time to predict data from a later time? Notice that Laden and her colleagues (2000)

used preexisting data for both retrospective and prospective studies. For the prospective

part, women who had not been diagnosed with cancer in 1992 were divided into groups

based on whether they did or did not use electric blankets, and the groups were then

compared with respect to breast cancer incidents by 1996. For the retrospective part,

they divided the women into two groups based on whether they had or had not been

diagnosed with cancer as of 1992 and then compared them in terms of reported prior

use of electric blankets.

Combining Classification Dimensions

When used together, Johnson’s two dimensions (2001) combine to form a 3 × 3 design

for a total of nine distinct categories that may be used to describe nonexperimental

research. Examples of all nine may be found in the National Education Longitudinal

Study of 1988 (NELS:88), which was a large-scale data collection effort. A nationally

representative sample of eighth graders were first surveyed in 1988, with subsequent

follow-up surveys every two years until 1994, and then once again in 2000. The National

Center for Education Statistics’ Web page ( describes

this study, and also provides an annotated bibliography of research done using the

various data sets. Depending on which data were selected for each study and the study



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 69

Classifying Nonexperimental Research 69

TABLE 4.2. Articles Classified According to Both Research Objective and Time of Dimensions

Retrospective Cross-Sectional Prospective

Descriptive Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

Behavioral responses

of substance-exposed

newborns: a

retrospective study

(Higley & Morin, 2004)

Criminal case

complexity: An

empirical perspective

(Heise, 2004)

The stability of


students’ cognitive test

anxiety levels (Cassady,


Predictive Type 4 Type 5 Type 6

Electric blanket use

and breast cancer in

the nurses’ health

study (Laden et al.,


A predictive model to

identify women with

injuries related to

intimate partner

violence (Halpern &

Dodson, 2006)

Electric blanket use and

breast cancer in the

nurses’ health study

(Laden et al., 2000)

Explanatory Type 7 Type 8 Type 9

A further look at youth

intellectual giftedness

and its correlates:

values, interests,

performance, and

behavior (Roznowski,

Reith, & Hong, 2000)

Relationships between

parental attachment,

work and family roles,

and life satisfaction

(Perrone, Webb, &

Jackson, 2007)

Thirty-year stability and

predictive validity of

vocational interests.

(Rottinghaus, Coon,

Gaffey, & Zytowski,


purpose, different NELS:88 studies might be classified using all nine of the purpose

by time frame classifications. To help clarify this cross-classification scheme, Table 4.2

gives the titles of articles representing each type, which are then described.

Type 1—Descriptive retrospective. Using retrospective chart review, Anne Marie

Higley and Karen Morin (2004) described the behavior of infants whose mothers had

a drug history. Their findings supported the use of an assessment tool to guide parents

in providing a supportive care environment to help infants recover.

Type 2—Descriptive cross-sectional. This study was discussed earlier as an

example of a cross-sectional study. It is descriptive because the goal was to document

the extent to which juries, attorneys, and judges held similar or different views about

a case. The results have implications for legal reform efforts.

Type 3—Descriptive prospective. This was an investigation of the stability of

test anxiety measures over time and testing formats, with data collected at three time

points in an academic semester, therefore making it prospective. The purpose for the

description was to determine if test anxiety was a stable condition or if it is necessary to



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 70

70 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research

include a test anxiety measure with every test in a longitudinal study. Results indicated

that it is not necessary to measure anxiety with every test; it is only necessary to measure

anxiety in one test-taking situation.

Type 4—Predictive retrospective and Type 6—Predictive prospective. The two

parts of this study were described earlier as examples of retrospective and prospective

studies. Both parts were predictive in nature, using a backward and a forward perspective

to determine the extent to which electric blanket and waterbed use could be used to

predict breast cancer. Although results did not exclude small risks, neither analysis

supported an association between breast cancer risk and use of electric blankets and


Type 5—Predictive cross-sectional. In this study, discussed as an example of a

predictive study, a one-time data collection was used. The authors’ aim was to develop

and validate a predictive model. They subdivided their sample, using one group to

develop their model and the second group to validate, or test it. Their work produced

a predictive and validated model of three components: risk of self-report of intimate

partner violence related injury, age, and race. The researchers then hypothesized that

these three variables could be used to develop a protocol to assist in the early diagnosis

of intimate partner violence in an emergency department and outpatient clinical setting.

Type 7—Explanatory retrospective. This study was explanatory because a goal

was to further previous work on giftedness and knowledge and understanding of sev-

eral related variables. The data came from the High School and Beyond database, a

longitudinal study with baseline information on 14,825 students who were high school

sophomores in 1980. The data for this study included the base year and the third

follow-up survey, four years later, after graduation. The data set “allowed for more

comparisons than could reasonably be included in a single study. Variables were cho-

sen that would either serve to replicate previous findings or expand psychological and

behavioral profiles of gifted male and female students into more detail” (Roznowski,

Reith, & Hong, 2000, p. 96). A retrospective conclusion was that educational attain-

ment differences of gifted males and females had their origins in the early high school


Type 8—Explanatory cross-sectional. Already discussed as an example of an

explanatory study, this study was based on data from the fifteenth annual survey of a

longitudinal study that started in 1988 with 1,724 participants. About 1,200 participants

were lost in the first three years. Only 108 participants were left for this study, which

shows the dramatic attrition that can happen in a longitudinal study. Although the data

were from a longitudinal study, these authors only used the fifteenth year’s data, thereby

making it cross-sectional.

Type 9—Explanatory prospective. The authors suggested that “Assessing the

predictive validity of an interest inventory is essentially answering the question, ‘Do

early interest scores match one’s future occupation?’” (Rottinghaus et al., 2007, p. 7). To

answer this question, they did a thirty-year follow-up of 107 former high school juniors

and seniors whose interests were assessed in 1975. The first author had collected the

initial data. Their results extend research on vocational interests, indicating that interests

were fairly stable even after such a long time span.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 71

Causal Explanations and Nonexperimental Studies 71


1. How do descriptive, predictive, and explanatory studies differ?

2. How do retrospective, cross-sectional, and prospective studies differ?

3. Find several recent articles in your field of study where a nonexperimental

design was used. Classify their main purpose as being descriptive, predictive, or

explanatory and classify the time dimension as retrospective, cross-sectional,

or prospective.


Using Johnson’s classification system (2001), many nonexperimental studies are either

descriptive or predictive. For those, the notion of causation is not relevant. However,

a goal for many explanatory nonexperimental research studies is to explore potentially

causal relationships. A causal relationship is one in which a given action is likely to

produce a particular result.

The terms independent and dependent refer to the different roles variables play in

experimental studies. If a causal relationship exists, then the outcome (the measured

DV) depends on, or is a direct result of, the nature of the assigned independent treatment

condition. Strictly speaking, these terms are not applicable in nonexperimental research,

although they are often used. The more appropriate terms in nonexperimental studies

are criterion and predictor variables, criterion being the presumed outcome of one

or more predictor variables. When the intent is to use nonexperimental research to

study potential cause-and-effect relationships where experimentation is not possible,

the concept of IV and DV may still be of interest, but conclusions about causation that

can be made from nonexperimental studies are weaker than those that can be made

from true-experimental studies. Additionally, great care needs to be taken to assure that

nothing essential has been overlooked.

As explained earlier, the distinction is often made between nonexperimental studies

that involve both categorical and quantitative variables and those that involve only

quantitative variables. Considering only two variables for the sake of simplicity, an

example of the first type of study is a comparison of gender differences in mathematics

achievement in high school. Gender, with male and female as the two categories, is

considered the independent variable and some mathematics achievement score is the

measured dependent variable. Examples where both variables are quantitative might

be an examination of the relationship between test scores and time spent studying, or

between scores on some measure of motivation and scores on an achievement test.

Examples like these, of very simple cases involving only two variables, are neither

very interesting nor very informative. Additional variables could be included in order

to examine more complex relationships.

No matter which type of design or which type of variable is used, evidence of a rela-

tionship would not be convincing evidence of causality. Recall the example described

earlier about investigating the relationship between education level and salary and the



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 72

72 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research

two ways that education level could be measured. Regardless of whether education

level was construed as categorical (highest degree earned) or as quantitative (number

of years of schooling), it should not be concluded that one’s educational level caused or

produced a different level of salary. If dramatic differences across the five groups with

different degrees were found such that those with higher education had higher median

salaries, all that can be concluded is that there was a relationship between educational

level and salary. This same conclusion would be possible if results indicated a strong

positive correlation between years of schooling and salary: that people with fewer years

of school tended to have low salaries and people with more years of school tended to

have high salaries (see Figure 4.1 for graphical representation of a positive relationship).

The scatter plot for a negative relationship would go from the upper left corner to the

lower right corner, indicating that low scores on one variable tended to go with high

scores on the other variable.

The differences in the wording of the research questions in the previous two cases

reflect the nature of the variables used (categorical or quantitative). They would require

different analysis strategies, either to test if the median values did differ more than you

might expect by chance, or to determine the strength and direction of the relationship.

Differences in wording or analysis do not, however, reflect any difference in the nature

of the relationship between the variables. Explanatory nonexperimental research articles

often have conclusions phrased in causal language. Therefore, the next section is a

review of the essential elements needed to establish cause-and-effect relationships and

a discussion of their applicability to nonexperimental studies.

Requirements for Causality

There are three conditions necessary in order to be able to argue that some variable X

(the presumed independent) causes another variable Y (the presumed dependent).

1. The two variables X and Y must be related. If they are not related, it is impossible

for one to cause the other. For nonexperimental research, that means that it must

be demonstrated that differences in X are associated with differences in Y.

2. Changes in X must happen before observed changes in Y. This is always the case

when X is a manipulated treatment variable in an experiment. But establishing

that a cause happened before an effect needs to be documented in some way or

logically explained in nonexperimental studies. This is impossible to do when the

data are cross-sectional and collected simultaneously.

3. There is no possible alternative explanation for the relationship between X and

Y. That is, there is no plausible third variable that might explain the observed

relationship between X and Y, possibly having caused both of them.

In nonexperimental studies, the first requirement can be established easily with

correlational analyses. The second could also be established if longitudinal data are used

so that predictor variables are measured before the criterion. The third requirement is

more difficult to demonstrate. To do so requires a thorough knowledge of the literature

and the underlying theory or theories governing the topic being investigated, logical

arguments, plus testing and ruling out of alternative possibilities.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 73

Causal Explanations and Nonexperimental Studies 73

The fact that two variables are related does not inform us of which one influences

the other. There are at least three reasons why two variables could be related and it is not

possible to know from the correlation which one is the correct reality. Three potential

explanations are: (1) that X causes or influences Y, (2) that Y causes or influences X,

or (3) that Z, a third variable, causes both X and Y. Consider the following headline:

“Migraines plague the poor more than the rich.” It could be argued that the stresses of

living in poverty and other poverty-related conditions could trigger migraine headaches.

It could also be argued that migraines cause one to miss work and eventually lose

employment, thereby inducing poverty for a subset of individuals prone to migraines.

Which is the correct interpretation? It is impossible to tell.

Although there is no formal way to prove causation in nonexperimental research, it

may be possible to suggest it. This is done through careful consideration, by referring

to the three conditions for cause, by presenting logical arguments, and by testing likely

alternatives in order to make a case for the likely conclusion of a causal relationship.

One must be careful, however, not to phrase conclusions as proof of causation.

Ruling Out Alternative Hypotheses

To demonstrate the process for ruling out alternative hypotheses, we will use a medical

example. Consider the process a doctor goes through in diagnosing a new patient’s

illness. First, the doctor considers the symptoms. The list of symptoms is used to

select potential problems with similar symptoms and to rule out problems with different

symptoms. Tests are ordered to confirm the most likely diagnosis and remedies are

tried. If the test results are negative or the remedies do not work, then the original

diagnosis is discarded, and other possible diagnoses are considered and tested. How

does this process relate to research? The first step is matching observations (the reported

symptoms) to theory (known symptoms for an illness). The second step is to test a hunch

or tentative hypothesis (initial diagnosis) and rule out alternative hypotheses (other

potential diagnoses). The process continues until a reasonable conclusion is reached.

The analogy breaks down because, ideally, the correct diagnosis is made and the patient

is cured, although results are never as conclusive in nonexperimental studies.

Given a theory that is driving the research, how does one rule out potential alterna-

tive hypotheses? One way is to consider all likely confounding or lurking variables. In

an experimental study, two variables are confounded when their effects on a dependent

variable cannot be distinguished. The following example, although purely correlational,

should clarify the concept of confounding or lurking variables.

One would expect that grades and standardized tests, such as SAT scores, would

be related more to each other than they would to socioeconomic status (SES). In many

studies, however, SES and SAT appear to have a much stronger relationship than do

grades and SAT. Rebecca Zwick and Jennifer Green (2007) explored reasons for such

results with data from a random sample of 98,391 students from 7,330 high schools.

They performed two different analyses. In the first analysis, they found the correlation

for grades and SAT for the entire sample and, in the second analysis, they did so for

each school individually and then averaged the school-level results to get one overall

measure of relationship. The second analysis produced a much stronger relationship



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 74

74 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research

between grades and SAT scores than did the first analysis. This is because the first

analysis ignored the fact that there are school-level differences in SES as well as other


Figure 4.2 should help you visualize this discussion. In part A, the two smaller

ovals represent a scatter plot of scores for two schools, where both grades and SAT

scores tend to be higher in School 2 than in School 1. The lines bisecting these two

ovals provide a linear representation of the relationship between the variables within

each school and are called regression lines. Both ovals are rather narrow in width,

being fairly close to their regression lines, and thereby give a visual representation of a

relatively strong positive relationship between grades and SAT within each school. The

larger oval represents the relationship between grades and SAT scores as it would appear

across or between schools, that is, if school membership were ignored in the analysis.

It is much more spread out around its regression line (the dotted line), erroneously

indicating a much weaker relationship between grades and SAT. The two smaller ovals

correspond to Zwick and Green’s second analysis (2007) and the larger oval to their

first analysis. Ignoring the differences between the schools confounds the relationship

between grades and SAT being investigated.

Part B of Figure 4.2 shows a worst-case scenario of ignoring a lurking variable.

Suppose the relationship between two variables, X and Y, is negative for each of

two groups. This is shown by the two smaller ovals, where lower scores on X tend

to go with higher scores on Y and vice versa within each group. Ignoring groups,

FIGURE 4.2. Representation of Effects of Confounding Variables



School 1 School 2



Group 1 Group 2

A. Fairly strong positive relationship

between grades and SAT within each

school. Weak relationship when

school membership is ignored.

B. Fairly strong negative relationship

between X and Y within each group.

A seemingly positive relationship

when group membership is ignored.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 75

Analysis and Interpretation in Nonexperimental Studies 75

however, would produce a positive relationship, which would be a completely wrong



By now, you should be able to

1. List and explain three essential requirements to argue cause

2. Explain why even a strong correlation does not imply causation

3. Describe why ruling out alternative hypotheses is important.

4. Find one or two nonexperimental studies in your field of study where hypotheses

were tested or where a theory was explored. What extraneous variables or poten-

tial alternative hypotheses were discussed? Can you think of others that were not

discussed? How might inclusion of those variables have changed results?


Data analyses in nonexperimental studies depend on both the goal for the study and

the nature of the variables in the data set. Almost any analysis may be possible

and a useful presentation is not reasonable here. There are ample books and sources for

details about statistical methods and their use. A few examples are given at the end of

the chapter; also see the discussion on understanding quantitative data in Chapter Six.

You need to be aware of the basic distinction between descriptive and inferential

statistics. Descriptive statistics involve summarizing and describing quantitative infor-

mation in meaningful ways. For example, a mean, or arithmetic average, is a statistic

used to describe a central value for a set of numbers. Inferential statistics are used to

make conclusions beyond the data collected and to test hypotheses. Statistical tests are

used to make conclusions about populations based on results from random samples or

to determine the probability that results are not due to random chance.

Interpretation of results in nonexperimental studies should be consistent with the

nature of the work, which is based on nonmanipulated variables. Therefore, conclusions

about cause and effect are not appropriate in any nonexperimental study. As you read

empirical articles, you should be attuned to how conclusions are discussed and be wary

of causal language. Robinson, Levin, Thomas, Pituch, and Vaughn (2007) reviewed

274 empirical articles in five teaching-and-learning research journals in 1994 and 2004.

They recorded causal and noncausal language use in abstracts and discussion sections.

Their two main conclusions were: (1) experimental articles in teaching-and-learning

declined in the ten-year span, and (2) on average, the use of causal conclusions made

in nonexperimental and qualitative studies increased. They conclude by saying that “as

journal readers, we have an obligation to search an article for information about how

the data were collected so we are not unduly influenced by unwarranted conclusions”

(Robinson et al., 2007, p. 412). Ideally, after studying this chapter you will be able to

search through articles for information about how the study was conducted and use that

to consider conclusions.



Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 76

76 Nonexperimental Quantitative Research


The goal for this chapter was to present

adequate information about nonexperi-

mental designs so that a practitioner could

read the literature and have a basic under-

standing of methods used. Nonexperi-

mental research is described in many

ways and covers any quantitative study

that does not have manipulated vari-

ables or random assignment. A topic

of research interest can be modified to

serve alternative purposes, and data can

be collected over different time frames.

The two-dimensional classification sys-

tem presented here should help you cat-

egorize articles. Reading any of the arti-

cles listed in Table 4.2 that are of interest

to you could be useful in understand-

ing why it was classified according to

the two dimensions given. A good place

to start, with a relatively straightforward

example, would be the Cassady (2001)

article, which is an example of Type 3,

a descriptive prospective study. A good

exercise would be to find other nonexper-

imental studies and classify them accord-

ing to the two dimensions of purpose and

time of data collection.

A key to understanding published

research is to identify the goal of the

research, evaluate what was done in rela-

tion to that goal, and consider aspects and

variables that may have been overlooked.

Most important, consider the language

used in published works and be skeptical

if overzealous researchers present their

nonexperimental results in causal terms.

Regardless of what type of research is

presented, be a wary consumer.


attribute variables

categorical variables

confounding or lurking variables

correlation coefficient


cross-sectional research

dependent variable

descriptive nonexperimental research

descriptive statistics

experimental research

explanatory nonexperimental research

independent variable


inferential statistics


nonexperimental research

predictive nonexperimental research


prospective or longitudinal research

quantitative variables


random assignment

random sample

regression line


retrospective research


scatter plot






Lapan c04.tex V1 – 09/02/2008 2:46pm Page 77

Analysis and Interpretation in Nonexperimental Studies 77


Suggested Readings

Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

This basic text, discussing an analysis technique often used in nonexperimental studies, is written in an

understandable manner, using examples from social science research literature to develop the concepts.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. See lecture in Chapter Eleven: Nonexperimental quantitative research, based

on Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Applications . Retrieved March 13, 2008, from

Discusses steps in nonexperimental research, ways to control extraneous variables in nonexperimental

research, and Johnson’s classification scheme for nonexperimental research, and provides a graphic description of

controlling for a third variable.

Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Waneen, W. S. (2004). Reading and understanding research (2nd ed). Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Although this book deals with research in general, it is an easily understandable resource with good examples

to help you read and understand published research articles. Aimed at consumers of research, the approach is

nontechnical and user-friendly.

Lowry, R. (1999–2008). Concepts and applications of inferential statistics . Retrieved October 10, 2007, from

Chapter Three of this free, full-length statistics textbook provides an introduction to linear correlation and

regression using examples and diagrams. This is useful for understanding the basic analyses used with nonexperi-

mental data.

Meltzoff, J. (1997). Critical thinking about research: Psychology and related fields . Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

This text should help develop critical thinking skills via research by critiquing exercises of different types of

research studies. It combines fundamental content with practice articles.

Trochim, W. M. The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Retrieved October 20, 2006, from

Of particular use is the Language of Research part of the Foundation section, where types of relationships

are clearly described, using simple examples and graphs.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"