Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of quasi-experiments in the social sciences: a content analysis

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the use of various research designs in the social sciences as well as the choices that are made when a quasi-experimental design is used. A content analysis was carried out on articles published in 18 social science journals with various impact factors. The presence of quasi-experimental studies was investigated as well as choices in the design and analysis stage. It was found that quasi-experimental designs are not very often used in the inspected journals, and when they are applied they are not very well designed and analyzed. These findings suggest that the literature on how to deal with selection bias has not yet found its way to the practice of the applied researcher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angrist J.D., Imbens G.W., Rubin D.B.: Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 91, 444–455 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APA: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th edn. APA, Washington (2001)

  • Berk R.A.: Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D.T.: Prospective: artifact and control. In: Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L. (eds) Artifact in Behavioral Research, pp. 351–382. Academic Press, New York (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D.T., Erlebacher A.: How regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look harmful. In: Hellmuth, J. (eds) Disadvantaged Child: Compensatory Education, a National Debate, vol. 3, pp. 185–210. Brunner/Mazel, New York (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran W.G.: The planning of observational studies in human populations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A-G 128, 134–155 (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran W.G.: Planning and Analysis of Observational Studies. Wiley, Toronto (1983)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J.S., Campbell E.Q., Hobson C.J., McPartland J., Mood A.M., Weinfeld F.D., York R.L.: Equality of Educational Opportunity. Government Printing Office, Washington (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman J.J.: Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47, 153–161 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland P.W.: Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 945–960 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland P.W.: Comment: it’s very clear. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 84, 875–877 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, F.: Preliminary report for Group D. In: Report of the Harvard Faculty Seminar on the Equal Educational Opportunity Report (1967)

  • Nichols R.C.: Schools and the disadvantaged. Science 154, 1312–1314 (1966)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum P.R.: Observational Studies, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B.: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 76, 41–55 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B.: Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 516–524 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish W.R., Cook T.D., Campbell D.T.: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Westinghouse Learning Corporation: The Impact of Head Start: An Evaluation of the Effects of Head Start on Childrens Cognitive and Affective Development. Ohio University, Athens (1969)

  • Wilkinson L.: The Task Force on Statistical Inference: Guidelines and explanations: statistical methods in psychology journals. Am. Psychol. 54, 594–604 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship C., Mare R.D.: Models for sample selection bias. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 18, 327–350 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship C., Morgan S.L.: The estimation of causal effects from observational studies. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25, 659–704 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship C., Morgan S.L.: Counterfactuals for Causal Inference. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Winship C., Sobel M.: Causal inference in sociological studies. In: Hardy, M., Bryman, A. (eds) Handbook of Data Analysis, pp. 481–503. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Research Methodology, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marie-Claire E. Aussems

  2. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Anne Boomsma & Tom A. B. Snijders

  3. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Tom A. B. Snijders

Authors
  1. Marie-Claire E. Aussems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Boomsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tom A. B. Snijders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Claire E. Aussems.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aussems, MC.E., Boomsma, A. & Snijders, T.A.B. The use of quasi-experiments in the social sciences: a content analysis. Qual Quant 45, 21–42 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9281-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9281-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation