Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns
Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/03054985.2012.731208
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Torgerson, Carole J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marsden, Emma;Torgerson, Carole J.
本文提供了两个可能影响评估研究前后测试设计结果的因素的说明，包括回归均值(RTM)、成熟度、历史和测试效果。第一个例子涉及对Marsden(2004)一项研究的数据的重新分析，在该研究中，测试前的分数与获得的分数相对应，以展示RTM的效果。第二个例证是对单一组、测试前和测试后研究设计(前实验)的方法论回顾，这些设计评估干预和结果之间的因果关系。对Marsden先前数据的重新分析表明，基线分数较高的学习者始终比基线分数较低的学习者获得的收益更小，这表明RTM在单组、后测试设计中明显可见。我们的综述发现，在490篇文章的样本中，有13%是评价性研究。在这些评估研究中，约有一半使用了实验设计。然而，四分之一的受试者使用了一组前后测试设计，使用这些设计的研究人员在他们的解释中没有提到可能的RTM效应，尽管提到了其他解释因素。最后，我们描述了使用实验或准实验设计将如何使研究人员能够更准确地解释他们的发现，并为教育学得出更有用的启示。
This article provides two illustrations of some of the factors that can influence findings from pre- and post-test research designs in evaluation studies, including regression to the mean (RTM), maturation, history and test effects. The first illustration involves a re-analysis of data from a study by Marsden (2004), in which pre-test scores are plotted against gain scores to demonstrate RTM effects. The second illustration is a methodological review of single group, pre- and post-test research designs (pre-experiments) that evaluate causal relationships between intervention and outcome. Re-analysis of Marsden's prior data shows that learners with higher baseline scores consistently made smaller gains than those with lower baseline scores, demonstrating that RTM is clearly observable in single group, pre-post test designs. Our review found that 13% of the sample of 490 articles were evaluation studies. Of these evaluation studies, about half used an experimental design. However, a quarter used a single group, pre-post test design, and researchers using these designs did not mention possible RTM effects in their explanations, although other explanatory factors were mentioned. We conclude by describing how using experimental or quasi-experimental designs would have enabled researchers to explain their findings more accurately, and to draw more useful implications for pedagogy.