The Journal of Experimental Education · 1971 · 108 citations · 11 references
Public HealthBehavioral SciencesBiostatisticsCausal InferenceExperimental DesignStatisticsBias ControlExternal ValidityHypothesis TestingStudy DesignExperiment ValidityExperimental Design ValidityExperimental MethodologyExperimental Results InterpretationExperimental StudiesRandomized Experiments
Behavioral researchers often face missing observations, and experimental mortality can devastate even the most carefully designed studies, yet standard methods provide no guidance. This paper proposes a method to empirically test whether experimental mortality is random or non‑random between and within treatment groups, enabling proper interpretation even when substantial numbers of observations are missing. The method applies an ANOVA‑based test for random versus non‑random mortality, allowing researchers to assess the internal and external validity of their results.
Behavioral researchers are often faced with the problem of missing observations. Experimental mortali ty, the loss of Ss from treatment groups, can devastate the most carefuUy designed and controlled experimental research. Standard textbooks in research methods or experimental design give no help to the researcher who has experienced substantial experimental mortality. This paper proposes a method for empirically testing whether the experimental mortality is random or non-random both between and within treatment groups in the analysis of variance sense. The results of this test allow the researcher to determine whether the results of his study are susceptible to internal and/or external invalidity. Thus, proper interpretation of the experimental re sults can be made even when substantial numbers of the observations are missing.
11
Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences
Donald F. Blankertz, Léon Festinger, Daniel Katz · Journal of Marketing · 1954 · 717 citations