Talk:Quasi-experiment

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why do we have

• Yes Thosjleep (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes there is almost total overlap71.208.252.27 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I dunno why there are separate pages either. I doubt anyone's going to object, so whoever wants to can probably just go ahead and do it. --V2Blast (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bnadrow (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I'm going to begin editing this page. I am a student at Clemson University working with Dr. June Pilcher's Senior Psychology class.[reply]

• Yes, I also believe that they should be merged. (Elena Loysha)

Merge complete --Thosjleep (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ethics section is written in first person, for example "we divide households" and "we run a linear regression". Is this acceptable? alex3yoyo (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article possibly heard to strongly towards medical research? I'm referring specifically to talk of "treatment conditions" (or is this some neutral jargon that I'm not aware of?)

Also should there be a link to this article from "experiment" which doesn't seem to be aware of the existence of "quasi experiments", just "natural experiments". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.65.12 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Quasi Experiments are also effective because they use the "pre-post testing". This means that there are tests done before any data is collected to see if there are any person confounds or if any participants have certain tendencies. Then the actual experiment is done with post test results recorded. This data can be compared as part of the study or the pre-test data can be included in an explanation for the actual experimental data." -- from the article

"Cherry pick your data carefully, and don't forget to cover your tracks" -- translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.112.169 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of quasi-experiments is very inconsistent, it mixes things like statistical techniques/methods (e.g. difference in differences) with proper quasi-experimental designs (e.g. Nonequivalent control groups design). That section clearly needs to be re-structured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.146.15.253 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quasi-experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.osulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa696/696quasi.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120916072343/http://ssmon.chb.kth.se/safebk/Chp_4.pdf to http://ssmon.chb.kth.se/safebk/Chp_4.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120328052718/http://ssmon.chb.kth.se/safebk/ to http://ssmon.chb.kth.se/safebk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is written assuming it refers to statistical analysis in medical research without ever saying that. I think a word of introduction about the field in which this term is used would be helpful.

I get redirected to this article when I look for "pseudoexperiment", which we do a lot in particle physics, but is something very different. Pkoppenb (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]