Methoden vergleichen

	Einfach verblindetes Feldexperiment	Randomisierte kontrollierte Studie mit einfacher Verblindung
Fachgebiet	Versuchsplanung	Versuchsplanung
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	Mid-20th century (blinding conventions formalised 1940s–1960s)	1948 (formalized); single-blind variant established in mid-20th century clinical trial methodology
Urheber	Established practice in experimental social science and clinical research; codified by Campbell & Stanley (1963) and Shadish, Cook & Campbell (2002)	Bradford Hill and colleagues (MRC streptomycin trial, 1948); blinding conventions codified in CONSORT guidelines
Typ	Controlled field experiment with partial blinding	Experimental design — blinded randomized trial
Wegweisende Quelle	Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN: 978-0395615560	Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & CONSORT Group. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.
Aliasnamen	single-masked field experiment, field experiment with single blinding, single-blind natural-setting trial	single-masked RCT, single-blind RCT, single-blind trial, SB-RCT
Verwandt	6	5
Zusammenfassung	A single-blind field experiment combines real-world experimental conditions with partial blinding: either participants or outcome assessors — but not both — are kept unaware of treatment assignment. This design reduces demand characteristics or observer bias while preserving ecological validity, making it a practical middle ground when full double-blinding is logistically infeasible in naturalistic settings.	A single-blind randomized controlled trial (SB-RCT) is a rigorous experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control conditions while remaining unaware of which condition they have received. Investigators, outcome assessors, and data analysts are not blinded. By masking participants, the design eliminates placebo and nocebo response biases on the participant side, while preserving investigator flexibility to administer and monitor the intervention.