Methoden vergleichen

	Einfaches Verblindetes Prätest-Posttest-Experimentaldesign	Randomisierte kontrollierte Studie mit einfacher Verblindung
Fachgebiet	Versuchsplanung	Versuchsplanung
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	1963 (systematic codification); blinding in use from early 20th century	1948 (formalized); single-blind variant established in mid-20th century clinical trial methodology
Urheber	Campbell & Stanley (codified); blinding practice has earlier roots in clinical research	Bradford Hill and colleagues (MRC streptomycin trial, 1948); blinding conventions codified in CONSORT guidelines
Typ	Controlled experimental design with partial blinding	Experimental design — blinded randomized trial
Wegweisende Quelle	Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally.	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 pretest-posttest design, participant-blind pretest-posttest, single-blind before-after design, SB-PP design	single-masked RCT, single-blind RCT, single-blind trial, SB-RCT
Verwandt	6	5
Zusammenfassung	The single-blind pretest-posttest experimental design combines two protective strategies: measuring outcomes both before and after treatment to quantify change, and keeping participants unaware of which condition they are in. This pairing controls for preexisting group differences and expectancy-driven response bias, making it a practical middle ground between fully open-label and double-blind trials in behavioral and health research.	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.