Comparar métodos
Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.
| Diseño transversal ex post facto× | Investigación Causal-Comparativa× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Diseño de investigación | Diseño de investigación |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Año de origen≠ | 1964–1973 | 1964 |
| Autor original≠ | Fred N. Kerlinger (formalized ex post facto methodology) | Fred N. Kerlinger |
| Tipo | Non-experimental quantitative research design | Non-experimental quantitative research design |
| Fuente seminal≠ | Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioral Research (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN: 978-0030862731 | Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of Behavioral Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. link ↗ |
| Alias | cross-sectional causal-comparative design, retrospective cross-sectional design, after-the-fact cross-sectional study, cross-sectional EPF design | ex post facto research, causal-comparative design, retrospective causal study, CCR |
| Relacionados≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Resumen≠ | A cross-sectional ex post facto design investigates presumed causal relationships by comparing groups that already differ on a key characteristic — all measured at a single point in time. Because the independent variable (e.g., smoking history, prior educational attainment) has already occurred and cannot be manipulated, the researcher works backward from observed outcomes to infer probable antecedents. It is widely used in education, public health, and the social sciences when experimental control is ethically or practically impossible. | Causal-comparative research is a non-experimental quantitative design in which the researcher compares two or more groups that already differ on an independent variable — one that was not manipulated — to investigate possible causes or consequences of that difference. Because group membership is pre-existing rather than randomly assigned, the design can suggest causal relationships but cannot establish them with the certainty of a true experiment. It is widely used in education, psychology, and social sciences when experimental manipulation is impractical or unethical. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de datos ↗ |
|
|