Confronta i metodi
Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.
| Disegno Longitudinale Ex Post Facto× | Ricerca Causal-Comparativa× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Disegno della ricerca | Disegno della ricerca |
| Famiglia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anno di origine≠ | 1964–1986 (Kerlinger 1964 first edition; Campbell & Stanley 1966) | 1964 |
| Ideatore≠ | Fred N. Kerlinger (systematized); Donald T. Campbell & Julian C. Stanley (quasi-experimental framework) | Fred N. Kerlinger |
| Tipo | Non-experimental quantitative research design | Non-experimental quantitative research design |
| Fonte seminale≠ | Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN: 978-0030417498 | Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of Behavioral Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. link ↗ |
| Alias | longitudinal causal-comparative design, longitudinal after-the-fact design, longitudinal retrospective design, LEPF design | ex post facto research, causal-comparative design, retrospective causal study, CCR |
| Correlati≠ | 5 | 3 |
| Sintesi≠ | A longitudinal ex post facto design combines the time-depth of longitudinal research with the retrospective logic of ex post facto inquiry. Participants are grouped by a naturally occurring characteristic or past event — not randomly assigned — and then observed or measured at multiple points over time. The goal is to trace how pre-existing differences between groups unfold or predict outcomes across an extended period, without the researcher ever manipulating the independent variable. | 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. |
| ScholarGateInsieme di dati ↗ |
|
|