Methoden vergelijken

	Single-blind natuurlijk experiment	Single-blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Vakgebied	Experimenteel ontwerp	Experimenteel ontwerp
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	Late 20th century (formalized practice)	1948 (formalized); single-blind variant established in mid-20th century clinical trial methodology
Grondlegger	Conceptual synthesis of natural experiment tradition (Haavelmo, 1944; Campbell & Stanley, 1963) with single-blind methodology	Bradford Hill and colleagues (MRC streptomycin trial, 1948); blinding conventions codified in CONSORT guidelines
Type	Quasi-experimental design with partial blinding	Experimental design — blinded randomized trial
Oorspronkelijke bron	Dunning, T. (2012). Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1107698000	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.
Aliassen	single-masked natural experiment, blinded quasi-experiment, single-blind exogenous assignment study	single-masked RCT, single-blind RCT, single-blind trial, SB-RCT
Verwant	2	5
Samenvatting	A single-blind natural experiment leverages an exogenous, researcher-uncontrolled event — such as a policy change, lottery, or natural disaster — to create treatment and comparison groups, while applying single-blind procedures so that either the participants or the outcome assessors (but not both) are unaware of group assignment. This design combines the causal leverage of natural variation with reduced measurement bias from blinding.	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.