Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Jednoślepowy eksperyment naturalny× | Pojedynczo zaślepione randomizowane badanie kontrolowane× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Planowanie eksperymentów | Planowanie eksperymentów |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | Late 20th century (formalized practice) | 1948 (formalized); single-blind variant established in mid-20th century clinical trial methodology |
| Twórca≠ | 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 |
| Typ≠ | Quasi-experimental design with partial blinding | Experimental design — blinded randomized trial |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | 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. DOI ↗ |
| Inne nazwy≠ | single-masked natural experiment, blinded quasi-experiment, single-blind exogenous assignment study | single-masked RCT, single-blind RCT, single-blind trial, SB-RCT |
| Pokrewne≠ | 2 | 5 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | 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. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|