Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Designul Solomon cu patru grupuri, dublu-orb× | Design Experimental cu Grup de Control× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Design experimental | Design experimental |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1949 (Solomon design); double-blind blinding integrated in 20th-century experimental practice | 1935 (Fisher); 1963 (Campbell & Stanley codification) |
| Autorul original≠ | Richard L. Solomon (base design); double-blind protocol is a general methodological standard | Ronald A. Fisher; systematised by Donald T. Campbell & Julian C. Stanley |
| Tip≠ | True experimental design | Experimental research design |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 46(2), 137–150. DOI ↗ | Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally. link ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | double-blind S4GD, blinded Solomon design, double-blind four-group design, Solomon four-group with double-blind | controlled experiment, true experimental design, randomized controlled design, treatment-control design |
| Înrudite≠ | 5 | 4 |
| Rezumat≠ | The double-blind Solomon four-group design combines Richard Solomon's classic four-group structure — which isolates pretest sensitization effects — with double-blind blinding, ensuring that neither participants nor outcome assessors know group assignments. This combination yields high internal validity by controlling simultaneously for testing effects, expectancy bias, and experimenter influence, making it one of the most rigorous true experimental designs available. | Control group experimental design is a fundamental experimental structure in which participants are assigned to at least two groups — a treatment group that receives the intervention and a control group that does not — so that the effect of the intervention can be isolated by comparing outcomes across groups. Randomisation of assignment strengthens causal inference by balancing known and unknown confounders. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|