Сравнение методов

	Прагматический лабораторный эксперимент	Полевой эксперимент	Рандомизированное контролируемое исследование (РКИ)
Область	Планирование эксперимента	Планирование эксперимента	Планирование эксперимента
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Hypothesis test
Год появления	1967 (foundational distinction); 2009 (PRECIS operationalization)	1920s–1930s (agriculture); 1990s–2000s (social sciences)	1948
Автор метода	Schwartz & Lellouch (pragmatic–explanatory distinction); extended by PRECIS framework developers	Formalized by R. A. Fisher (1935); systematized in social sciences by Harrison & List (2004)	James Lind (early precursor, 1747); modern formulation: Austin Bradford Hill & Medical Research Council (1948)
Тип	Experimental design philosophy and study type	Experimental design	Interventional comparative study
Основополагающий источник	Schwartz, D., & Lellouch, J. (1967). Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 20(8), 637–648.	Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.	Schulz, K.F., Altman, D.G., Moher, D., for the CONSORT Group (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. BMJ, 340, c332.
Другие названия	pragmatic experiment, applied laboratory trial, practice-oriented lab experiment, pragmatic controlled experiment	field trial, natural field experiment, randomized field experiment, field RCT	RCT, randomised controlled trial, clinical trial, Randomize Kontrollü Çalışma (RCT) Tasarımı
Связанные	3	5	7
Сводка	A pragmatic laboratory experiment is a controlled study conducted in a laboratory setting that prioritises external validity and real-world applicability over the stringent internal controls characteristic of purely explanatory experiments. Drawing on the pragmatic–explanatory continuum formalised by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967) and later operationalised in the PRECIS framework, it asks whether an intervention works under conditions that approximate actual practice rather than ideal circumstances, making findings directly actionable for decision-makers and practitioners.	A field experiment applies the logic of a randomized controlled trial in a naturally occurring, real-world environment rather than an artificial laboratory. Participants are randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions while going about everyday activities, allowing researchers to estimate causal effects with high internal validity while preserving a level of ecological realism that laboratory settings cannot offer. The design is especially prominent in economics, public health, political science, and development research.	A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard experimental design in clinical and health research, in which participants are randomly allocated to a treatment group or a control group so that the effect of an intervention can be measured with the highest possible degree of internal validity. The modern parallel-group RCT was formalized by Austin Bradford Hill and the Medical Research Council in their landmark streptomycin trial of 1948, and its reporting is governed today by the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (Schulz et al., 2010).