ScholarGate
Trợ lý

So sánh phương pháp

Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.

Thí nghiệm tự nhiên mù đơn×Thí nghiệm tự nhiên×Thử nghiệm đối chứng ngẫu nhiên mù đơn×
Lĩnh vựcThiết kế thí nghiệmThiết kế thí nghiệmThiết kế thí nghiệm
HọProcess / pipelineProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Năm ra đờiLate 20th century (formalized practice)1990s (formal methodological articulation); earlier in epidemiology (John Snow, 1854)1948 (formalized); single-blind variant established in mid-20th century clinical trial methodology
Người khởi xướngConceptual synthesis of natural experiment tradition (Haavelmo, 1944; Campbell & Stanley, 1963) with single-blind methodologyVaried; systematized in econometrics and political science (e.g., Meyer 1995; Angrist & Krueger 1991)Bradford Hill and colleagues (MRC streptomycin trial, 1948); blinding conventions codified in CONSORT guidelines
LoạiQuasi-experimental design with partial blindingQuasi-experimental research designExperimental design — blinded randomized trial
Công trình gốcDunning, T. (2012). Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1107698000Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151–161. DOI ↗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 ↗
Tên gọi khácsingle-masked natural experiment, blinded quasi-experiment, single-blind exogenous assignment studynatural quasi-experiment, naturally occurring experiment, exogenous shock design, as-if randomizationsingle-masked RCT, single-blind RCT, single-blind trial, SB-RCT
Liên quan235
Tóm tắtA 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 natural experiment exploits a real-world event, policy, or circumstance that assigns individuals to treatment and control conditions in a way that is plausibly random — or at least exogenous to the outcome of interest. Because the researcher does not control assignment, it occupies a middle ground between a true randomized controlled trial and purely observational research, offering stronger causal leverage than conventional observational designs when the as-if randomization assumption holds.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.
ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED

Đến trang tìm kiếm Tải xuống bản trình chiếu

ScholarGateSo sánh phương pháp: Single-blind Natural Experiment · Natural Experiment · Single-blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Truy cập ngày 2026-06-19 từ https://scholargate.app/vi/compare