ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

双盲现场实验×单盲现场实验×
领域实验设计实验设计
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份1960s onward (field experiment tradition); double-blind controls applied from 1970s in social and policy field trialsMid-20th century (blinding conventions formalised 1940s–1960s)
提出者Fisher, R. A. (randomized field trials); double-blind practice traced to 19th-century clinical research, formalized for field settings by Campbell & Stanley (1963)Established practice in experimental social science and clinical research; codified by Campbell & Stanley (1963) and Shadish, Cook & Campbell (2002)
类型Experimental designControlled field experiment with partial blinding
开创性文献Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. W. W. Norton. ISBN: 978-0393979954Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN: 978-0395615560
别名double-masked field trial, double-blind naturalistic experiment, blinded field study, DB field experimentsingle-masked field experiment, field experiment with single blinding, single-blind natural-setting trial
相关56
摘要A double-blind field experiment combines the high external validity of a real-world field setting with double-blind masking, in which neither the participants nor the personnel delivering the treatment know who has been assigned to the treatment or control condition. This design controls simultaneously for participant expectation effects and for experimenter/enumerator demand effects, making it one of the most rigorous tools available for causal inference outside the laboratory.A single-blind field experiment combines real-world experimental conditions with partial blinding: either participants or outcome assessors — but not both — are kept unaware of treatment assignment. This design reduces demand characteristics or observer bias while preserving ecological validity, making it a practical middle ground when full double-blinding is logistically infeasible in naturalistic settings.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Double-blind field experiment · Single-blind field experiment. 于 2026-06-19 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare