a causal link between an intervention and the observed outcomes (internal validity) and later in the chapter is on threats that may limit the generalizability of the results (external validity). With respect to the level of certainty of causal inference, Campbell and colleagues emphasize that researchers need consider only threats to validity that are plausible given their specific design and the prior empirical research in their particular research context (Campbell, 1957; Shadish et al., 2002). Table 8-2 presents common threats to the level of certainty of causal inference associated with several major quantitative designs.

After researchers have identified the plausible threats to the level of certainty in their research context, several approaches may be taken to rule out each identified threat. First, features may be added to the design to prevent the threat from occurring. For example, a key threat in many designs is participant attrition. Shadish and colleagues (2002) describe the importance of retaining participants in a study and point to extensive protocols developed to maximize retention (see Ribisl et al., 1996). Second, certain elements may be added to the basic design. Appendix E presents several examples in which elements are added to a variety of basic designs to address those specific threats to the level of certainty that are plausible in the context of the design and prior research in the area. Shadish and Cook (1999) offer an extensive list of elements that can be included in a wide variety of research designs (see Box 8-4).

To illustrate, in the pre-experimental design with only a pretest and posttest, discussed in Appendix E, one plausible threat to a study’s level of certainty is history: another event in addition to the treatment might have occurred between the pre- and posttests. Consider a year-long school-based intervention program that demonstrates a decrease in teenagers’ smoking from the beginning to the end of the school year. Suppose that during the same year and unrelated to the program, the community also removed all cigarette machines that allowed children to purchase cigarettes easily. Adding the design element of replicating the study at different times in different participant cohorts would help rule out the possibility that the removal of cigarette machines rather than the school-based program was responsible for the results. If the school-based program were effective, reductions in smoking would have occurred in each replication. In contrast, removal of the cigarette machines would be expected to lead to a decrease only in the first replication, a different expected pattern of results. Matching the pattern of results to that predicted by the theory of the intervention versus that predicted by the plausible confounders provides a powerful method of ruling out threats to a study’s level of certainty.

Campbell’s approach strongly prefers such design strategies over alternative statistical adjustment strategies to deal with threats to the level of certainty. It also emphasizes strategies for increasing researchers’ understanding of the particular conceptual aspects of the treatment that are responsible for the causal effects under the rubric of the construct validity of the independent variable. Shadish and colleagues (2002) present a general discussion of these issues, and West and Aiken (1997) and Collins and colleagues (2009) discuss experimental designs for studying the effective-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement