Ex-post-facto
designs ("after the fact")
Much less able to determine
causality than true experiments but these are necessary and important research
designs.
Necessity
for:1. ethical reasons or 2. an interest in organismic variables
Two main types:
Prospective and Retrospective
designs: find naturally occurring groups (thus, "after the fact") and follow
them forward (prospective) or trace their histories (retrospective)
Problems:
-
subjects are not randomly
assigned to treatments, as a result there will be inherent confounds in
the populations studied (this is the most serious problem)
-
sampling problems (often
a convenient sample):
-
dropouts in prospective studies
-
detection bias (equally likely
to detect in both groups?)
Partial
solutions:
Matching:
1) subject for subject
(preferable but more difficult) or
2) distribution by distribution
-
in both cases can selectively
drop individuals and bias the sample further
Measuring: so will:
1) know if potential
confounds (uncontrolled or extraneous variables) are confounded,
&
2) to statistically control
for these variables (See later sections on multiple
regression and partial correlations)
Retrospective studies
have additional problems in that they rely on memory so the
partial solutions are more difficult to employ successfully
Have the advantage
(over prosepective designs) in that they are more efficient (cheaper and
faster) May be necessary with very rare grouping variables of interest
(e.g., rare diseases)
Note that even with measurement
and matching, internal validity is still questionable. [The additional
problems of retrospective designs are well illustrated by McFarland's (1988)
study of cyclical variability in moods)].
DVs used in Ex-post-facto
studies
-
relative risk ratio (prospective
studies) - illustrated by breast cancer data
-
relative odds ratio (approximates
the relative risk) -- retrospective studies
Problem with both in that
absolute risks are hidden, both (absolute and relative risks) should be
reported.
Causality and ex-post-facto
designs. Although no one (or few) quasi-analytic experiment will unambiguously
show a causal relationship, with converging evidence from many such studies
(5, 10 or 100?) can make causal statements (like "smoking causes cancer").