is a case study non experimental

• Experimental Vs Non-Experimental Research: 15 Key Differences

There is a general misconception around research that once the research is non-experimental, then it is non-scientific, making it more important to understand what experimental and experimental research entails. Experimental research is the most common type of research, which a lot of people refer to as scientific research. 

Non experimental research, on the other hand, is easily used to classify research that is not experimental. It clearly differs from experimental research, and as such has different use cases. 

In this article, we will be explaining these differences in detail so as to ensure proper identification during the research process.

What is Experimental Research?  

Experimental research is the type of research that uses a scientific approach towards manipulating one or more control variables of the research subject(s) and measuring the effect of this manipulation on the subject. It is known for the fact that it allows the manipulation of control variables. 

This research method is widely used in various physical and social science fields, even though it may be quite difficult to execute. Within the information field, they are much more common in information systems research than in library and information management research.

Experimental research is usually undertaken when the goal of the research is to trace cause-and-effect relationships between defined variables. However, the type of experimental research chosen has a significant influence on the results of the experiment.

Therefore bringing us to the different types of experimental research. There are 3 main types of experimental research, namely; pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, and true experimental research.

Pre-experimental Research

Pre-experimental research is the simplest form of research, and is carried out by observing a group or groups of dependent variables after the treatment of an independent variable which is presumed to cause change on the group(s). It is further divided into three types.

• One-shot case study research 
• One-group pretest-posttest research 
• Static-group comparison

Quasi-experimental Research

The Quasi type of experimental research is similar to true experimental research, but uses carefully selected rather than randomized subjects. The following are examples of quasi-experimental research:

• Time series 
• No equivalent control group design
• Counterbalanced design.

True Experimental Research

True experimental research is the most accurate type,  and may simply be called experimental research. It manipulates a control group towards a group of randomly selected subjects and records the effect of this manipulation.

True experimental research can be further classified into the following groups:

• The posttest-only control group 
• The pretest-posttest control group 
• Solomon four-group 

Pros of True Experimental Research

• Researchers can have control over variables.
• It can be combined with other research methods.
• The research process is usually well structured.
• It provides specific conclusions.
• The results of experimental research can be easily duplicated.

Cons of True Experimental Research

• It is highly prone to human error.
• Exerting control over extraneous variables may lead to the personal bias of the researcher.
• It is time-consuming.
• It is expensive. 
• Manipulating control variables may have ethical implications.
• It produces artificial results.

What is Non-Experimental Research?  

Non-experimental research is the type of research that does not involve the manipulation of control or independent variable. In non-experimental research, researchers measure variables as they naturally occur without any further manipulation.

This type of research is used when the researcher has no specific research question about a causal relationship between 2 different variables, and manipulation of the independent variable is impossible. They are also used when:

• subjects cannot be randomly assigned to conditions.
• the research subject is about a causal relationship but the independent variable cannot be manipulated.
• the research is broad and exploratory
• the research pertains to a non-causal relationship between variables.
• limited information can be accessed about the research subject.

There are 3 main types of non-experimental research , namely; cross-sectional research, correlation research, and observational research.

Cross-sectional Research

Cross-sectional research involves the comparison of two or more pre-existing groups of people under the same criteria. This approach is classified as non-experimental because the groups are not randomly selected and the independent variable is not manipulated.

For example, an academic institution may want to reward its first-class students with a scholarship for their academic excellence. Therefore, each faculty places students in the eligible and ineligible group according to their class of degree.

In this case, the student’s class of degree cannot be manipulated to qualify him or her for a scholarship because it is an unethical thing to do. Therefore, the placement is cross-sectional.

Correlational Research

Correlational type of research compares the statistical relationship between two variables .Correlational research is classified as non-experimental because it does not manipulate the independent variables.

For example, a researcher may wish to investigate the relationship between the class of family students come from and their grades in school. A questionnaire may be given to students to know the average income of their family, then compare it with CGPAs. 

The researcher will discover whether these two factors are positively correlated, negatively corrected, or have zero correlation at the end of the research.

Observational Research

Observational research focuses on observing the behavior of a research subject in a natural or laboratory setting. It is classified as non-experimental because it does not involve the manipulation of independent variables.

A good example of observational research is an investigation of the crowd effect or psychology in a particular group of people. Imagine a situation where there are 2 ATMs at a place, and only one of the ATMs is filled with a queue, while the other is abandoned.

The crowd effect infers that the majority of newcomers will also abandon the other ATM.

You will notice that each of these non-experimental research is descriptive in nature. It then suffices to say that descriptive research is an example of non-experimental research.

Pros of Observational Research

• The research process is very close to a real-life situation.
• It does not allow for the manipulation of variables due to ethical reasons.
• Human characteristics are not subject to experimental manipulation.

Cons of Observational Research

• The groups may be dissimilar and nonhomogeneous because they are not randomly selected, affecting the authenticity and generalizability of the study results.
• The results obtained cannot be absolutely clear and error-free.

What Are The Differences Between Experimental and Non-Experimental Research?    

• Definitions

Experimental research is the type of research that uses a scientific approach towards manipulating one or more control variables and measuring their defect on the dependent variables, while non-experimental research is the type of research that does not involve the manipulation of control variables.

The main distinction in these 2 types of research is their attitude towards the manipulation of control variables. Experimental allows for the manipulation of control variables while non-experimental research doesn’t.

 Examples of experimental research are laboratory experiments that involve mixing different chemical elements together to see the effect of one element on the other while non-experimental research examples are investigations into the characteristics of different chemical elements.

Consider a researcher carrying out a laboratory test to determine the effect of adding Nitrogen gas to Hydrogen gas. It may be discovered that using the Haber process, one can create Nitrogen gas.

Non-experimental research may further be carried out on Ammonia, to determine its characteristics, behaviour, and nature.

There are 3 types of experimental research, namely; experimental research, quasi-experimental research, and true experimental research. Although also 3 in number, non-experimental research can be classified into cross-sectional research, correlational research, and observational research.

The different types of experimental research are further divided into different parts, while non-experimental research types are not further divided. Clearly, these divisions are not the same in experimental and non-experimental research.

• Characteristics

Experimental research is usually quantitative, controlled, and multivariable. Non-experimental research can be both quantitative and qualitative , has an uncontrolled variable, and also a cross-sectional research problem.

The characteristics of experimental research are the direct opposite of that of non-experimental research. The most distinct characteristic element is the ability to control or manipulate independent variables in experimental research and not in non-experimental research. 

In experimental research, a level of control is usually exerted on extraneous variables, therefore tampering with the natural research setting. Experimental research settings are usually more natural with no tampering with the extraneous variables.

• Data Collection/Tools

  The data used during experimental research is collected through observational study, simulations, and surveys while non-experimental data is collected through observations, surveys, and case studies. The main distinction between these data collection tools is case studies and simulations.

Even at that, similar tools are used differently. For example, an observational study may be used during a laboratory experiment that tests how the effect of a control variable manifests over a period of time in experimental research. 

However, when used in non-experimental research, data is collected based on the researcher’s discretion and not through a clear scientific reaction. In this case, we see a difference in the level of objectivity. 

The goal of experimental research is to measure the causes and effects of variables present in research, while non-experimental research provides very little to no information about causal agents.

Experimental research answers the question of why something is happening. This is quite different in non-experimental research, as they are more descriptive in nature with the end goal being to describe what .

 Experimental research is mostly used to make scientific innovations and find major solutions to problems while non-experimental research is used to define subject characteristics, measure data trends, compare situations and validate existing conditions.

For example, if experimental research results in an innovative discovery or solution, non-experimental research will be conducted to validate this discovery. This research is done for a period of time in order to properly study the subject of research.

Experimental research process is usually well structured and as such produces results with very little to no errors, while non-experimental research helps to create real-life related experiments. There are a lot more advantages of experimental and non-experimental research , with the absence of each of these advantages in the other leaving it at a disadvantage.

For example, the lack of a random selection process in non-experimental research leads to the inability to arrive at a generalizable result. Similarly, the ability to manipulate control variables in experimental research may lead to the personal bias of the researcher.

• Disadvantage

 Experimental research is highly prone to human error while the major disadvantage of non-experimental research is that the results obtained cannot be absolutely clear and error-free. In the long run, the error obtained due to human error may affect the results of the experimental research.

Some other disadvantages of experimental research include the following; extraneous variables cannot always be controlled, human responses can be difficult to measure, and participants may also cause bias.

  In experimental research, researchers can control and manipulate control variables, while in non-experimental research, researchers cannot manipulate these variables. This cannot be done due to ethical reasons. 

For example, when promoting employees due to how well they did in their annual performance review, it will be unethical to manipulate the results of the performance review (independent variable). That way, we can get impartial results of those who deserve a promotion and those who don’t.

Experimental researchers may also decide to eliminate extraneous variables so as to have enough control over the research process. Once again, this is something that cannot be done in non-experimental research because it relates more to real-life situations.

Experimental research is carried out in an unnatural setting because most of the factors that influence the setting are controlled while the non-experimental research setting remains natural and uncontrolled. One of the things usually tampered with during research is extraneous variables.

In a bid to get a perfect and well-structured research process and results, researchers sometimes eliminate extraneous variables. Although sometimes seen as insignificant, the elimination of these variables may affect the research results.

Consider the optimization problem whose aim is to minimize the cost of production of a car, with the constraints being the number of workers and the number of hours they spend working per day. 

In this problem, extraneous variables like machine failure rates or accidents are eliminated. In the long run, these things may occur and may invalidate the result.

• Cause-Effect Relationship

The relationship between cause and effect is established in experimental research while it cannot be established in non-experimental research. Rather than establish a cause-effect relationship, non-experimental research focuses on providing descriptive results.

Although it acknowledges the causal variable and its effect on the dependent variables, it does not measure how or the extent to which these dependent variables change. It, however, observes these changes, compares the changes in 2 variables, and describes them.

Experimental research does not compare variables while non-experimental research does. It compares 2 variables and describes the relationship between them.

The relationship between these variables can be positively correlated, negatively correlated or not correlated at all. For example, consider a case whereby the subject of research is a drum, and the control or independent variable is the drumstick.

Experimental research will measure the effect of hitting the drumstick on the drum, where the result of this research will be sound. That is, when you hit a drumstick on a drum, it makes a sound.

Non-experimental research, on the other hand, will investigate the correlation between how hard the drum is hit and the loudness of the sound that comes out. That is, if the sound will be higher with a harder bang, lower with a harder bang, or will remain the same no matter how hard we hit the drum.

• Quantitativeness

Experimental research is a quantitative research method while non-experimental research can be both quantitative and qualitative depending on the time and the situation where it is been used. An example of a non-experimental quantitative research method is correlational research .

Researchers use it to correlate two or more variables using mathematical analysis methods. The original patterns, relationships, and trends between variables are observed, then the impact of one of these variables on the other is recorded along with how it changes the relationship between the two variables.

Observational research is an example of non-experimental research, which is classified as a qualitative research method.

• Cross-section

Experimental research is usually single-sectional while non-experimental research is cross-sectional. That is, when evaluating the research subjects in experimental research, each group is evaluated as an entity.

For example, let us consider a medical research process investigating the prevalence of breast cancer in a certain community. In this community, we will find people of different ages, ethnicities, and social backgrounds. 

If a significant amount of women from a particular age are found to be more prone to have the disease, the researcher can conduct further studies to understand the reason behind it. A further study into this will be experimental and the subject won’t be a cross-sectional group. 

A lot of researchers consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This is partly due to the fact that experimental research can accommodate the manipulation of independent variables, which is something non-experimental research can not.

Therefore, as a researcher who is interested in using any one of experimental and non-experimental research, it is important to understand the distinction between these two. This helps in deciding which method is better for carrying out particular research. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• examples of experimental research
• non experimental research
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

Response vs Explanatory Variables: Definition & Examples

In this article, we’ll be comparing the two types of variables, what they both mean and see some of their real-life applications in research

Experimental Research Designs: Types, Examples & Methods

Ultimate guide to experimental research. It’s definition, types, characteristics, uses, examples and methodolgy

What is Experimenter Bias? Definition, Types & Mitigation

In this article, we will look into the concept of experimental bias and how it can be identified in your research

Simpson’s Paradox & How to Avoid it in Experimental Research

In this article, we are going to look at Simpson’s Paradox from its historical point and later, we’ll consider its effect in...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Case Study vs. Experiment

What's the difference.

Case studies and experiments are both research methods used in various fields to gather data and draw conclusions. However, they differ in their approach and purpose. A case study involves in-depth analysis of a particular individual, group, or situation, aiming to provide a detailed understanding of a specific phenomenon. On the other hand, an experiment involves manipulating variables and observing the effects on a sample population, aiming to establish cause-and-effect relationships. While case studies provide rich qualitative data, experiments provide quantitative data that can be statistically analyzed. Ultimately, the choice between these methods depends on the research question and the desired outcomes.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When conducting research, there are various methods available to gather data and analyze phenomena. Two commonly used approaches are case study and experiment. While both methods aim to provide insights and answers to research questions, they differ in their design, implementation, and the type of data they generate. In this article, we will explore the attributes of case study and experiment, highlighting their strengths and limitations.

A case study is an in-depth investigation of a particular individual, group, or phenomenon. It involves collecting and analyzing detailed information from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, documents, and archival records. Case studies are often used in social sciences, psychology, and business research to gain a deep understanding of complex and unique situations.

One of the key attributes of a case study is its ability to provide rich and detailed data. Researchers can gather a wide range of information, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the case. This depth of data enables researchers to explore complex relationships, identify patterns, and generate new hypotheses.

Furthermore, case studies are particularly useful when studying rare or unique phenomena. Since they focus on specific cases, they can provide valuable insights into situations that are not easily replicated or observed in controlled experiments. This attribute makes case studies highly relevant in fields where generalizability is not the primary goal.

However, it is important to note that case studies have limitations. Due to their qualitative nature, the findings may lack generalizability to broader populations or contexts. The small sample size and the subjective interpretation of data can also introduce bias. Additionally, case studies are time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring extensive data collection and analysis.

An experiment is a research method that involves manipulating variables and measuring their effects on outcomes. It aims to establish cause-and-effect relationships by controlling and manipulating independent variables while keeping other factors constant. Experiments are commonly used in natural sciences, psychology, and medicine to test hypotheses and determine the impact of specific interventions or treatments.

One of the key attributes of an experiment is its ability to establish causal relationships. By controlling variables and randomly assigning participants to different conditions, researchers can confidently attribute any observed effects to the manipulated variables. This attribute allows for strong internal validity, making experiments a powerful tool for drawing causal conclusions.

Moreover, experiments often provide quantitative data, allowing for statistical analysis and objective comparisons. This attribute enhances the precision and replicability of findings, enabling researchers to draw more robust conclusions. The ability to replicate experiments also contributes to the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge.

However, experiments also have limitations. They are often conducted in controlled laboratory settings, which may limit the generalizability of findings to real-world contexts. Ethical considerations may also restrict the manipulation of certain variables or the use of certain interventions. Additionally, experiments can be time-consuming and costly, especially when involving large sample sizes or long-term follow-ups.

While case studies and experiments have distinct attributes, they can complement each other in research. Case studies provide in-depth insights and a rich understanding of complex phenomena, while experiments offer controlled conditions and the ability to establish causal relationships. By combining these methods, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the research question at hand.

When deciding between case study and experiment, researchers should consider the nature of their research question, the available resources, and the desired level of control and generalizability. Case studies are particularly suitable when exploring unique or rare phenomena, aiming for depth rather than breadth, and when resources allow for extensive data collection and analysis. On the other hand, experiments are ideal for establishing causal relationships, testing specific hypotheses, and when control over variables is crucial.

In conclusion, case study and experiment are two valuable research methods with their own attributes and limitations. Both approaches contribute to the advancement of knowledge in various fields, and their selection depends on the research question, available resources, and desired outcomes. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each method, researchers can make informed decisions and conduct rigorous and impactful research.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

6.1 Overview of Non-Experimental Research

Learning objectives.

• Define non-experimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct non-experimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Non-Experimental Research?

Non-experimental research  is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable. Rather than manipulating an independent variable, researchers conducting non-experimental research simply measure variables as they naturally occur (in the lab or real world).

Most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This is because although experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, non-experimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability to make causal conclusions does not mean that non-experimental research is less important than experimental research.

When to Use Non-Experimental Research

As we saw in the last chapter , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable. It stands to reason, therefore, that non-experimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many times in which non-experimental research is preferred, including when:

• the research question or hypothesis relates to a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., How accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• the research question pertains to a non-causal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• the research question is about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions for practical or ethical reasons (e.g., does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• the research question is broad and exploratory, or is about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., what is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and non-experimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. Recall the three goals of science are to describe, to predict, and to explain. If the goal is to explain and the research question pertains to causal relationships, then the experimental approach is typically preferred. If the goal is to describe or to predict, a non-experimental approach will suffice. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, Similarly, after his original study, Milgram conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974) [1] .

Types of Non-Experimental Research

Non-experimental research falls into three broad categories: cross-sectional research, correlational research, and observational research. 

First, cross-sectional research  involves comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people. What makes this approach non-experimental is that there is no manipulation of an independent variable and no random assignment of participants to groups. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels” like a between-subjects experiment, it is a cross-sectional study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. As another example, if we wanted to compare the memory test performance of a group of cannabis users with a group of non-users, this would be considered a cross-sectional study because for ethical and practical reasons we would not be able to randomly assign participants to the cannabis user and non-user groups. Rather we would need to compare these pre-existing groups which could introduce a selection bias (the groups may differ in other ways that affect their responses on the dependent variable). For instance, cannabis users are more likely to use more alcohol and other drugs and these differences may account for differences in the dependent variable across groups, rather than cannabis use per se.

Cross-sectional designs are commonly used by developmental psychologists who study aging and by researchers interested in sex differences. Using this design, developmental psychologists compare groups of people of different ages (e.g., young adults spanning from 18-25 years of age versus older adults spanning 60-75 years of age) on various dependent variables (e.g., memory, depression, life satisfaction). Of course, the primary limitation of using this design to study the effects of aging is that differences between the groups other than age may account for differences in the dependent variable. For instance, differences between the groups may reflect the generation that people come from (a cohort effect) rather than a direct effect of age. For this reason, longitudinal studies in which one group of people is followed as they age offer a superior means of studying the effects of aging. Once again, cross-sectional designs are also commonly used to study sex differences. Since researchers cannot practically or ethically manipulate the sex of their participants they must rely on cross-sectional designs to compare groups of men and women on different outcomes (e.g., verbal ability, substance use, depression). Using these designs researchers have discovered that men are more likely than women to suffer from substance abuse problems while women are more likely than men to suffer from depression. But, using this design it is unclear what is causing these differences. So, using this design it is unclear whether these differences are due to environmental factors like socialization or biological factors like hormones?

When researchers use a participant characteristic to create groups (nationality, cannabis use, age, sex), the independent variable is usually referred to as an experimenter-selected independent variable (as opposed to the experimenter-manipulated independent variables used in experimental research). Figure 6.1 shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a cross-sectional study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated by the researcher or simply selected by the researcher. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then the independent variable was experimenter-manipulated and it is a true experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists or not, then the independent variable it is experimenter-selected and the study is cross-sectional. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a cross-sectional study, it could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative effect on people’s ability to plan ahead. Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed. The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or cross-sectional l is not the variables being studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to analyze the data. It is how the study is conducted.

Figure 6.1  Results of a Hypothetical Study on Whether People Who Make Daily To-Do Lists Experience Less Stress Than People Who Do Not Make Such Lists

Second, the most common type of non-experimental research conducted in Psychology is correlational research. Correlational research is considered non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable.  More specifically, in correlational research , the researcher measures two continuous variables with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. As an example, a researcher interested in the relationship between self-esteem and school achievement could collect data on students’ self-esteem and their GPAs to see if the two variables are statistically related. Correlational research is very similar to cross-sectional research, and sometimes these terms are used interchangeably. The distinction that will be made in this book is that, rather than comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people as is done with cross-sectional research, correlational research involves correlating two continuous variables (groups are not formed and compared).

Third,   observational research  is non-experimental because it focuses on making observations of behavior in a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything. Milgram’s original obedience study was non-experimental in this way. He was primarily interested in the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of observational research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the researchers asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories.

The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. But as you will learn in this chapter, many observational research studies are more qualitative in nature. In  qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s observational study of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semi-public room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256) [2] . Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.  Figure 6.2  shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental (correlational) research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest in internal validity because the use of manipulation (of the independent variable) and control (of extraneous variables) help to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Non-experimental (correlational) research is lowest in internal validity because these designs fail to use manipulation or control. Quasi-experimental research (which will be described in more detail in a subsequent chapter) is in the middle because it contains some, but not all, of the features of a true experiment. For instance, it may fail to use random assignment to assign participants to groups or fail to use counterbalancing to control for potential order effects. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an anti-bullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” While a comparison is being made with a control condition, the lack of random assignment of children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying (e.g., there may be a selection effect).

Figure 6.2 Internal Validity of Correlation, Quasi-Experimental, and Experimental Studies. Experiments are generally high in internal validity, quasi-experiments lower, and correlation studies lower still.

Notice also in  Figure 6.2  that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well-designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider, as noted in Chapter 5.

Key Takeaways

• Non-experimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable.
• There are two broad types of non-experimental research. Correlational research that focuses on statistical relationships between variables that are measured but not manipulated, and observational research in which participants are observed and their behavior is recorded without the researcher interfering or manipulating any variables.
• In general, experimental research is high in internal validity, correlational research is low in internal validity, and quasi-experimental research is in between.
• A researcher conducts detailed interviews with unmarried teenage fathers to learn about how they feel and what they think about their role as fathers and summarizes their feelings in a written narrative.
• A researcher measures the impulsivity of a large sample of drivers and looks at the statistical relationship between this variable and the number of traffic tickets the drivers have received.
• A researcher randomly assigns patients with low back pain either to a treatment involving hypnosis or to a treatment involving exercise. She then measures their level of low back pain after 3 months.
• A college instructor gives weekly quizzes to students in one section of his course but no weekly quizzes to students in another section to see whether this has an effect on their test performance.
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row. ↵
• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 7: Nonexperimental Research

Overview of Nonexperimental Research

Learning Objectives

• Define nonexperimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct nonexperimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Nonexperimental Research?

Nonexperimental research  is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both.

In a sense, it is unfair to define this large and diverse set of approaches collectively by what they are  not . But doing so reflects the fact that most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and nonexperimental research to be an extremely important one. This distinction is because although experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, nonexperimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability does not mean that nonexperimental research is less important than experimental research or inferior to it in any general sense.

When to Use Nonexperimental Research

As we saw in  Chapter 6 , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable and randomly assign participants to conditions or to orders of conditions. It stands to reason, therefore, that nonexperimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many ways in which preferring nonexperimental research can be the case.

• The research question or hypothesis can be about a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., How accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• The research question can be about a noncausal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., Is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• The research question can be about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (e.g., Does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• The research question can be broad and exploratory, or it can be about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., What is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and nonexperimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. If it is about a causal relationship and involves an independent variable that can be manipulated, the experimental approach is typically preferred. Otherwise, the nonexperimental approach is preferred. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, nonexperimental studies establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behaviour have been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001) [1] . Similarly, after his original study, Milgram conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974) [2] .

Types of Nonexperimental Research

Nonexperimental research falls into three broad categories: single-variable research, correlational and quasi-experimental research, and qualitative research. First, research can be nonexperimental because it focuses on a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables. Although there is no widely shared term for this kind of research, we will call it  single-variable research . Milgram’s original obedience study was nonexperimental in this way. He was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of single-variable research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the research asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories.)

As these examples make clear, single-variable research can answer interesting and important questions. What it cannot do, however, is answer questions about statistical relationships between variables. This detail is a point that beginning researchers sometimes miss. Imagine, for example, a group of research methods students interested in the relationship between children’s being the victim of bullying and the children’s self-esteem. The first thing that is likely to occur to these researchers is to obtain a sample of middle-school students who have been bullied and then to measure their self-esteem. But this design would be a single-variable study with self-esteem as the only variable. Although it would tell the researchers something about the self-esteem of children who have been bullied, it would not tell them what they really want to know, which is how the self-esteem of children who have been bullied  compares  with the self-esteem of children who have not. Is it lower? Is it the same? Could it even be higher? To answer this question, their sample would also have to include middle-school students who have not been bullied thereby introducing another variable.

Research can also be nonexperimental because it focuses on a statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both. This kind of research takes two basic forms: correlational research and quasi-experimental research. In correlational research , the researcher measures the two variables of interest with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. A research methods student who finds out whether each of several middle-school students has been bullied and then measures each student’s self-esteem is conducting correlational research. In  quasi-experimental research , the researcher manipulates an independent variable but does not randomly assign participants to conditions or orders of conditions. For example, a researcher might start an antibullying program (a kind of treatment) at one school and compare the incidence of bullying at that school with the incidence at a similar school that has no antibullying program.

The final way in which research can be nonexperimental is that it can be qualitative. The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. In  qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s study of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semipublic room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256). [3] Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.  Figure 7.1  shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest because it addresses the directionality and third-variable problems through manipulation and the control of extraneous variables through random assignment. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Correlational research is lowest because it fails to address either problem. If the average score on the dependent variable differs across levels of the independent variable, it  could  be that the independent variable is responsible, but there are other interpretations. In some situations, the direction of causality could be reversed. In others, there could be a third variable that is causing differences in both the independent and dependent variables. Quasi-experimental research is in the middle because the manipulation of the independent variable addresses some problems, but the lack of random assignment and experimental control fails to address others. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an antibullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” There is no directionality problem because clearly the number of bullying incidents did not determine which school got the program. However, the lack of random assignment of children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying.

Notice also in  Figure 7.1  that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider, as noted in  Chapter 5.

Key Takeaways

• Nonexperimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, control of extraneous variables through random assignment, or both.
• There are three broad types of nonexperimental research. Single-variable research focuses on a single variable rather than a relationship between variables. Correlational and quasi-experimental research focus on a statistical relationship but lack manipulation or random assignment. Qualitative research focuses on broader research questions, typically involves collecting large amounts of data from a small number of participants, and analyses the data nonstatistically.
• In general, experimental research is high in internal validity, correlational research is low in internal validity, and quasi-experimental research is in between.

Discussion: For each of the following studies, decide which type of research design it is and explain why.

• A researcher conducts detailed interviews with unmarried teenage fathers to learn about how they feel and what they think about their role as fathers and summarizes their feelings in a written narrative.
• A researcher measures the impulsivity of a large sample of drivers and looks at the statistical relationship between this variable and the number of traffic tickets the drivers have received.
• A researcher randomly assigns patients with low back pain either to a treatment involving hypnosis or to a treatment involving exercise. She then measures their level of low back pain after 3 months.
• A college instructor gives weekly quizzes to students in one section of his course but no weekly quizzes to students in another section to see whether this has an effect on their test performance.
• Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ↵
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row. ↵
• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵

Research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both.

Research that focuses on a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables.

The researcher measures the two variables of interest with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them.

The researcher manipulates an independent variable but does not randomly assign participants to conditions or orders of conditions.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Investigación de mercado

Non-experimental research: What it is, overview & advantages

Non-experimental research is the type of research that lacks an independent variable. Instead, the researcher observes the context in which the phenomenon occurs and analyzes it to obtain information.

Unlike experimental research , where the variables are held constant, non-experimental research happens during the study when the researcher cannot control, manipulate or alter the subjects but relies on interpretation or observations to conclude.

This means that the method must not rely on correlations, surveys , or case studies and cannot demonstrate an actual cause and effect relationship.

Characteristics of non-experimental research

Some of the essential characteristics of non-experimental research are necessary for the final results. Let’s talk about them to identify the most critical parts of them.

• Most studies are based on events that occurred previously and are analyzed later.
• In this method, controlled experiments are not performed for reasons such as ethics or morality.
• No study samples are created; on the contrary, the samples or participants already exist and develop in their environment.
• The researcher does not intervene directly in the environment of the sample.
• This method studies the phenomena exactly as they occurred.

Types of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research can take the following forms:

Cross-sectional research : Cross-sectional research is used to observe and analyze the exact time of the research to cover various study groups or samples. This type of research is divided into:

• Descriptive: When values are observed where one or more variables are presented.
• Causal: It is responsible for explaining the reasons and relationship that exists between variables in a given time.

Longitudinal research: In a longitudinal study , researchers aim to analyze the changes and development of the relationships between variables over time. Longitudinal research can be divided into:

• Trend: When they study the changes faced by the study group in general.
• Group evolution: When the study group is a smaller sample.
• Panel: It is in charge of analyzing individual and group changes to discover the factor that produces them.

LEARN ABOUT: Quasi-experimental Research

When to use non-experimental research

Non-experimental research can be applied in the following ways:

• When the research question may be about one variable rather than a statistical relationship about two variables.
• There is a non-causal statistical relationship between variables in the research question.
• The research question has a causal research relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated.
• In exploratory or broad research where a particular experience is confronted.

Advantages and disadvantages

Some advantages of non-experimental research are:

• It is very flexible during the research process
• The cause of the phenomenon is known, and the effect it has is investigated.
• The researcher can define the characteristics of the study group.

Among the disadvantages of non-experimental research are:

• The groups are not representative of the entire population.
• Errors in the methodology may occur, leading to research biases .

Non-experimental research is based on the observation of phenomena in their natural environment. In this way, they can be studied later to reach a conclusion.

Difference between experimental and non-experimental research

Experimental research involves changing variables and randomly assigning conditions to participants. As it can determine the cause, experimental research designs are used for research in medicine, biology, and social science. 

Experimental research designs have strict standards for control and establishing validity. Although they may need many resources, they can lead to very interesting results.

Non-experimental research, on the other hand, is usually descriptive or correlational without any explicit changes done by the researcher. You simply describe the situation as it is, or describe a relationship between variables. Without any control, it is difficult to determine causal effects. The validity remains a concern in this type of research. However, it’s’ more regarding the measurements instead of the effects.

LEARN MORE: Descriptive Research vs Correlational Research

Whether you should choose experimental research or non-experimental research design depends on your goals and resources. If you need any help with how to conduct research and collect relevant data, or have queries regarding the best approach for your research goals, contact us today! You can create an account with our survey software and avail of 88+ features including dashboard and reporting for free.

Create a free account

MORE LIKE THIS

Age Gating: Effective Strategies for Online Content Control

Aug 23, 2024

Customer Experience Lessons from 13,000 Feet — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Aug 20, 2024

Insight: Definition & meaning, types and examples

Aug 19, 2024

Employee Loyalty: Strategies for Long-Term Business Success 

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyze the case, other interesting articles.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

Unlike quantitative or experimental research , a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews , observations , and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis , with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyze its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved August 25, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.1 Overview of Nonexperimental Research

Learning objectives.

• Define nonexperimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct nonexperimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Nonexperimental Research?

Nonexperimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both.

In a sense, it is unfair to define this large and diverse set of approaches collectively by what they are not . But doing so reflects the fact that most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and nonexperimental research to be an extremely important one. This is because while experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, nonexperimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this does not mean that nonexperimental research is less important than experimental research or inferior to it in any general sense.

When to Use Nonexperimental Research

As we saw in Chapter 6 “Experimental Research” , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable and randomly assign participants to conditions or to orders of conditions. It stands to reason, therefore, that nonexperimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many ways in which this can be the case.

• The research question or hypothesis can be about a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., How accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• The research question can be about a noncausal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., Is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• The research question can be about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (e.g., Does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• The research question can be broad and exploratory, or it can be about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., What is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and nonexperimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. If it is about a causal relationship and involves an independent variable that can be manipulated, the experimental approach is typically preferred. Otherwise, the nonexperimental approach is preferred. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, nonexperimental studies establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behavior have been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001). Similarly, after his original study, Milgram conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974).

Types of Nonexperimental Research

Nonexperimental research falls into three broad categories: single-variable research, correlational and quasi-experimental research, and qualitative research. First, research can be nonexperimental because it focuses on a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables. Although there is no widely shared term for this kind of research, we will call it single-variable research . Milgram’s original obedience study was nonexperimental in this way. He was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of single-variable research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the research asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories.)

As these examples make clear, single-variable research can answer interesting and important questions. What it cannot do, however, is answer questions about statistical relationships between variables. This is a point that beginning researchers sometimes miss. Imagine, for example, a group of research methods students interested in the relationship between children’s being the victim of bullying and the children’s self-esteem. The first thing that is likely to occur to these researchers is to obtain a sample of middle-school students who have been bullied and then to measure their self-esteem. But this would be a single-variable study with self-esteem as the only variable. Although it would tell the researchers something about the self-esteem of children who have been bullied, it would not tell them what they really want to know, which is how the self-esteem of children who have been bullied compares with the self-esteem of children who have not. Is it lower? Is it the same? Could it even be higher? To answer this question, their sample would also have to include middle-school students who have not been bullied.

Research can also be nonexperimental because it focuses on a statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both. This kind of research takes two basic forms: correlational research and quasi-experimental research. In correlational research , the researcher measures the two variables of interest with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. A research methods student who finds out whether each of several middle-school students has been bullied and then measures each student’s self-esteem is conducting correlational research. In quasi-experimental research , the researcher manipulates an independent variable but does not randomly assign participants to conditions or orders of conditions. For example, a researcher might start an antibullying program (a kind of treatment) at one school and compare the incidence of bullying at that school with the incidence at a similar school that has no antibullying program.

The final way in which research can be nonexperimental is that it can be qualitative. The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. In qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and are analyzed using nonstatistical techniques. Rosenhan’s study of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semipublic room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256).

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable. Figure 7.1 shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest because it addresses the directionality and third-variable problems through manipulation and the control of extraneous variables through random assignment. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Correlational research is lowest because it fails to address either problem. If the average score on the dependent variable differs across levels of the independent variable, it could be that the independent variable is responsible, but there are other interpretations. In some situations, the direction of causality could be reversed. In others, there could be a third variable that is causing differences in both the independent and dependent variables. Quasi-experimental research is in the middle because the manipulation of the independent variable addresses some problems, but the lack of random assignment and experimental control fails to address others. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an antibullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” There is no directionality problem because clearly the number of bullying incidents did not determine which school got the program. However, the lack of random assignment of children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying.

Experiments are generally high in internal validity, quasi-experiments lower, and correlational studies lower still.

Notice also in Figure 7.1 that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables.

Key Takeaways

• Nonexperimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, control of extraneous variables through random assignment, or both.
• There are three broad types of nonexperimental research. Single-variable research focuses on a single variable rather than a relationship between variables. Correlational and quasi-experimental research focus on a statistical relationship but lack manipulation or random assignment. Qualitative research focuses on broader research questions, typically involves collecting large amounts of data from a small number of participants, and analyzes the data nonstatistically.
• In general, experimental research is high in internal validity, correlational research is low in internal validity, and quasi-experimental research is in between.

Discussion: For each of the following studies, decide which type of research design it is and explain why.

• A researcher conducts detailed interviews with unmarried teenage fathers to learn about how they feel and what they think about their role as fathers and summarizes their feelings in a written narrative.
• A researcher measures the impulsivity of a large sample of drivers and looks at the statistical relationship between this variable and the number of traffic tickets the drivers have received.
• A researcher randomly assigns patients with low back pain either to a treatment involving hypnosis or to a treatment involving exercise. She then measures their level of low back pain after 3 months.
• A college instructor gives weekly quizzes to students in one section of his course but no weekly quizzes to students in another section to see whether this has an effect on their test performance.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Non-Experimental Research

28 Overview of Non-Experimental Research

Learning objectives.

• Define non-experimental research, distinguish it clearly from experimental research, and give several examples.
• Explain when a researcher might choose to conduct non-experimental research as opposed to experimental research.

What Is Non-Experimental Research?

Non-experimental research  is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable. Rather than manipulating an independent variable, researchers conducting non-experimental research simply measure variables as they naturally occur (in the lab or real world).

Most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This is because although experimental research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent variable, non-experimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability to make causal conclusions does not mean that non-experimental research is less important than experimental research. It is simply used in cases where experimental research is not able to be carried out.

When to Use Non-Experimental Research

As we saw in the last chapter , experimental research is appropriate when the researcher has a specific research question or hypothesis about a causal relationship between two variables—and it is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable. It stands to reason, therefore, that non-experimental research is appropriate—even necessary—when these conditions are not met. There are many times in which non-experimental research is preferred, including when:

• the research question or hypothesis relates to a single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables (e.g., how accurate are people’s first impressions?).
• the research question pertains to a non-causal statistical relationship between variables (e.g., is there a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence?).
• the research question is about a causal relationship, but the independent variable cannot be manipulated or participants cannot be randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions for practical or ethical reasons (e.g., does damage to a person’s hippocampus impair the formation of long-term memory traces?).
• the research question is broad and exploratory, or is about what it is like to have a particular experience (e.g., what is it like to be a working mother diagnosed with depression?).

Again, the choice between the experimental and non-experimental approaches is generally dictated by the nature of the research question. Recall the three goals of science are to describe, to predict, and to explain. If the goal is to explain and the research question pertains to causal relationships, then the experimental approach is typically preferred. If the goal is to describe or to predict, a non-experimental approach is appropriate. But the two approaches can also be used to address the same research question in complementary ways. For example, in Milgram’s original (non-experimental) obedience study, he was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. However,  Milgram subsequently conducted experiments to explore the factors that affect obedience. He manipulated several independent variables, such as the distance between the experimenter and the participant, the participant and the confederate, and the location of the study (Milgram, 1974) [1] .

Types of Non-Experimental Research

Non-experimental research falls into two broad categories: correlational research and observational research. 

The most common type of non-experimental research conducted in psychology is correlational research. Correlational research is considered non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable. More specifically, in correlational research , the researcher measures two variables with little or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. As an example, a researcher interested in the relationship between self-esteem and school achievement could collect data on students’ self-esteem and their GPAs to see if the two variables are statistically related.

Observational research  is non-experimental because it focuses on making observations of behavior in a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything. Milgram’s original obedience study was non-experimental in this way. He was primarily interested in the extent to which participants obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate and he observed all participants performing the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this chapter is also a good example of observational research. The variable was whether participants “remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that they had not actually experienced but that the researchers asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study, nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories).

Cross-Sectional, Longitudinal, and Cross-Sequential Studies

When psychologists wish to study change over time (for example, when developmental psychologists wish to study aging) they usually take one of three non-experimental approaches: cross-sectional, longitudinal, or cross-sequential. Cross-sectional studies involve comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people (e.g., children at different stages of development). What makes this approach non-experimental is that there is no manipulation of an independent variable and no random assignment of participants to groups. Using this design, developmental psychologists compare groups of people of different ages (e.g., young adults spanning from 18-25 years of age versus older adults spanning 60-75 years of age) on various dependent variables (e.g., memory, depression, life satisfaction). Of course, the primary limitation of using this design to study the effects of aging is that differences between the groups other than age may account for differences in the dependent variable. For instance, differences between the groups may reflect the generation that people come from (a cohort effect ) rather than a direct effect of age. For this reason, longitudinal studies , in which one group of people is followed over time as they age, offer a superior means of studying the effects of aging. However, longitudinal studies are by definition more time consuming and so require a much greater investment on the part of the researcher and the participants. A third approach, known as cross-sequential studies , combines elements of both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Rather than measuring differences between people in different age groups or following the same people over a long period of time, researchers adopting this approach choose a smaller period of time during which they follow people in different age groups. For example, they might measure changes over a ten year period among participants who at the start of the study fall into the following age groups: 20 years old, 30 years old, 40 years old, 50 years old, and 60 years old. This design is advantageous because the researcher reaps the immediate benefits of being able to compare the age groups after the first assessment. Further, by following the different age groups over time they can subsequently determine whether the original differences they found across the age groups are due to true age effects or cohort effects.

The types of research we have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed using statistical techniques. But as you will learn in this chapter, many observational research studies are more qualitative in nature. In  qualitative research , the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s observational study of the experience of people in psychiatric wards was primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudopatients”—the people pretending to have heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of the experiences of the pseudopatients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the initial physical examinations in a semi-public room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256) [2] . Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable.  Figure 6.1 shows how experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental (correlational) research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental research tends to be highest in internal validity because the use of manipulation (of the independent variable) and control (of extraneous variables) help to rule out alternative explanations for the observed relationships. If the average score on the dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is responsible for that difference. Non-experimental (correlational) research is lowest in internal validity because these designs fail to use manipulation or control. Quasi-experimental research (which will be described in more detail in a subsequent chapter) falls in the middle because it contains some, but not all, of the features of a true experiment. For instance, it may fail to use random assignment to assign participants to groups or fail to use counterbalancing to control for potential order effects. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an anti-bullying program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.” While a comparison is being made with a control condition, the inability to randomly assign children to schools could still mean that students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could explain the difference in bullying (e.g., there may be a selection effect).

Notice also in  Figure 6.1 that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments, and correlational (non-experimental) studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables can be lower in internal validity than a well-designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables. Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider, as noted in Chapter 5.

• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . New York, NY: Harper & Row. ↵
• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179 , 250–258. ↵

A research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable.

Research that is non-experimental because it focuses on the statistical relationship between two variables but does not include the manipulation of an independent variable.

Research that is non-experimental because it focuses on recording systemic observations of behavior in a natural or laboratory setting without manipulating anything.

Studies that involve comparing two or more pre-existing groups of people (e.g., children at different stages of development).

Differences between the groups may reflect the generation that people come from rather than a direct effect of age.

Studies in which one group of people are followed over time as they age.

Studies in which researchers follow people in different age groups in a smaller period of time.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Summer is here, and so is the sale. Get a yearly plan with up to 65% off today! 🌴🌞

• Form Builder
• Survey Maker
• AI Form Generator
• AI Survey Tool
• AI Quiz Maker
• Store Builder
• WordPress Plugin

HubSpot CRM

Google Sheets

Google Analytics

Microsoft Excel

• Popular Forms
• Job Application Form Template
• Rental Application Form Template
• Hotel Accommodation Form Template
• Online Registration Form Template
• Employment Application Form Template
• Application Forms
• Booking Forms
• Consent Forms
• Contact Forms
• Donation Forms
• Customer Satisfaction Surveys
• Employee Satisfaction Surveys
• Evaluation Surveys
• Feedback Surveys
• Market Research Surveys
• Personality Quiz Template
• Geography Quiz Template
• Math Quiz Template
• Science Quiz Template
• Vocabulary Quiz Template

Try without registration Quick Start

Read engaging stories, how-to guides, learn about forms.app features.

Inspirational ready-to-use templates for getting started fast and powerful.

Spot-on guides on how to use forms.app and make the most out of it.

See the technical measures we take and learn how we keep your data safe and secure.

• Integrations
• Help Center
• Sign In Sign Up Free
• What is non-experimental research: Definition, types & examples

Defne Çobanoğlu

The experimentation method is very useful for getting information on a specific subject. However, when experimenting is not possible or practical, there is another way of collecting data for those interested. It's a non-experimental way, to say the least.

In this article, we have gathered information on non-experimental research, clearly defined what it is and when one should use it, and listed the types of non-experimental research. We also gave some useful examples to paint a better picture. Let us get started. 

• What is non-experimental research?

Non-experimental research is a type of research design that is based on observation and measuring instead of experimentation with randomly assigned participants.

What characterizes this research design is the fact that it lacks the manipulation of independent variables . Because of this fact, the non-experimental research is based on naturally occurring conditions, and there is no involvement of external interventions. Therefore, the researchers doing this method must not rely heavily on interviews, surveys , or case studies.

• When to use non-experimental research?

An experiment is done when a researcher is investigating the relationship between one or two phenomena and has a theory or hypothesis on the relationship between two variables that are involved. The researcher can carry out an experiment when it is ethical, possible, and feasible to do one.

However, when an experiment can not be done because of a limitation, then they decide to opt for a non-experimental research design . Non-experimental research is considered preferable in some conditions, including:

• When the manipulation of the independent variable is not possible because of ethical or practical concerns
• When the subjects of an experimental design can not be randomly assigned to treatments.
• When the research question is too extensive or it relates to a general experience.
• When researchers want to do a starter research before investing in more extensive research.
• When the research question is about the statistical relationship between variables , but in a noncausal context.
• Characteristics of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research has some characteristics that clearly define the framework of this research method. They provide a clear distinction between experimental design and non-experimental design. Let us see some of them:

• Non-experimental research does not involve the manipulation of variables .
• The aim of this research type is to explore the factors as they naturally occur .
• This method is used when experimentation is not possible because of ethical or practical reasons .
• Instead of creating a sample or participant group, the existing groups or natural thresholds are used during the research.
• This research method is not about finding causality between two variables.
• Most studies are done on past events or historical occurrences to make sense of specific research questions.
• Types of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research types

What makes research non-experimental research is the fact that the researcher does not manipulate the factors, does not randomly assign the participants, and observes the existing groups. But this research method can also be divided into different types. These types are:

Correlational research:

In correlation studies, the researcher does not manipulate the variables and is not interested in controlling the extraneous variables. They only observe and assess the relationship between them. For example, a researcher examines students’ study hours every day and their overall academic performance. The positive correlation this between study hours and academic performance suggests a statistical association. 

Quasi-experimental research:

In quasi-experimental research, the researcher does not randomly assign the participants into two groups. Because you can not deliberately deprive someone of treatment, the researcher uses natural thresholds or dividing points . For example, examining students from two different high schools with different education methods.

Cross-sectional research:

In cross-sectional research, the researcher studies and compares a portion of a population at the same time . It does not involve random assignment or any outside manipulation. For example, a study on smokers and non-smokers in a specific area.

Observational research:

In observational research, the researcher once again does not manipulate any aspect of the study, and their main focus is observation of the participants . For example, a researcher examining a group of children playing in a playground would be a good example.

• Non-experimental research examples

Non-experimental research is a good way of collecting information and exploring relationships between variables. It can be used in numerous fields, from social sciences, economics, psychology, education, and market research. When gathering information using secondary research is not enough and an experiment can not be done, this method can bring out new information.

Non-experimental research example #1

Imagine a researcher who wants to see the connection between mobile phone usage before bedtime and the amount of sleep adults get in a night . They can gather a group of individuals to observe and present them with some questions asking about the details of their day, frequency and duration of phone usage, quality of sleep, etc . And observe them by analyzing the findings.

Non-experimental research example #2

Imagine a researcher who wants to explore the correlation between job satisfaction levels among employees and what are the factors that affect this . The researcher can gather all the information they get about the employees’ ages, sexes, positions in the company, working patterns, demographic information, etc . 

The research provides the researcher with all the information to make an analysis to identify correlations and patterns. Then, it is possible for researchers and administrators to make informed predictions.

• Frequently asked questions about non-experimental research

When not to use non-experimental research?

There are some situations where non-experimental research is not suitable or the best choice. For example, the aim of non-experimental research is not about finding causality therefore, if the researcher wants to explore the relationship between two variables, then this method is not for them. Also, if the control over the variables is extremely important to the test of a theory, then experimentation is a more appropriate option.

What is the difference between experimental and non-experimental research?

Experimental research is an example of primary research where the researcher takes control of all the variables, randomly assigns the participants into different groups, and studies them in a pre-determined environment to test a hypothesis. 

On the contrary, non-experimental research does not intervene in any way and only observes and studies the participants in their natural environments to make sense of a phenomenon

What makes a quasi-experiment a non-experiment?

The same as true experimentation, quasi-experiment research also aims to explore a cause-and-effect relationship between independent and dependent variables. However, in quasi-experimental research, the participants are not randomly selected. They are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria .

Is a survey a non-experimental study?

Yes, as the main purpose of a survey or questionnaire is to collect information from participants without outside interference, it makes the survey a non-experimental study. Surveys are used by researchers when experimentation is not possible because of ethical reasons, but first-hand data is needed

What is non-experimental data?

Non-experimental data is data collected by researchers via using non-experimental methods such as observations, interpretation, and interactions. Non-experimental data could both be qualitative or quantitative, depending on the situation.

Advantages of non-experimental research

Non-experimental research has its positive sides that a researcher should have in mind when going through a study. They can start their research by going through the advantages. These advantages are:

• It is used to observe and analyze past events .
• This method is more affordable than a true experiment .
• As the researcher can adapt the methods during the study, this research type is more flexible than an experimental study.
• This method allows the researchers to answer specific questions .

Disadvantages of non-experimental research

Even though non-experimental research has its advantages, it also has some disadvantages a researcher should be mindful of. Here are some of them:

• The findings of non-experimental research can not be generalized to the whole population. Therefore, it has low external validity .
• This research is used to explore only a single variable .
• Non-experimental research designs are prone to researcher bias and may not produce neutral results.
• Final words

A non-experimental study differs from an experimental study in that there is no intervention or change of internal or extraneous elements. It is a smart way to collect information without the limitations of experimentation. These limitations could be about ethical or practical problems. When you can not do proper experimentation, your other option is to study existing conditions and groups to draw conclusions. This is a non-experimental design .

In this article, we have gathered information on non-experimental research to shed light on the details of this research method. If you are thinking of doing a study, make sure to have this information in mind. And lastly, do not forget to visit our articles on other research methods and so much more!

Defne is a content writer at forms.app. She is also a translator specializing in literary translation. Defne loves reading, writing, and translating professionally and as a hobby. Her expertise lies in survey research, research methodologies, content writing, and translation.

• Form Features
• Data Collection

Table of Contents

Related posts.

What is a unified customer experience, and how can it boost your ROI?

40+ Hilarious research memes that will make you smile

Şeyma Beyazçiçek

23+ Best SurveyMonkey alternatives in 2024 (features & prices)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.11(2); 2019 Feb

Planning and Conducting Clinical Research: The Whole Process

Boon-how chew.

1 Family Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, MYS

The goal of this review was to present the essential steps in the entire process of clinical research. Research should begin with an educated idea arising from a clinical practice issue. A research topic rooted in a clinical problem provides the motivation for the completion of the research and relevancy for affecting medical practice changes and improvements. The research idea is further informed through a systematic literature review, clarified into a conceptual framework, and defined into an answerable research question. Engagement with clinical experts, experienced researchers, relevant stakeholders of the research topic, and even patients can enhance the research question’s relevance, feasibility, and efficiency. Clinical research can be completed in two major steps: study designing and study reporting. Three study designs should be planned in sequence and iterated until properly refined: theoretical design, data collection design, and statistical analysis design. The design of data collection could be further categorized into three facets: experimental or non-experimental, sampling or census, and time features of the variables to be studied. The ultimate aims of research reporting are to present findings succinctly and timely. Concise, explicit, and complete reporting are the guiding principles in clinical studies reporting.

Introduction and background

Medical and clinical research can be classified in many different ways. Probably, most people are familiar with basic (laboratory) research, clinical research, healthcare (services) research, health systems (policy) research, and educational research. Clinical research in this review refers to scientific research related to clinical practices. There are many ways a clinical research's findings can become invalid or less impactful including ignorance of previous similar studies, a paucity of similar studies, poor study design and implementation, low test agent efficacy, no predetermined statistical analysis, insufficient reporting, bias, and conflicts of interest [ 1 - 4 ]. Scientific, ethical, and moral decadence among researchers can be due to incognizant criteria in academic promotion and remuneration and too many forced studies by amateurs and students for the sake of research without adequate training or guidance [ 2 , 5 - 6 ]. This article will review the proper methods to conduct medical research from the planning stage to submission for publication (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

a Feasibility and efficiency are considered during the refinement of the research question and adhered to during data collection.

Epidemiologic studies in clinical and medical fields focus on the effect of a determinant on an outcome [ 7 ]. Measurement errors that happen systematically give rise to biases leading to invalid study results, whereas random measurement errors will cause imprecise reporting of effects. Precision can usually be increased with an increased sample size provided biases are avoided or trivialized. Otherwise, the increased precision will aggravate the biases. Because epidemiologic, clinical research focuses on measurement, measurement errors are addressed throughout the research process. Obtaining the most accurate estimate of a treatment effect constitutes the whole business of epidemiologic research in clinical practice. This is greatly facilitated by clinical expertise and current scientific knowledge of the research topic. Current scientific knowledge is acquired through literature reviews or in collaboration with an expert clinician. Collaboration and consultation with an expert clinician should also include input from the target population to confirm the relevance of the research question. The novelty of a research topic is less important than the clinical applicability of the topic. Researchers need to acquire appropriate writing and reporting skills from the beginning of their careers, and these skills should improve with persistent use and regular reviewing of published journal articles. A published clinical research study stands on solid scientific ground to inform clinical practice given the article has passed through proper peer-reviews, revision, and content improvement.

Systematic literature reviews

Systematic literature reviews of published papers will inform authors of the existing clinical evidence on a research topic. This is an important step to reduce wasted efforts and evaluate the planned study [ 8 ]. Conducting a systematic literature review is a well-known important step before embarking on a new study [ 9 ]. A rigorously performed and cautiously interpreted systematic review that includes in-process trials can inform researchers of several factors [ 10 ]. Reviewing the literature will inform the choice of recruitment methods, outcome measures, questionnaires, intervention details, and statistical strategies – useful information to increase the study’s relevance, value, and power. A good review of previous studies will also provide evidence of the effects of an intervention that may or may not be worthwhile; this would suggest either no further studies are warranted or that further study of the intervention is needed. A review can also inform whether a larger and better study is preferable to an additional small study. Reviews of previously published work may yield few studies or low-quality evidence from small or poorly designed studies on certain intervention or observation; this may encourage or discourage further research or prompt consideration of a first clinical trial.

Conceptual framework

The result of a literature review should include identifying a working conceptual framework to clarify the nature of the research problem, questions, and designs, and even guide the latter discussion of the findings and development of possible solutions. Conceptual frameworks represent ways of thinking about a problem or how complex things work the way they do [ 11 ]. Different frameworks will emphasize different variables and outcomes, and their inter-relatedness. Each framework highlights or emphasizes different aspects of a problem or research question. Often, any single conceptual framework presents only a partial view of reality [ 11 ]. Furthermore, each framework magnifies certain elements of the problem. Therefore, a thorough literature search is warranted for authors to avoid repeating the same research endeavors or mistakes. It may also help them find relevant conceptual frameworks including those that are outside one’s specialty or system. 

Conceptual frameworks can come from theories with well-organized principles and propositions that have been confirmed by observations or experiments. Conceptual frameworks can also come from models derived from theories, observations or sets of concepts or even evidence-based best practices derived from past studies [ 11 ].

Researchers convey their assumptions of the associations of the variables explicitly in the conceptual framework to connect the research to the literature. After selecting a single conceptual framework or a combination of a few frameworks, a clinical study can be completed in two fundamental steps: study design and study report. Three study designs should be planned in sequence and iterated until satisfaction: the theoretical design, data collection design, and statistical analysis design [ 7 ]. 

Study designs

Theoretical Design

Theoretical design is the next important step in the research process after a literature review and conceptual framework identification. While the theoretical design is a crucial step in research planning, it is often dealt with lightly because of the more alluring second step (data collection design). In the theoretical design phase, a research question is designed to address a clinical problem, which involves an informed understanding based on the literature review and effective collaboration with the right experts and clinicians. A well-developed research question will have an initial hypothesis of the possible relationship between the explanatory variable/exposure and the outcome. This will inform the nature of the study design, be it qualitative or quantitative, primary or secondary, and non-causal or causal (Figure ​ (Figure1 1 ).

A study is qualitative if the research question aims to explore, understand, describe, discover or generate reasons underlying certain phenomena. Qualitative studies usually focus on a process to determine how and why things happen [ 12 ]. Quantitative studies use deductive reasoning, and numerical statistical quantification of the association between groups on data often gathered during experiments [ 13 ]. A primary clinical study is an original study gathering a new set of patient-level data. Secondary research draws on the existing available data and pooling them into a larger database to generate a wider perspective or a more powerful conclusion. Non-causal or descriptive research aims to identify the determinants or associated factors for the outcome or health condition, without regard for causal relationships. Causal research is an exploration of the determinants of an outcome while mitigating confounding variables. Table ​ Table2 2 shows examples of non-causal (e.g., diagnostic and prognostic) and causal (e.g., intervention and etiologic) clinical studies. Concordance between the research question, its aim, and the choice of theoretical design will provide a strong foundation and the right direction for the research process and path. 

A problem in clinical epidemiology is phrased in a mathematical relationship below, where the outcome is a function of the determinant (D) conditional on the extraneous determinants (ED) or more commonly known as the confounding factors [ 7 ]:

For non-causal research, Outcome = f (D1, D2…Dn) For causal research, Outcome = f (D | ED)

A fine research question is composed of at least three components: 1) an outcome or a health condition, 2) determinant/s or associated factors to the outcome, and 3) the domain. The outcome and the determinants have to be clearly conceptualized and operationalized as measurable variables (Table ​ (Table3; 3 ; PICOT [ 14 ] and FINER [ 15 ]). The study domain is the theoretical source population from which the study population will be sampled, similar to the wording on a drug package insert that reads, “use this medication (study results) in people with this disease” [ 7 ].

The interpretation of study results as they apply to wider populations is known as generalization, and generalization can either be statistical or made using scientific inferences [ 16 ]. Generalization supported by statistical inferences is seen in studies on disease prevalence where the sample population is representative of the source population. By contrast, generalizations made using scientific inferences are not bound by the representativeness of the sample in the study; rather, the generalization should be plausible from the underlying scientific mechanisms as long as the study design is valid and nonbiased. Scientific inferences and generalizations are usually the aims of causal studies. 

Confounding: Confounding is a situation where true effects are obscured or confused [ 7 , 16 ]. Confounding variables or confounders affect the validity of a study’s outcomes and should be prevented or mitigated in the planning stages and further managed in the analytical stages. Confounders are also known as extraneous determinants in epidemiology due to their inherent and simultaneous relationships to both the determinant and outcome (Figure ​ (Figure2), 2 ), which are usually one-determinant-to-one outcome in causal clinical studies. The known confounders are also called observed confounders. These can be minimized using randomization, restriction, or a matching strategy. Residual confounding has occurred in a causal relationship when identified confounders were not measured accurately. Unobserved confounding occurs when the confounding effect is present as a variable or factor not observed or yet defined and, thus, not measured in the study. Age and gender are almost universal confounders followed by ethnicity and socio-economic status.

Confounders have three main characteristics. They are a potential risk factor for the disease, associated with the determinant of interest, and should not be an intermediate variable between the determinant and the outcome or a precursor to the determinant. For example, a sedentary lifestyle is a cause for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and smoking could be a confounder but not cardiorespiratory unfitness (which is an intermediate factor between a sedentary lifestyle and ACS). For patients with ACS, not having a pair of sports shoes is not a confounder – it is a correlate for the sedentary lifestyle. Similarly, depression would be a precursor, not a confounder.

Sample size consideration: Sample size calculation provides the required number of participants to be recruited in a new study to detect true differences in the target population if they exist. Sample size calculation is based on three facets: an estimated difference in group sizes, the probability of α (Type I) and β (Type II) errors chosen based on the nature of the treatment or intervention, and the estimated variability (interval data) or proportion of the outcome (nominal data) [ 17 - 18 ]. The clinically important effect sizes are determined based on expert consensus or patients’ perception of benefit. Value and economic consideration have increasingly been included in sample size estimations. Sample size and the degree to which the sample represents the target population affect the accuracy and generalization of a study’s reported effects. 

Pilot study: Pilot studies assess the feasibility of the proposed research procedures on small sample size. Pilot studies test the efficiency of participant recruitment with minimal practice or service interruptions. Pilot studies should not be conducted to obtain a projected effect size for a larger study population because, in a typical pilot study, the sample size is small, leading to a large standard error of that effect size. This leads to bias when projected for a large population. In the case of underestimation, this could lead to inappropriately terminating the full-scale study. As the small pilot study is equally prone to bias of overestimation of the effect size, this would lead to an underpowered study and a failed full-scale study [ 19 ]. 

The Design of Data Collection

The “perfect” study design in the theoretical phase now faces the practical and realistic challenges of feasibility. This is the step where different methods for data collection are considered, with one selected as the most appropriate based on the theoretical design along with feasibility and efficiency. The goal of this stage is to achieve the highest possible validity with the lowest risk of biases given available resources and existing constraints. 

In causal research, data on the outcome and determinants are collected with utmost accuracy via a strict protocol to maximize validity and precision. The validity of an instrument is defined as the degree of fidelity of the instrument, measuring what it is intended to measure, that is, the results of the measurement correlate with the true state of an occurrence. Another widely used word for validity is accuracy. Internal validity refers to the degree of accuracy of a study’s results to its own study sample. Internal validity is influenced by the study designs, whereas the external validity refers to the applicability of a study’s result in other populations. External validity is also known as generalizability and expresses the validity of assuming the similarity and comparability between the study population and the other populations. Reliability of an instrument denotes the extent of agreeableness of the results of repeated measurements of an occurrence by that instrument at a different time, by different investigators or in a different setting. Other terms that are used for reliability include reproducibility and precision. Preventing confounders by identifying and including them in data collection will allow statistical adjustment in the later analyses. In descriptive research, outcomes must be confirmed with a referent standard, and the determinants should be as valid as those found in real clinical practice.

Common designs for data collection include cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Many other modern epidemiology study designs are based on these classical study designs such as nested case-control, case-crossover, case-control without control, and stepwise wedge clustered RCTs. A cross-sectional study is typically a snapshot of the study population, and an RCT is almost always a prospective study. Case-control and cohort studies can be retrospective or prospective in data collection. The nested case-control design differs from the traditional case-control design in that it is “nested” in a well-defined cohort from which information on the cohorts can be obtained. This design also satisfies the assumption that cases and controls represent random samples of the same study base. Table ​ Table4 4 provides examples of these data collection designs.

Additional aspects in data collection: No single design of data collection for any research question as stated in the theoretical design will be perfect in actual conduct. This is because of myriad issues facing the investigators such as the dynamic clinical practices, constraints of time and budget, the urgency for an answer to the research question, and the ethical integrity of the proposed experiment. Therefore, feasibility and efficiency without sacrificing validity and precision are important considerations in data collection design. Therefore, data collection design requires additional consideration in the following three aspects: experimental/non-experimental, sampling, and timing [ 7 ]:

Experimental or non-experimental: Non-experimental research (i.e., “observational”), in contrast to experimental, involves data collection of the study participants in their natural or real-world environments. Non-experimental researches are usually the diagnostic and prognostic studies with cross-sectional in data collection. The pinnacle of non-experimental research is the comparative effectiveness study, which is grouped with other non-experimental study designs such as cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies [ 20 ]. It is also known as the benchmarking-controlled trials because of the element of peer comparison (using comparable groups) in interpreting the outcome effects [ 20 ]. Experimental study designs are characterized by an intervention on a selected group of the study population in a controlled environment, and often in the presence of a similar group of the study population to act as a comparison group who receive no intervention (i.e., the control group). Thus, the widely known RCT is classified as an experimental design in data collection. An experimental study design without randomization is referred to as a quasi-experimental study. Experimental studies try to determine the efficacy of a new intervention on a specified population. Table ​ Table5 5 presents the advantages and disadvantages of experimental and non-experimental studies [ 21 ].

a May be an issue in cross-sectional studies that require a long recall to the past such as dietary patterns, antenatal events, and life experiences during childhood.

Once an intervention yields a proven effect in an experimental study, non-experimental and quasi-experimental studies can be used to determine the intervention’s effect in a wider population and within real-world settings and clinical practices. Pragmatic or comparative effectiveness are the usual designs used for data collection in these situations [ 22 ].

Sampling/census: Census is a data collection on the whole source population (i.e., the study population is the source population). This is possible when the defined population is restricted to a given geographical area. A cohort study uses the census method in data collection. An ecologic study is a cohort study that collects summary measures of the study population instead of individual patient data. However, many studies sample from the source population and infer the results of the study to the source population for feasibility and efficiency because adequate sampling provides similar results to the census of the whole population. Important aspects of sampling in research planning are sample size and representation of the population. Sample size calculation accounts for the number of participants needed to be in the study to discover the actual association between the determinant and outcome. Sample size calculation relies on the primary objective or outcome of interest and is informed by the estimated possible differences or effect size from previous similar studies. Therefore, the sample size is a scientific estimation for the design of the planned study.

A sampling of participants or cases in a study can represent the study population and the larger population of patients in that disease space, but only in prevalence, diagnostic, and prognostic studies. Etiologic and interventional studies do not share this same level of representation. A cross-sectional study design is common for determining disease prevalence in the population. Cross-sectional studies can also determine the referent ranges of variables in the population and measure change over time (e.g., repeated cross-sectional studies). Besides being cost- and time-efficient, cross-sectional studies have no loss to follow-up; recall bias; learning effect on the participant; or variability over time in equipment, measurement, and technician. A cross-sectional design for an etiologic study is possible when the determinants do not change with time (e.g., gender, ethnicity, genetic traits, and blood groups). 

In etiologic research, comparability between the exposed and the non-exposed groups is more important than sample representation. Comparability between these two groups will provide an accurate estimate of the effect of the exposure (risk factor) on the outcome (disease) and enable valid inference of the causal relation to the domain (the theoretical population). In a case-control study, a sampling of the control group should be taken from the same study population (study base), have similar profiles to the cases (matching) but do not have the outcome seen in the cases. Matching important factors minimizes the confounding of the factors and increases statistical efficiency by ensuring similar numbers of cases and controls in confounders’ strata [ 23 - 24 ]. Nonetheless, perfect matching is neither necessary nor achievable in a case-control study because a partial match could achieve most of the benefits of the perfect match regarding a more precise estimate of odds ratio than statistical control of confounding in unmatched designs [ 25 - 26 ]. Moreover, perfect or full matching can lead to an underestimation of the point estimates [ 27 - 28 ].

Time feature: The timing of data collection for the determinant and outcome characterizes the types of studies. A cross-sectional study has the axis of time zero (T = 0) for both the determinant and the outcome, which separates it from all other types of research that have time for the outcome T > 0. Retrospective or prospective studies refer to the direction of data collection. In retrospective studies, information on the determinant and outcome have been collected or recorded before. In prospective studies, this information will be collected in the future. These terms should not be used to describe the relationship between the determinant and the outcome in etiologic studies. Time of exposure to the determinant, the time of induction, and the time at risk for the outcome are important aspects to understand. Time at risk is the period of time exposed to the determinant risk factors. Time of induction is the time from the sufficient exposure to the risk or causal factors to the occurrence of a disease. The latent period is when the occurrence of a disease without manifestation of the disease such as in “silence” diseases for example cancers, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus which is detected from screening practices. Figure ​ Figure3 3 illustrates the time features of a variable. Variable timing is important for accurate data capture. 

The Design of Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of epidemiologic data provides the estimate of effects after correcting for biases (e.g., confounding factors) measures the variability in the data from random errors or chance [ 7 , 16 , 29 ]. An effect estimate gives the size of an association between the studied variables or the level of effectiveness of an intervention. This quantitative result allows for comparison and assessment of the usefulness and significance of the association or the intervention between studies. This significance must be interpreted with a statistical model and an appropriate study design. Random errors could arise in the study resulting from unexplained personal choices by the participants. Random error is, therefore, when values or units of measurement between variables change in non-concerted or non-directional manner. Conversely, when these values or units of measurement between variables change in a concerted or directional manner, we note a significant relationship as shown by statistical significance. 

Variability: Researchers almost always collect the needed data through a sampling of subjects/participants from a population instead of a census. The process of sampling or multiple sampling in different geographical regions or over different periods contributes to varied information due to the random inclusion of different participants and chance occurrence. This sampling variation becomes the focus of statistics when communicating the degree and intensity of variation in the sampled data and the level of inference in the population. Sampling variation can be influenced profoundly by the total number of participants and the width of differences of the measured variable (standard deviation). Hence, the characteristics of the participants, measurements and sample size are all important factors in planning a study.

Statistical strategy: Statistical strategy is usually determined based on the theoretical and data collection designs. Use of a prespecified statistical strategy (including the decision to dichotomize any continuous data at certain cut-points, sub-group analysis or sensitive analyses) is recommended in the study proposal (i.e., protocol) to prevent data dredging and data-driven reports that predispose to bias. The nature of the study hypothesis also dictates whether directional (one-tailed) or non-directional (two-tailed) significance tests are conducted. In most studies, two-sided tests are used except in specific instances when unidirectional hypotheses may be appropriate (e.g., in superiority or non-inferiority trials). While data exploration is discouraged, epidemiological research is, by nature of its objectives, statistical research. Hence, it is acceptable to report the presence of persistent associations between any variables with plausible underlying mechanisms during the exploration of the data. The statistical methods used to produce the results should be explicitly explained. Many different statistical tests are used to handle various kinds of data appropriately (e.g., interval vs discrete), and/or the various distribution of the data (e.g., normally distributed or skewed). For additional details on statistical explanations and underlying concepts of statistical tests, readers are recommended the references as cited in this sentence [ 30 - 31 ]. 

Steps in statistical analyses: Statistical analysis begins with checking for data entry errors. Duplicates are eliminated, and proper units should be confirmed. Extremely low, high or suspicious values are confirmed from the source data again. If this is not possible, this is better classified as a missing value. However, if the unverified suspicious data are not obviously wrong, they should be further examined as an outlier in the analysis. The data checking and cleaning enables the analyst to establish a connection with the raw data and to anticipate possible results from further analyses. This initial step involves descriptive statistics that analyze central tendency (i.e., mode, median, and mean) and dispersion (i.e., (minimum, maximum, range, quartiles, absolute deviation, variance, and standard deviation) of the data. Certain graphical plotting such as scatter plot, a box-whiskers plot, histogram or normal Q-Q plot are helpful at this stage to verify data normality in distribution. See Figure ​ Figure4 4 for the statistical tests available for analyses of different types of data.

Once data characteristics are ascertained, further statistical tests are selected. The analytical strategy sometimes involves the transformation of the data distribution for the selected tests (e.g., log, natural log, exponential, quadratic) or for checking the robustness of the association between the determinants and their outcomes. This step is also referred to as inferential statistics whereby the results are about hypothesis testing and generalization to the wider population that the study’s sampled participants represent. The last statistical step is checking whether the statistical analyses fulfill the assumptions of that particular statistical test and model to avoid violation and misleading results. These assumptions include evaluating normality, variance homogeneity, and residuals included in the final statistical model. Other statistical values such as Akaike information criterion, variance inflation factor/tolerance, and R2 are also considered when choosing the best-fitted models. Transforming raw data could be done, or a higher level of statistical analyses can be used (e.g., generalized linear models and mixed-effect modeling). Successful statistical analysis allows conclusions of the study to fit the data. 

Bayesian and Frequentist statistical frameworks: Most of the current clinical research reporting is based on the frequentist approach and hypotheses testing p values and confidence intervals. The frequentist approach assumes the acquired data are random, attained by random sampling, through randomized experiments or influences, and with random errors. The distribution of the data (its point estimate and confident interval) infers a true parameter in the real population. The major conceptual difference between Bayesian statistics and frequentist statistics is that in Bayesian statistics, the parameter (i.e., the studied variable in the population) is random and the data acquired is real (true or fix). Therefore, the Bayesian approach provides a probability interval for the parameter. The studied parameter is random because it could vary and be affected by prior beliefs, experience or evidence of plausibility. In the Bayesian statistical approach, this prior belief or available knowledge is quantified into a probability distribution and incorporated into the acquired data to get the results (i.e., the posterior distribution). This uses mathematical theory of Bayes’ Theorem to “turn around” conditional probabilities.

The goal of research reporting is to present findings succinctly and timely via conference proceedings or journal publication. Concise and explicit language use, with all the necessary details to enable replication and judgment of the study applicability, are the guiding principles in clinical studies reporting.

Writing for Reporting

Medical writing is very much a technical chore that accommodates little artistic expression. Research reporting in medicine and health sciences emphasize clear and standardized reporting, eschewing adjectives and adverbs extensively used in popular literature. Regularly reviewing published journal articles can familiarize authors with proper reporting styles and help enhance writing skills. Authors should familiarize themselves with standard, concise, and appropriate rhetoric for the intended audience, which includes consideration for journal reviewers, editors, and referees. However, proper language can be somewhat subjective. While each publication may have varying requirements for submission, the technical requirements for formatting an article are usually available via author or submission guidelines provided by the target journal. 

Research reports for publication often contain a title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions section, and authors may want to write each section in sequence. However, best practices indicate the abstract and title should be written last. Authors may find that when writing one section of the report, ideas come to mind that pertains to other sections, so careful note taking is encouraged. One effective approach is to organize and write the result section first, followed by the discussion and conclusions sections. Once these are drafted, write the introduction, abstract, and the title of the report. Regardless of the sequence of writing, the author should begin with a clear and relevant research question to guide the statistical analyses, result interpretation, and discussion. The study findings can be a motivator to propel the author through the writing process, and the conclusions can help the author draft a focused introduction.

Writing for Publication

Specific recommendations on effective medical writing and table generation are available [ 32 ]. One such resource is Effective Medical Writing: The Write Way to Get Published, which is an updated collection of medical writing articles previously published in the Singapore Medical Journal [ 33 ]. The British Medical Journal’s Statistics Notes series also elucidates common and important statistical concepts and usages in clinical studies. Writing guides are also available from individual professional societies, journals, or publishers such as Chest (American College of Physicians) medical writing tips, PLoS Reporting guidelines collection, Springer’s Journal Author Academy, and SAGE’s Research methods [ 34 - 37 ]. Standardized research reporting guidelines often come in the form of checklists and flow diagrams. Table ​ Table6 6 presents a list of reporting guidelines. A full compilation of these guidelines is available at the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network website [ 38 ] which aims to improve the reliability and value of medical literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting of research studies. Publication of the trial protocol in a publicly available database is almost compulsory for publication of the full report in many potential journals.

Graphics and Tables

Graphics and tables should emphasize salient features of the underlying data and should coherently summarize large quantities of information. Although graphics provide a break from dense prose, authors must not forget that these illustrations should be scientifically informative, not decorative. The titles for graphics and tables should be clear, informative, provide the sample size, and use minimal font weight and formatting only to distinguish headings, data entry or to highlight certain results. Provide a consistent number of decimal points for the numerical results, and with no more than four for the P value. Most journals prefer cell-delineated tables created using the table function in word processing or spreadsheet programs. Some journals require specific table formatting such as the absence or presence of intermediate horizontal lines between cells.

Decisions of authorship are both sensitive and important and should be made at an early stage by the study’s stakeholders. Guidelines and journals’ instructions to authors abound with authorship qualifications. The guideline on authorship by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors is widely known and provides a standard used by many medical and clinical journals [ 39 ]. Generally, authors are those who have made major contributions to the design, conduct, and analysis of the study, and who provided critical readings of the manuscript (if not involved directly in manuscript writing). 

Picking a target journal for submission

Once a report has been written and revised, the authors should select a relevant target journal for submission. Authors should avoid predatory journals—publications that do not aim to advance science and disseminate quality research. These journals focus on commercial gain in medical and clinical publishing. Two good resources for authors during journal selection are Think-Check-Submit and the defunct Beall's List of Predatory Publishers and Journals (now archived and maintained by an anonymous third-party) [ 40 , 41 ]. Alternatively, reputable journal indexes such as Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, SCOPUS, MedLine, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO Publishing's Electronic Databases are available areas to start the search for an appropriate target journal. Authors should review the journals’ names, aims/scope, and recently published articles to determine the kind of research each journal accepts for publication. Open-access journals almost always charge article publication fees, while subscription-based journals tend to publish without author fees and instead rely on subscription or access fees for the full text of published articles.

Conclusions

Conducting a valid clinical research requires consideration of theoretical study design, data collection design, and statistical analysis design. Proper study design implementation and quality control during data collection ensures high-quality data analysis and can mitigate bias and confounders during statistical analysis and data interpretation. Clear, effective study reporting facilitates dissemination, appreciation, and adoption, and allows the researchers to affect real-world change in clinical practices and care models. Neutral or absence of findings in a clinical study are as important as positive or negative findings. Valid studies, even when they report an absence of expected results, still inform scientific communities of the nature of a certain treatment or intervention, and this contributes to future research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Reporting a study adequately and comprehensively is important for accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility of the scientific work as well as informing readers.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for their support in sponsoring the Ph.D. study and living allowances for Boon-How Chew.

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

The materials presented in this paper is being organized by the author into a book.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, nonexperimental research: strengths, weaknesses and issues of precision.

European Journal of Training and Development

ISSN : 2046-9012

Article publication date: 6 September 2016

Nonexperimental research, defined as any kind of quantitative or qualitative research that is not an experiment, is the predominate kind of research design used in the social sciences. How to unambiguously and correctly present the results of nonexperimental research, however, remains decidedly unclear and possibly detrimental to applied disciplines such as human resource development. To clarify issues about the accurate reporting and generalization of nonexperimental research results, this paper aims to present information about the relative strength of research designs, followed by the strengths and weaknesses of nonexperimental research. Further, some possible ways to more precisely report nonexperimental findings without using causal language are explored. Next, the researcher takes the position that the results of nonexperimental research can be used cautiously, yet appropriately, for making practice recommendations. Finally, some closing thoughts about nonexperimental research and the appropriate use of causal language are presented.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of the extant social science literature was consulted to inform this paper.

Nonexperimental research, when reported accurately, makes a tremendous contribution because it can be used for conducting research when experimentation is not feasible or desired. It can be used also to make tentative recommendations for practice.

Originality/value

This article presents useful means to more accurately report nonexperimental findings through avoiding causal language. Ways to link nonexperimental results to making practice recommendations are explored.

• Research design
• Experimental design
• Causal inference
• Nonexperimental
• Social science research
• Triangulation

Reio, T.G. (2016), "Nonexperimental research: strengths, weaknesses and issues of precision", European Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 40 No. 8/9, pp. 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2015-0058

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Experimental and analytical study on non-damaged reinforcement method for pipe rack steel structures.

1. Introduction

2. experimental research plan, 3. experimental results, 4. fea model presentation, 5. variable analysis, 6. conclusions.

• Experiments were conducted on specimens representing the actual size of beam–column joints used in industrial complexes. Five specimens were tested: one unreinforced specimen, three specimens reinforced with H-beams, and one specimen reinforced with steel bars. The H-beam specimens were tested with varying axial forces and H-beam sizes. The results showed that larger H-beams and higher axial forces led to a maximum strength enhancement of 1.78 times. The reinforcement using steel bars achieved a maximum strength enhancement of 1.22 times, but it was less effective compared with the H-beam reinforcement method.
• The experiment confirmed that the reinforcement method using H-beams had the best performance. Consequently, a computational analysis was conducted to evaluate this method further. The analysis was performed using the general-purpose finite element analysis software Abaqus 2022. The first step was to validate the reliability of the finite element model based on experimental results. For the unreinforced specimen, the finite element analysis results were highly consistent with the experimental data. However, for the reinforced specimens, the results varied significantly depending on the contact elements. Since the contact between surfaces in the actual experiments was not purely frictional, the friction coefficient was adjusted to increase the similarity to the experimental results. Ultimately, it was found that a friction coefficient of 0.2 yielded results similar to those observed in the experiments.
• Additional parametric analyses were conducted on the tension and member size using the validated finite element model of the reinforcement method. The results indicated that while the stiffness and strength increased with tension, the increases were negligible beyond a certain level of tension. Additionally, the yielding of the reinforcement plate due to increased tension suggested that a tension of 80 kN is safe for this reinforcement method. As the size of the members increased, the internal forces on the reinforcement members also increased, leading to greater stiffness and strength.
• This reinforcement method is considered highly suitable for strengthening structures in industrial complexes. In such environments, even minor displacements can lead to significant accidents. Traditional reinforcement methods, such as welding or drilling, can increase the risk of accidents. However, using this reinforcement method can reduce the likelihood of such incidents while ensuring sufficient strength enhancement. It is important to note, however, that the effectiveness of this method is highly sensitive to the bolt axial force, and this factor must be carefully considered.
• This study describes the reinforcement effect of the proposed method. Further research is needed to investigate various factors such as the size of existing members and reinforcement components. Ultimately, in future research, we aim to propose design methods utilizing this reinforcement method.

Author Contributions

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Xiong, Z.; Zhu, H.; Li, W.; Zhang, A.; Xin, H. Seismic Risk Assessment of a Novel Bridge-Aqueduct Cobuilt Structure. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2022 , 8 , 4–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uckan, E.; Akbas, B.; Shen, J.; Wen, R.; Turandar, K.; Erdik, M. Seismic Performance of Elevated Steel Silos during Van Earthquake, October 23, 2011. Nat. Hazards 2015 , 75 , 265–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solhmirzaei, A.; Tahamouli Roudsari, M.; Hosseini Hashemi, B. A New Detail for the Panel Zone of Beam-to-Wide Flange Column Connections with Endplate. Structures 2021 , 34 , 1108–1123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krawinkler, H.; Mohasseb, S. Effects of Panel Zone Deformations on Seismic Response. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1987 , 8 , 233–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghobarah, A.; Osman, A.; Korol, R.M. Behaviour of Extended End-Plate Connections under Cyclic Loading. Eng. Struct. 1990 , 12 , 15–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghobarah, B.A.; Korol, R.M.; Osman, A.; Member, A. Cyclic Behavior of Extended End-Plate Joints. J. Struct. Eng. 1992 , 118 , 1333–1353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Özkılıç, Y.O. Cyclic and Monotonic Performance of Unstiffened Extended End-Plate Connections Having Thin End-Plates and Large-Bolts. Eng. Struct. 2023 , 281 , 115794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francavilla, A.B.; Latour, M.; Piluso, V.; Rizzano, G. Design of Full-Strength Full-Ductility Extended End-Plate Beam-to-Column Joints. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018 , 148 , 77–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sumner, E.A.; Murray, T.M. Behavior of Extended End-Plate Moment Connections Subject to Cyclic Loading. J. Struct. Eng. 2002 , 128 , 501–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murray, T.M.; Sumner, E.A. Extended End-Plate Moment Connections Seismic and Wind Applications , 2nd ed.; American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003; pp. 1–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi, G.; Shi, Y.; Wang, Y. Behaviour of End-Plate Moment Connections under Earthquake Loading. Eng. Struct. 2007 , 29 , 703–716. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saberi, V.; Gerami, M.; Kheyroddin, A. Seismic Rehabilitation of Bolted End Plate Connections Using Post-Tensioned Tendons. Eng. Struct. 2016 , 129 , 18–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, F.X.; Chen, Y.B.; Wang, L.; Pan, Z.C.; Li, C.Y.; Yuan, T.; Deng, C.; Luo, C.; Yan, Q.W.; Liao, C.B. Hysteretic Behavior of CFST Column-Steel Beam Bolted Joints with External Reinforcing Diaphragm. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2021 , 183 , 106729. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, J.; Du, J.; Fan, Q.; Yang, J.; Bao, C.; Liu, Y. Reinforcement for Earthquake-Damaged Glued-Laminated Timber Knee-Braced Frames with Self-Tapping Screws and CFRP Fabric. Eng. Struct. 2024 , 306 , 117787. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, M.; Luo, J.; Tao, D.; Li, Z.; Sun, Y.; He, G. Rotational Behavior of Bolted Glulam Beam-to-Column Connections with Knee Brace. Eng. Struct. 2020 , 207 , 110251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Junda, E.; Leelataviwat, S.; Doung, P. Cyclic Testing and Performance Evaluation of Buckling-Restrained Knee-Braced Frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018 , 148 , 154–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, S.H.; Woo, J.H.; Lee, H.D.; Lee, W.G.; Shin, K.J. An Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Pipe-Rack Using Extended End-Plate Connection. J. Korean Soc. Steel Constr. 2022 , 34 , 269–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, H.I.; Kang, S.H.; Lee, H.D.; Lee, Y.J. Strength Evaluation of Flush Type End Plate Connection According to Haunch Shape. J. Korean Soc. Steel Constr. 2023 , 35 , 199–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nie, S.; Li, J.; Wang, H.; Deng, Y.; Chen, Z.; Elchalakani, M.; Liu, M. Seismic Behavior of Welded High-Performance Steel Beam-to-Column Joints with Different Reinforced Configurations. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2023 , 210 , 108113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ong, C.B.; Chin, C.L.; Ma, C.K.; Tan, J.Y.; Awang, A.Z.; Omar, W. Retrofit of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint Using Pre-Tensioned Stiffened Steel Angles. Structures 2022 , 46 , 1293–1312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, X.; Gernay, T.; Li, L.Z.; Lu, Z. dao Seismic Performance of Post-Fire Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Strengthened with Steel Haunch System. Eng. Struct. 2021 , 234 , 111978. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheikh, S.A. Performance of Concrete Structures Retrofitted with Fibre Reinforced Polymers. Eng. Struct. 2002 , 24 , 869–879. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manikandan, R.K.; Shunmugapriya, K.; Arunprasad, J.; Sugumar, S.; Manikandan, D. Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using CFRP with Various Adhesive. Mater. Today Proc. 2022 , 68 , 1635–1640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, S.H.; Lee, H. Du Shear Strengthening Effect by External Post-Tensioning Steel Rods in Damaged Reinforced Concrete Beams. Structures 2024 , 62 , 106327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• American Institute of Steel Construction. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. 2010, pp. 1–612. Available online: https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/publications/standards/a360-16-spec-and-commentary.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2024).
• FEMA 350—Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. Available online: https://nehrpsearch.nist.gov/static/files/FEMA/PB2007111285.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2024).
• ASTMA370-22 ; Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
• ABAQUS. AbaqusUser’s Manual Version 2021 ; Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.: Providence, RI, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Lee, J.-S.; Shin, K.-J.; Woo, J.-H. Experimental and Analytical Study on Non-Damaged Reinforcement Method for Pipe Rack Steel Structures. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092637

Lee J-S, Shin K-J, Woo J-H. Experimental and Analytical Study on Non-Damaged Reinforcement Method for Pipe Rack Steel Structures. Buildings . 2024; 14(9):2637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092637

Lee, Jun-Seop, Kyung-Jae Shin, and Jong-Hun Woo. 2024. "Experimental and Analytical Study on Non-Damaged Reinforcement Method for Pipe Rack Steel Structures" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092637

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Open access
• Published: 23 August 2024

Can immunocrit be used as a monitoring tool for swine vaccination and infection studies?

• Mònica Sagrera 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Marina Sibila 1 , 2 , 4 ,
• Núria Martínez-Boixaderas 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Anna Maria Llorens 1 , 2 , 4 ,
• David Espigares 3 ,
• Josep Pastor 5 ,
• Laura Garza-Moreno 3 &
• Joaquim Segalés 2 , 4 , 5  

Porcine Health Management volume  10 , Article number:  30 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

108 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The immunocrit is a cost-effective and straightforward technique traditionally used to assess passive immunity transfer to newborn piglets. However, it has not been previously used for monitoring the effect of vaccination and/or infections. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the immunocrit technique as an immunological monitoring tool in a vaccination and challenge scenario, using porcine circovirus 2 (PCV-2) as pathogen model. The immunocrit ratio was monitored in PCV-2 vaccinated (V) and non-vaccinated (NV) 3-week-old piglets (study day 0, SD0) that were subsequently challenged with this virus at SD21 and followed up to SD42. Additional techniques (PCV-2 IgG ELISA, optical refractometry, and proteinogram) were performed to further characterize the results of the immunocrit analysis.

Immunocrit, γ-globulin concentration and PCV-2 S/P values followed similar dynamics: descending after PCV-2 vaccination but ascending after an experimental PCV-2 inoculation. However, statistically significant differences between V and NV animals were only found with the PCV-2 ELISA. In this case, V animals had significantly higher ( p  <  0.05 ) S/P values (S/P ratio = 0.74) than NV (S/P ratio = 0.39) pigs only after challenge at SD42. On the other hand, serum total protein obtained by refractometer (STPr) were maintained from SD0 to SD21 and increased in both groups from SD21 to SD42. Correlations between techniques were low to moderate, being the most robust ones found between immunocrit and optical refractometry (ρ = 0.41) and immunocrit with γ-globulins (ρ = 0.39). In a subset of sera, the proteinogram technique was applied to the whole serum and the supernatant of the immunocrit, with the objective to characterize indirectly the immunocrit fraction. The latter one included all protein types detectable through the proteinogram, with percentages varying between 64.3% (γ-globulins) and 82% (β-globulins).

The immunocrit technique represented a fraction of the total serum proteins, with low to moderate correlation with all the complementary techniques measured in this study. Its determination at different time points did not allow monitoring the effect of vaccination and/or infection using PCV-2 as a pathogen model.

The advancements in pig breeding genetics, resulting in highly prolific sows and larger litters with consistent weight differences at birth, pose a critical challenge for the swine production [ 12 ]. Piglets are born immunologically incompetent due to the epitheliochorial placental structure, which impedes the transfer of immune cells and antibodies to the foetus during gestation [ 35 ]. Consequently, piglets acquire passive immunity solely through colostrum ingestion within the initial 24 h after farrowing [ 7 , 35 ]. It is essential to note that the piglet's gut barrier seals between 24 to 36 h after farrowing and, subsequently, immunoglobulin (Ig) absorption is no longer guaranteed [ 20 , 26 ]. Colostrum contents milk and other elements of blood plasma, such as antibodies (specially IgG) [ 5 , 29 ]. However, certain piglets fail to consume a proper amount of colostrum, as well as some dams fail to initiate its production or it is insufficient, which make piglets more susceptible to infections during the first weeks of life [ 8 , 26 , 31 , 32 , 33 ].

The immunocrit is an economically viable and easy-to-perform technique traditionally used to roughly measure Ig within the first days of life from piglets [ 30 ], and other species such as calves and foals [ 2 , 24 , 25 , 27 ], reflecting the colostrum intake. This measurement allows the implementation of strategies such as cross-fostering to improve the amount and uniformity of colostrum that receives each littermate [ 16 , 32 ]. Notably, immunocrit has not been evaluated beyond the first days of life in pigs, neither other species.

In pigs, the decay of maternally derived immunity (MDI), although variable among pathogens, is generally expected to occur in the first weeks of life [ 22 , 23 , 34 ]. The transfer of MDI during the first days of life has been assessed using different methodologies apart from immunocrit, such as optical refractometry, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the proteinogram [ 9 , 15 , 26 ]. Vaccination and/or infection are processes that will influence the Ig levels, which depend also on factors such as level and duration of maternally derived antibodies (MDA), antigen load, vaccine type, and genetics, among others [ 1 ]. These variations have been widely studied for vaccination and/or infection against specific pathogens using ELISA, but less frequently with proteinogram technique due to their associated cost [ 10 , 26 ].

Optical refractometry measures the serum total protein (STP), offering a very rough estimate of the total Ig concentration. In serum samples from neonatal piglets (after colostrum intake) Igs represent the major fraction (> 50%) of STP [ 4 , 9 , 17 , 26 ]. In contrast, the proteinogram technique provides specific concentrations of STP (STPp) in five protein fractions: albumin and α-1, α-2, β, and γ-globulins [ 28 ].

The present study aimed to assess the immunocrit values of pigs at weaning and compare their evolution post-vaccination and subsequent viral challenge under experimental settings, using Porcine circovirus 2 (PCV-2) as pathogen model. Immunocrit results were further characterized by means of proteinogram and optical refractometry.

Materials and methods

Experimental study design and sample analysis.

The experimental study design is described in Fig.  1 . Seventy-two clinically healthy and PCV-2 qPCR negative piglets from non-PCV-2 vaccinated sows during gestation were selected at 2 weeks of age from their farm of origin. Usual farm practices were to vaccinate sows against Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae three weeks before farrowing and a combined immunization against Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae and Porcine parvovirus during lactation. The health status of the farm of origin included a positive stable status for Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and seropositivity against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae , Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae , and Glaesserella parasuis .

Scheme of the study design. NV: not vaccinated (received PBS intramuscularly); V: vaccinated; SD: study day; STP: serum total protein; woa: weeks of age

At 3 weeks of age (study day 0 [SD0]), half of the animals were vaccinated with a PCV-2 inactivated vaccine (Circovac®, Ceva) following manufacturer instructions, and the other half were injected with phosphate buffered saline (PBS), resulting in 2 groups: vaccinated (V) (n = 36), and not vaccinated (NV) (n = 36), respectively. Three weeks after vaccination (SD21), all animals were challenged with 3 mL of inoculum 10 4 –10 5 TCID 50 /mL of PCV-2b strain Sp-6-11-49-16. The study finished three weeks after challenge, at SD42. Serum samples were obtained at SD0, SD21 and SD42. Four animals (3 from NV group and 1 from V group) died between SD0 and SD21 due to polyserositis and meningitis associated to Streptococcus suis , and unrelated to the vaccination. This study was approved by the Ethics Commission of Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain) under the reference CEA-11397.

From the 68 animals that finished the study, a total of 204 serum samples from three different time-points (SD0, SD21 and SD42) were tested by immunocrit, PCV-2 IgG ELISA and optical refractometry. Additionally, a sample subset (n = 42, 20% of the total samples) was subjected to a proteinogram analysis. These 42 sera samples belonged to SD0, SD21 and SD42 of 6 randomly selected animals of the V group (n = 18) and 8 randomly selected animals of the NV group (n = 24). Finally, the supernatant after performing the immunocrit technique of 10 randomly selected samples of the subset (3 from SD0, 3 from SD21 and 4 from SD42) was additionally subjected to proteinogram analysis to compare the protein content before and after immunocrit precipitation, thereby elucidating the proportion of protein precipitated by ammonium sulphate.

Immunocrit technique

Sixty microliters of serum of each sample (n = 204) were vortexed and mixed with 60 µL 40% (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) following a previously published protocol [ 30 ]. Each sample was centrifuged at maximum speed (12.000 rpm) (Centromix II–BL, JP Selecta, Abrera, Spain) in a haematocrit microcapillary tube (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for 5 min. The immunocrit ratio was determined by dividing the length of the precipitate in the tube with the length of the solution in the tube [ 30 ]. This calculation was performed using the Hawksley microhaematocrit reader (Hawksley, Sussex, England). Negative controls were assessed by mixing 60 µL of serum with 60 µL of distilled water and centrifuging in a haematocrit tube, and also mixing 60 µL of distilled water with 60 µL 40% (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 .

Indirect ELISA to detect anti-PCV-2 IgG antibodies

PCV-2 antibodies were detected from serum samples, at SD0 (n = 68), SD21 (n = 68) and SD42 (n = 68), using an indirect commercial ELISA assay (Ingezim Circo IgG 11.PCV.K1® assay, INGENASA, Madrid, Spain), following manufacturer’s instructions. All serum samples from each animal were run on the same ELISA plate. The optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm by the Sunrise™ reader (Tecan, Männendorf, Switzerland). ELISA results were expressed as mean S/P ratio (OD of sample/OD of positive control for each ELISA plate) per tested animal.

Optical refractometry

The STP by optical refractometry (STPr) was measured in all the 204 serum samples. Briefly, 80 µL serum (previously vortexed) were added to on an optical refractometer (Euromex®, Arnhem, Netherlands) and an operator (always the same) read the STPr value from the integrated graduated scale (grams of total solid/dL of solution). Before start, the refractometer was calibrated with distilled water, and between each sample, it was cleaned with tap water.

Proteinogram technique

The proteinogram was performed in the previously mentioned subset of 42 samples using 250 µL of serum and measured by capillary electrophoresis (MiniCap Flex Piercing, Lisses, France) at the Veterinary Biochemical Service (UAB, Bellaterra, Spain). This technique detects the STPp, which determines the amount and percentage of albumin and α-1, α-2, β, and γ-globulins. The STPs was detected using the OSR (Olympus System Reagent®, Beckman Coulter, Pasadena, CA, USA) reagent for the Biuret method and analysed by an Olympus AU480 machine (Beckman Coulter, Pasadena, CA, USA).

To determine the percentage of protein precipitated after ammonium sulphate (immunocrit technique), 300 µL of the previously mentioned sample subset (n = 10) was vortexed and mixed with 300 µL of 40% (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 in 1.5 mL tubes (Eppendorf®, Hamburg, Germany) [ 30 ]. Samples were centrifugated at 12,700 g during 5 min (Eppendorf® Centrifuge 5425 R, Hamburg, Germany) [ 30 ]. A total of 250 µL of the supernatant were aspirated using a pipette and introduced into a new 1.5 mL tube, and the proteinogram technique was subsequently performed.

Statistical analyses

The normality of all studied quantitative variables (immunocrit ratios, PCV-2 ELISA S/P ratios, STPr, STPp, albumin, α-1, α-2, β, and γ-globulins concentration) was checked for each group and time-point by the Shapiro Wilk’s test. Immunocrit ratio, STPr concentration and PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio differences between study days (SD0, SD21 and SD42) were analysed with the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test and Dunn’s multiple comparison test, and between V and NV groups with the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test. Differences on STPp, albumin, and α-1, α-2, β, and γ-globulins concentration between study days were analysed with the parametric ANOVA one way test and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, and the t-test was used to compare between V and NV groups.

Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) was calculated and a matrix was performed to study the correlation between techniques (immunocrit ratio, STPr, PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio, STPp, and globulins concentration). Moreover, second-order polynomial regressions were performed to explore the non-linear relationship (Draper and Smith, 1998) between immunocrit ratio and the following parameters: STPr, STPp and γ-globulins concentrations and PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio. Additionally, the second order polynomial regression was also performed between PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio and γ-globulins concentration, and between STPr and STPp concentrations. Statistical analyses and graphics were performed with Graphpad® (La Jolla, CA, USA). The significance level ( p -value) was set at 0.05.

Immunocrit ratio averages for V and NV groups are shown in Fig.  2 A. Both V and NV groups showed a descending dynamic after vaccination (from SD0 [vaccination] to SD21[challenge]) and an increasing one after PCV-2 infection (from SD21 to SD42 [necropsy]). Indeed, no statistically significant differences were detected when comparing groups at any sampling point. In contrast, a significantly lower immunocrit ratio ( p  < 0.05) was observed in V pigs at SD21 compared to SD0 and SD42.

Results of the performed techniques at different time-points for V and NV animals. A immunocrit, B PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio, and C STPr (obtained by optical refractometry). For each technique, different uppercase letters indicate statistically significant differences between V and NV for each particular study day, and the lowercase ones indicate statistically significant differences within a group between study days (p < 0.05). V: vaccinated; NV: not vaccinated; SD: study day; STP: serum total protein

PCV-2 antibody levels measured by PCV-2 IgG ELISA

PCV-2 ELISA S/P ratios for V and NV pigs are depicted in Fig.  2 B. In both groups, the S/P ratio dynamics from SD0 (vaccination) to SD21 (challenge) was descendent ( p  < 0.05). After PCV-2 challenge, S/P level from the V group increased significantly from SD21 to SD42 ( p  < 0.05), being significantly higher ( p  < 0.05) than the one from the NV group.

Serum total protein determination by optical refractometry

The STPr average results from V and NV groups followed a similar pattern (Fig.  2 C). Moreover, these values were not significantly different between SD0 and SD21 for both groups but increased significantly by SD42.

Serum total protein, albumin and globulins concentration determined by the proteinogram technique

No differences were observed between V and NV groups, neither between study days for STPp (Fig.  3 A) and albumin (Fig.  3 B). However, α-1 globulins decreased significantly from SD21 to SD42 (p < 0.05), but only in the NV group (Fig.  3 C). α-2 (Fig.  3 D) and β globulins (Fig.  3 E), did not show any significant change along the study period, but γ globulins showed a descending dynamic in both groups (being only significant for the NV group) from SD0 to SD21 and an ascending one from SD21 to SD42 (Fig.  3 F).

Results of different parameters obtained with the proteinogram technique at different time-points for V and NV animals. A STPp, B albumin, C α-1 globulin, D α-2 globulin, E β globulin, and F γ globulin concentration (g/dl). For each parameter, different uppercase superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences between V (bold) and NV (dotted) for each particular study day, and the lowercase ones indicate statistically significant differences within a group between study days ( p  < 0.05). V: vaccinated; NV: not vaccinated; SD: study day; STPp: serum total protein obtained by proteinogram technique

Correlation and regression analysis between parameters

Correlations and regression between studied parameters are shown in Fig.  4 and Supplementary Fig. 1 , respectively. The highest correlation values were obtained between immunocrit ratio and STPr (ρ = 0.41, p  <  0.05 ) (Figs.  4 and Supplementary Fig. 1A ), followed by immunocrit versus γ-globulin concentration (ρ = 0.39, p  <  0.05 ) (Figs.  4 and Supplementary Fig. 1B ). The correlation of immunocrit ratio vs. PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio was low (ρ = 0.23, p  <  0.05 ), as well as the one obtained between STPp vs. STPr concentrations (ρ = -0.21, p  >  0.05 ), PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio vs. γ-globulin concentration (ρ = 0.20, p  >  0.05 ) and immunocrit ratio vs. STPp (ρ = − 0.10, p  >  0.05 ) (Fig.  4 ). The R-squared values for the polynomial regressions were low (0.02–0.33) for all of them ( Supplementary Figs. 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F ).

Spearman’s correlation matrix between parameters: immunocrit ratio, STPr, PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio, γ-globulin concentration and STPp. STPp: serum total protein obtained by the proteinogram technique; STPr: serum total protein obtained by optical refractometry. The asterisk symbol (*) indicates that the correlation among the analyzed parameters is statistically significant ( p  < 0.05)

Composition of the supernatant and precipitated fraction after (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 treatment of serum for the immunocrit analysis

The supernatant (non-precipitated fraction) of the serum after immunocrit analyses contained 28.9% of the STPp (1.54 ± 0.19 g/dL), which indicate that only the 71.1% of the STP was precipitated when the immunocrit analyses was performed (Fig.  5 ). The immunocrit supernatants contained different proportion of STP components, being 35.7% of γ-globulins. This value indicated that the immunocrit precipitate contained only 64.3% of the total γ-globulins present in the serum (Fig.  5 ). Therefore, the precipitate of the immunocrit is composed by approximately two thirds of each of the protein fractions found in a serum proteinogram.

Comparison of protein concentrations (measured by the proteinogram technique) of complete serum (prior precipitation) and the supernatant after immunocrit technique (following precipitation with 40% (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ). Protein concentrations of the precipitate were inferred by substracting the protein concentration of the supernatant (17.2–35.7%) from the protein concentration of the complete serum (100%). Concentration values are expressed g/dl

The present study assessed for the first time the use of the immunocrit technique as a monitoring tool after vaccination and infection in pigs, employing PCV-2 as a pathogen model. Considering that immunocrit is used as a proxy for colostrum intake (and indirectly as a rough estimation of the MDA amount) [ 30 ], its further use at older ages was evaluated, mainly in the context of monitoring the outcome of an experimental setting including vaccination and infection. To enhance the comprehension of the obtained immunocrit results, complementary techniques to detect specific Igs (PCV-2 IgG ELISA) and STP (STPr and STPp) as well as their fractions (proteinogram), were performed.

The descending dynamics of immunocrit and PCV-2 antibodies from SD0 to SD21 in V and NV groups may be attributed to the normal decay of MDA. Specifically, such decline has been documented to occur between 4 and 12 weeks of age for PCV-2 antibodies [ 13 , 21 , 22 ]. This decrease of PCV-2 specific IgGs at SD21 (following PCV-2 vaccination for the V group and PBS intramuscular injection for the NV group) was comparable in both groups, which aligns with findings from previous studies where immunoglobulin levels (using similar vaccine formulation and vaccination ages) decreased during the few weeks after immunization [ 14 , 19 , 21 ]. However, 21 days after PCV-2b experimental challenge (SD42), only the V group revealed PCV-2 IgG seroconversion by ELISA, while both V and NV groups showed an increasing trend of immunocrit values. This fact may explain why despite similar dynamics between PCV-2 IgG ELISA and immunocrit ratio results before the challenge, the overall correlation between both techniques was low (ρ = 0.23). Such low correlation would suggest a poor biological association between both variables. Multiple reasons may account for this result, being the main one that the mentioned ELISA detects PCV-2 specific IgGs, while immunocrit detects generic Igs based on the literature [ 26 , 30 ]. Indeed, for a given immunocrit ratio value, multiple corresponding PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratio values were observed. In consequence, obtained results point out that immunocrit is a poor proxy for antibody monitoring as well as the other way around.

A descending γ-globulin dynamics between 2 and 6 weeks of age has been reported in another study using the proteinogram technique [ 29 ]. In the present study, the evolution of average γ-globulin concentrations and immunocrit ratios was similar (although with a low correlation of individual values) across all time-points in both V and NV groups. As previously mentioned, immunocrit roughly measures generic Igs [ 30 ]. However, when the immunocrit concentrate was studied by means of the proteinogram technique, it was found that measures a proportion of STP containing approximately 64% of total γ-globulins and a variable proportion between 67 and 83% of other serum proteins. Therefore, care must be taken when considering the immunocrit as a measure of Igs, since significant variations of other serum proteins may account for variability in the immunocrit value. Moreover, given that γ-globulins encompass other Igs such as IgA, IgE, IgG, and IgM [ 3 , 6 ] and immunocrit includes a proportion of all Igs (not only IgG) as well as other serum proteins, it should be expectable that the effect of a single vaccination (inactivated vaccine in the present case) is probably negligible at modifying significantly the immunocrit and γ-globulin values.

Although low, the immunocrit ratio had the highest overall correlation with the results of the STPr when compared with all used techniques. Such correlation should not be surprising considering that immunocrit roughly measures 60–80% of the STP, being therefore, a plausible biological association. Amazingly, when a more precise technique such as the proteinogram [ 18 ] is used, correlation with immunocrit was even negative. This result was unexpected on beforehand, but not so surprising when confirming that the correlation between STPr and STPp had also a negative correlation. It must be noted that refractometer scales are typically calibrated for serum of human and/or companion animals (i.e. dog, cat), assuming that non-protein solutes like electrolytes are at similar and relatively low concentrations across species [ 18 ]. Additionally, variations in other substances like lipids, which can alter solution density, could contribute to the inaccuracy of STPr assessments [ 18 ].

Obtained results indicated that the immunocrit technique did not allow monitoring groups of pigs under vaccination and/or infection scenarios, at least using PCV-2 as a model pathogen. Although variation of this parameter in postweaning pigs was subtle, it decreased slightly by 3 weeks after vaccination, and increased 3 weeks post-challenge. Further analysis of the immunocrit showed that this ratio reflects approximately two thirds of the total γ-globulins in serum.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Immunoglobulin

Maternally derived immunity

Spearman correlation coefficient

Phosphate-buffered saline

• Porcine circovirus 2

Serum total protein obtained by optical refractometry

Serum total protein obtained by proteinogram technique

Not vaccinated

Augustyniak A, Pomorska-Mól M. Vaccination failures in pigs–the impact of chosen factors on the immunisation efficacy. Vaccines. 2023;11:230. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020230 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Behrenz-Krolikowski TR, Krolikowski G, Douglas-Kummer A, Barden A, Bonavigo A, Guisso CA, Miranda-Prestes A, Bennemann E. Performance of piglets according to colostrum intake and serum immunoglobulin concentration determined by the immunocrit method. Ciência Rural. 2021;51:3. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20200038 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Butler JE, Brown WR. The immunoglobulins and immunoglobulin genes of swine. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1994;43(1–3):5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2427(94)90114-7 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cabrera RA, Lin X, Campbell JM, Moeser AJ, Odle J. Influence of birth order, birth weight, colostrum and serum immunoglobulin G on neonatal piglet survival. J Animal Sci Biotechnol. 2012;3:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-3-42 .

Chucri TM, Monteiro JM, Lima AR, Salvadori ML, Kfoury JR Jr, Miglino MA. A review of immune transfer by the placenta. J Reprod Immunol. 2010;87(1–2):14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jri.2010.08.062 .

Crawley A, Wilkie BN. Porcine Ig isotypes: function and molecular characteristics. Vaccine. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-410x(03)00142-7 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Croy BA, Wessels JM, Linton NF, Van den Heuvel M, Edwards AK, Tayade C. Cellular and molecular events in early and mid gestation porcine implantation sites: a review. Soc Reprod Fert. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1530/biosciprocs.18.0029 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Declerck I, Dewulf J, Sarrazin S, Maes D. Long-term effects of colostrum intake in piglet mortality and performance1. J Animal Sci. 2016;94(4):1633–43. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9564 .

Deelen S, Ollivett T, Haines D, Leslie K. Evaluation of a Brix refractometer to estimate serum immunoglobulin G concentration in neonatal dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97:3838–44. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-7939 .

Devillers N, Le Dividich J, Prunier A. Influence of colostrum intake on piglet survival and immunity. Animal. 2011;2011(5):1605–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111100067X .

Draper NR, Smith H. Applied regression analysis. New York: Wiley; 1998.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ferrari CV, Sbardella PE, Bernardi ML, Coutinho ML, Vaz IS, Wentz I, Bortolozzo FP. Effect of birth weight and colostrum intake on mortality and performance of piglets after cross-fostering in sows of different parities. Prev Vet Med. 2013;114(3–4):259–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.02.013 .

Feng H, Segalés J, Fraile L, López-Soria S, Sibila M. Effect of high and low levels of maternally derived antibodies on porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) infection dynamics and production parameters in PCV2 vaccinated pigs under field conditions. Vaccine. 2016;34(27):3044–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.088 .

Fraile L, Grau-Roma L, Sarasola P, Sinovas N, Nofrarías M, López-Jimenez R, López-Soria S, Sibila M, Segalés J. Inactivated PCV2 one shot vaccine applied in 3-week-old piglets: improvement of production parameters and interaction with maternally derived immunity. Vaccine. 2012;30(11):1986–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.01.008 .

Hendrix WF, Kelley KW, Gaskins CT, Hinrichs DJ. Porcine neonatal survival and serum gamma globulins. J Anim Sci. 1978;47:1281–6. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.4761281x .

Holyoake PK, Dial GD, Trigg T, King VL. Reducing pig mortality through supervision during the perinatal period. J Anim Sci. 1995;73:3543–51. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73123543x .

Huang Y, Olson DJ, Gordon JR, Middleton DM, Simko E. Plasma protein profiles of neonatal pigs before and after suckling. Can J Vet Res. 2012;76:1–7.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hunsaker JJH, Wyness SP, Snow TM, Genzen JR. Clinical performance evaluation of total protein measurement by digital refractometry and characterization of non-protein solute interferences. Pract Lab Med. 2016;6:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2016.08.001 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kiss J, Szigeti K, Homonnay Z, Tamás V, Smits H, Krejci R. Maternally derived antibody levels influence on vaccine protection against PCV2d challenge. Animals. 2021;11:8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082231 .

Klobasa F, Werhahn E, Butler JE. Composition of sow milk during lactation. J Anim Sci. 1987;64(5):1458–66. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.6451458x .

Martelli P, Saleri R, Ferrarini G, De Angelis E, Cavalli V, Benetti M, Ferrari L, Canelli E, Bonilauri P, Arioli E, Caleffi A, Nathues H, Borghetti P. Impact of maternally derived immunity on piglets’ immune response and protection against porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) after vaccination against PCV2 at different age. BMC Vet Res. 2016;12:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0700-1 .

Martínez-Boixaderas N, Garza-Moreno L, Sibila M, Segalés J. Impact of maternally derived immunity on immune responses elicited by piglet early vaccination against the most common pathogens involved in porcine respiratory disease complex. Porcine Health Manag. 2022;8:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-022-00252-3 .

Morris CR, Gardner IA, Hietala SK, Carpenter TE, Anderson RJ, Parker KM. Persistence of passively acquired antibodies to Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in a swine herd. Prev Vet Med. 1994;21(1):29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5877(94)90030-2 .

Mortola E, Miceli G, Alarcon L, Azcurra M, Larsen A. Assessment of the immunocrit method to detect failure of passive immunity in newborn foals. Equine Vet J. 2020;52(5):760–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13237 .

Peters BM, Krantz SA, Holtkamp DJ, Wang C, Galina L. Reference values for immunocrit ratios to assess maternal antibody uptake in 1-day-old piglets. J Swine Health Prod. 2016;24(1):36–41.

Schoos A, De Spiegelaere W, Cools A, Pardon B, Van Audenhove E, Bernaerdt E, Janssens GPJ, Maes D. Evaluation of the agreement between Brix refractometry and serum immunoglobulin concentration in neonatal piglets. Animal. 2021;15(1):100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100041 .

Thompson KA, Rayburn MC, Chigerwe M. Evaluation of the immunocrit method to detect failure of passively acquired immunity in dairy calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2017;251(6):702–5. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.251.6.702 .

Tóthova C, Nagy O, Kovac G. Serum proteins and their diagnostic utility in veterinary medicine: a review. Veterinárni Medicína. 2016;61(9):475–96.

Tóthova C, Link R, Kyzeková P, Nagy O. Serum protein electrophoretic pattern in piglets during the early postnatal period. Sci Rep. 2021;11:17539. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96957-6 .

Vallet JL, Miles JR, Rempel LA. A simple novel measure of passive transfer of maternal immunoglobulin is predictive of preweaning mortality in piglets. Vet J. 2013;195:91–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.06.009 .

Vallet JL, Miles JR. The effect of farrowing induction on colostrum and piglet serum immunocrits is dependent on parity. J Anim Sci. 2017;95(2):688–96. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.0993 .

Vallet JL, Miles JR, Rempel LA, Nonneman DJ, Lents CA. Relationships between day one piglet serum immunoglobulin immunocrit and subsequent growth, puberty attainment, litter size, and lactation performance. J Anim Sci. 2015;93(6):2722–9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8535 .

Varley M, Maitland A, Towle A. Artificial rearing of piglets: the administration of two sources of immunoglobulins after birth. Anim Sci. 1986;43:121–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100018407 .

Vigre H, Ersbøll AK, Sørensen V. Decay of acquired colostral antibodies to Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in pigs. J Vet Med Ser B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2003;50(9):430–5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0931-1793.2003.00700.x .

Wooding FBP, Flint APS. Placentation. In: Lamming GE, editor. Marschall’s physiology of reproduction. London: Chapman Hall; 1994. p. 305–12.

Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

Mònica Sagrera is holder of an Industrial Doctorat grant from the Catalan Government (Spain), with the reference Nº. 2022 DI 56.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

IRTA, Programa de Sanitat Animal, Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), Campus de La UAB, 08193, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain

Mònica Sagrera, Marina Sibila, Núria Martínez-Boixaderas & Anna Maria Llorens

Unitat Mixta d’Investigació IRTA-UAB en Sanitat Animal, Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), Campus de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

Mònica Sagrera, Marina Sibila, Núria Martínez-Boixaderas, Anna Maria Llorens & Joaquim Segalés

Ceva Salud Animal, Avenida Diagonal, 08017, Barcelona, Spain

Mònica Sagrera, Núria Martínez-Boixaderas, David Espigares & Laura Garza-Moreno

WOAH Collaborating Center for Research and Control of Emerging and Re-Emerging Pig Diseases in Europe (IRTA-CReSA), 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

Marina Sibila, Anna Maria Llorens & Joaquim Segalés

Departament de Sanitat i Anatomia Animals, Facultat de Veterinària, UAB, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

Josep Pastor & Joaquim Segalés

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MSC, LGM, MS and JS designed the study. NMB, MS and JS obtained the samples. MSC and AML analysed the samples. MSC, MS, LGM, JP and JS analysed the results. MSC drafted the manuscript and all authors revised it.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Laura Garza-Moreno or Joaquim Segalés .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Ethics Commission of Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain) under the reference CEA-11397.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Mònica Sagrera, Laura Garza-Moreno, and David Espigares are employees of Ceva Salud Animal.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sagrera, M., Sibila, M., Martínez-Boixaderas, N. et al. Can immunocrit be used as a monitoring tool for swine vaccination and infection studies?. Porc Health Manag 10 , 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00380-y

Download citation

Received : 16 April 2024

Accepted : 12 July 2024

Published : 23 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00380-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Vaccination
• Total serum protein

Porcine Health Management

ISSN: 2055-5660

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

Non-performing Loan and Its Management in Ethiopia: A case study on Dashen Bank Mekelle Area Bank, in Tigray

Ids item types, copyright holder, usage metrics.

• Keep it simple - don't use too many different parameters.
• Example: (diode OR solid-state) AND laser [search contains "diode" or "solid-state" and laser]
• Example: (photons AND downconversion) - pump [search contains both "photons" and "downconversion" but not "pump"]
• Improve efficiency in your search by using wildcards.
• Asterisk ( * ) -- Example: "elect*" retrieves documents containing "electron," "electronic," and "electricity"
• Question mark (?) -- Example: "gr?y" retrieves documents containing "grey" or "gray"
• Use quotation marks " " around specific phrases where you want the entire phrase only.
• For best results, use the separate Authors field to search for author names.
• Use these formats for best results: Smith or J Smith
• Use a comma to separate multiple people: J Smith, RL Jones, Macarthur
• Note: Author names will be searched in the keywords field, also, but that may find papers where the person is mentioned, rather than papers they authored.

Optics Letters

• pp. 4887-4890
• • https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.533610

Experimental study of intramodal XPM reduction by intramodal dispersion in weakly coupled FMF

Mingqing Zuo, Gang Qiao, Yu Yang, Chengbin Long, Dawei Ge, Dong Wang, Yunbo Li, Zhangyuan Chen, Dechao Zhang, Han Li, and Juhao Li

Author Affiliations

Mingqing Zuo, 1 Gang Qiao, 2 Yu Yang, 3 Chengbin Long, 2 Dawei Ge, 1 Dong Wang, 1 Yunbo Li, 1 Zhangyuan Chen, 2 Dechao Zhang, 1 Han Li, 1 and Juhao Li 2, 3, *

1 China Mobile Research Institute, Beijing 100053, China

2 State Key Lab of Advanced Optical Communication Systems and Networks, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

3 Peng Cheng Laboratory, Shenzhen 518066, China

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Your library or personal account may give you access

• Share with Facebook
• X Share on X
• Post on reddit
• Share with LinkedIn
• Add to Mendeley

• Share with WeChat
• Endnote (RIS)
• Citation alert
• Save article
• Fiber Optics and Optical Communications
• Erbium-doped fiber amplifiers
• Few mode fibers
• Mode conversion
• Polarization mode dispersion
• Quadrature amplitude modulation
• Signal processing
• Original Manuscript: June 21, 2024
• Manuscript Accepted: August 6, 2024
• Published: August 23, 2024
• Full Article
• Figures ( 5 )
• Data Availability
• Tables ( 3 )
• References ( 17 )
• Back to Top

The understanding of nonlinear propagation effects in low-crosstalk few-mode fiber is crucial for a weakly coupled mode-division multiplexed system. In this Letter, we report the first, to the best of our knowledge, experimental verification of the advantage of intramodal dispersion on mitigating intramodal cross-phase modulation in a weakly coupled few-mode fiber transmission. The experimental system is established over a 70-km multiple-ring-core few-mode fiber accommodating 6 linearly polarized modes, based on which the influences of intramodal cross-phase modulation on transmission performances of each linearly polarized mode are evaluated. Experimental results show that the intramodal cross-phase modulation of degenerate linearly polarized modes with much larger intramodal dispersion values are significantly weaker than those of non-degenerate linearly polarized modes, in which the maximum suppression of intramodal cross-phase modulation noise is up to 9.7 dB. We believe that this work would be beneficial to practical applications of weakly coupled mode-division multiplexing technologies.

© 2024 Optica Publishing Group. All rights, including for text and data mining (TDM), Artificial Intelligence (AI) training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

Yu Yang, Gang Qiao, Honglin Ji, Zhaopeng Xu, Tonghui Ji, Qi Wu, Shangcheng Wang, Lulu Liu, Chengbin Long, Mingqing Zuo, Jiarui Zhang, Lei Shen, Jie Luo, Weisheng Hu, and Juhao Li Opt. Lett. 49 (16) 4705-4708 (2024)

Gang Qiao, Chengbin Long, Yu Yang, Zhaopeng Xu, Mingqing Zuo, Qi Wu, Shangcheng Wang, Lulu Liu, Lei Shen, Jie Luo, Zhixue He, Honglin Ji, Weisheng Hu, Zhangyuan Chen, and Juhao Li Opt. Lett. 49 (4) 981-984 (2024)

Mingqing Zuo, Dawei Ge, JiaXin Liu, Yuyang Gao, Lei Shen, Xiaobo Lan, Zhangyuan Chen, Yongqi He, and Juhao Li Opt. Express 30 (4) 5868-5878 (2022)

Ruiting Cheng, Qichen He, Mingqing Zuo, Yu Yang, Chuyu Peng, Zhangyuan Chen, Yongqi He, and Juhao Li Opt. Express 31 (20) 31937-31945 (2023)

Yu Tian, Juhao Li, Zhongying Wu, Yuanxiang Chen, Paikun Zhu, Ruizhi Tang, Qi Mo, Yongqi He, and Zhangyuan Chen Opt. Express 25 (14) 16603-16617 (2017)

Data availability

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

Contact your librarian or system administrator or Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (5)

Miguel Alonso, Editor-in-Chief

Modal Characteristics in Fabricated MRC-FMF

Back-to-Back Insertion Loss of a Pair of MSCs

Modal Crosstalk over the Whole FMF Link

Confirm Citation Alert

Field error.

• Publishing Home
• Conferences
• Preprints (Optica Open)
• Information for
• Open Access Information
• Open Access Statement and Policy
• Terms for Journal Article Reuse
• Other Resources
• Optica Open
• Optica Publishing Group Bookshelf
• Optics ImageBank
• Optics & Photonics News
• Spotlight on Optics
• Optica Home
• About Optica Publishing Group
• About My Account
• Sign up for Alerts
• Send Us Feedback
• Go to My Account
• Login to access favorites
• Recent Pages

Login or Create Account