4 principles of experimental design

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Guide to Experimental Design | Overview, Steps, & Examples

Guide to Experimental Design | Overview, 5 steps & Examples

Published on December 3, 2019 by Rebecca Bevans . Revised on June 21, 2023.

Experiments are used to study causal relationships . You manipulate one or more independent variables and measure their effect on one or more dependent variables.

Experimental design create a set of procedures to systematically test a hypothesis . A good experimental design requires a strong understanding of the system you are studying.

There are five key steps in designing an experiment:

• Consider your variables and how they are related
• Write a specific, testable hypothesis
• Design experimental treatments to manipulate your independent variable
• Assign subjects to groups, either between-subjects or within-subjects
• Plan how you will measure your dependent variable

For valid conclusions, you also need to select a representative sample and control any  extraneous variables that might influence your results. If random assignment of participants to control and treatment groups is impossible, unethical, or highly difficult, consider an observational study instead. This minimizes several types of research bias, particularly sampling bias , survivorship bias , and attrition bias as time passes.

Table of contents

Step 1: define your variables, step 2: write your hypothesis, step 3: design your experimental treatments, step 4: assign your subjects to treatment groups, step 5: measure your dependent variable, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about experiments.

You should begin with a specific research question . We will work with two research question examples, one from health sciences and one from ecology:

To translate your research question into an experimental hypothesis, you need to define the main variables and make predictions about how they are related.

Start by simply listing the independent and dependent variables .

Then you need to think about possible extraneous and confounding variables and consider how you might control  them in your experiment.

Finally, you can put these variables together into a diagram. Use arrows to show the possible relationships between variables and include signs to show the expected direction of the relationships.

Here we predict that increasing temperature will increase soil respiration and decrease soil moisture, while decreasing soil moisture will lead to decreased soil respiration.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Now that you have a strong conceptual understanding of the system you are studying, you should be able to write a specific, testable hypothesis that addresses your research question.

The next steps will describe how to design a controlled experiment . In a controlled experiment, you must be able to:

• Systematically and precisely manipulate the independent variable(s).
• Precisely measure the dependent variable(s).
• Control any potential confounding variables.

If your study system doesn’t match these criteria, there are other types of research you can use to answer your research question.

How you manipulate the independent variable can affect the experiment’s external validity – that is, the extent to which the results can be generalized and applied to the broader world.

First, you may need to decide how widely to vary your independent variable.

• just slightly above the natural range for your study region.
• over a wider range of temperatures to mimic future warming.
• over an extreme range that is beyond any possible natural variation.

Second, you may need to choose how finely to vary your independent variable. Sometimes this choice is made for you by your experimental system, but often you will need to decide, and this will affect how much you can infer from your results.

• a categorical variable : either as binary (yes/no) or as levels of a factor (no phone use, low phone use, high phone use).
• a continuous variable (minutes of phone use measured every night).

How you apply your experimental treatments to your test subjects is crucial for obtaining valid and reliable results.

First, you need to consider the study size : how many individuals will be included in the experiment? In general, the more subjects you include, the greater your experiment’s statistical power , which determines how much confidence you can have in your results.

Then you need to randomly assign your subjects to treatment groups . Each group receives a different level of the treatment (e.g. no phone use, low phone use, high phone use).

You should also include a control group , which receives no treatment. The control group tells us what would have happened to your test subjects without any experimental intervention.

When assigning your subjects to groups, there are two main choices you need to make:

• A completely randomized design vs a randomized block design .
• A between-subjects design vs a within-subjects design .

Randomization

An experiment can be completely randomized or randomized within blocks (aka strata):

• In a completely randomized design , every subject is assigned to a treatment group at random.
• In a randomized block design (aka stratified random design), subjects are first grouped according to a characteristic they share, and then randomly assigned to treatments within those groups.

Sometimes randomization isn’t practical or ethical , so researchers create partially-random or even non-random designs. An experimental design where treatments aren’t randomly assigned is called a quasi-experimental design .

Between-subjects vs. within-subjects

In a between-subjects design (also known as an independent measures design or classic ANOVA design), individuals receive only one of the possible levels of an experimental treatment.

In medical or social research, you might also use matched pairs within your between-subjects design to make sure that each treatment group contains the same variety of test subjects in the same proportions.

In a within-subjects design (also known as a repeated measures design), every individual receives each of the experimental treatments consecutively, and their responses to each treatment are measured.

Within-subjects or repeated measures can also refer to an experimental design where an effect emerges over time, and individual responses are measured over time in order to measure this effect as it emerges.

Counterbalancing (randomizing or reversing the order of treatments among subjects) is often used in within-subjects designs to ensure that the order of treatment application doesn’t influence the results of the experiment.

Finally, you need to decide how you’ll collect data on your dependent variable outcomes. You should aim for reliable and valid measurements that minimize research bias or error.

Some variables, like temperature, can be objectively measured with scientific instruments. Others may need to be operationalized to turn them into measurable observations.

• Ask participants to record what time they go to sleep and get up each day.
• Ask participants to wear a sleep tracker.

How precisely you measure your dependent variable also affects the kinds of statistical analysis you can use on your data.

Experiments are always context-dependent, and a good experimental design will take into account all of the unique considerations of your study system to produce information that is both valid and relevant to your research question.

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.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Likert scale

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Framing effect
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic

Experimental design means planning a set of procedures to investigate a relationship between variables . To design a controlled experiment, you need:

• A testable hypothesis
• At least one independent variable that can be precisely manipulated
• At least one dependent variable that can be precisely measured

When designing the experiment, you decide:

• How you will manipulate the variable(s)
• How you will control for any potential confounding variables
• How many subjects or samples will be included in the study
• How subjects will be assigned to treatment levels

Experimental design is essential to the internal and external validity of your experiment.

The key difference between observational studies and experimental designs is that a well-done observational study does not influence the responses of participants, while experiments do have some sort of treatment condition applied to at least some participants by random assignment .

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.

In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.

The word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.

An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.

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.

Bevans, R. (2023, June 21). Guide to Experimental Design | Overview, 5 steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/experimental-design/

Is this article helpful?

Rebecca Bevans

Other students also liked, random assignment in experiments | introduction & examples, quasi-experimental design | definition, types & examples, how to write a lab report, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Statistical Design and Analysis of Biological Experiments

Chapter 1 principles of experimental design, 1.1 introduction.

The validity of conclusions drawn from a statistical analysis crucially hinges on the manner in which the data are acquired, and even the most sophisticated analysis will not rescue a flawed experiment. Planning an experiment and thinking about the details of data acquisition is so important for a successful analysis that R. A. Fisher—who single-handedly invented many of the experimental design techniques we are about to discuss—famously wrote

To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say what the experiment died of. ( Fisher 1938 )

(Statistical) design of experiments provides the principles and methods for planning experiments and tailoring the data acquisition to an intended analysis. Design and analysis of an experiment are best considered as two aspects of the same enterprise: the goals of the analysis strongly inform an appropriate design, and the implemented design determines the possible analyses.

The primary aim of designing experiments is to ensure that valid statistical and scientific conclusions can be drawn that withstand the scrutiny of a determined skeptic. Good experimental design also considers that resources are used efficiently, and that estimates are sufficiently precise and hypothesis tests adequately powered. It protects our conclusions by excluding alternative interpretations or rendering them implausible. Three main pillars of experimental design are randomization , replication , and blocking , and we will flesh out their effects on the subsequent analysis as well as their implementation in an experimental design.

An experimental design is always tailored towards predefined (primary) analyses and an efficient analysis and unambiguous interpretation of the experimental data is often straightforward from a good design. This does not prevent us from doing additional analyses of interesting observations after the data are acquired, but these analyses can be subjected to more severe criticisms and conclusions are more tentative.

In this chapter, we provide the wider context for using experiments in a larger research enterprise and informally introduce the main statistical ideas of experimental design. We use a comparison of two samples as our main example to study how design choices affect an analysis, but postpone a formal quantitative analysis to the next chapters.

1.2 A Cautionary Tale

For illustrating some of the issues arising in the interplay of experimental design and analysis, we consider a simple example. We are interested in comparing the enzyme levels measured in processed blood samples from laboratory mice, when the sample processing is done either with a kit from a vendor A, or a kit from a competitor B. For this, we take 20 mice and randomly select 10 of them for sample preparation with kit A, while the blood samples of the remaining 10 mice are prepared with kit B. The experiment is illustrated in Figure 1.1 A and the resulting data are given in Table 1.1 .

One option for comparing the two kits is to look at the difference in average enzyme levels, and we find an average level of 10.32 for vendor A and 10.66 for vendor B. We would like to interpret their difference of -0.34 as the difference due to the two preparation kits and conclude whether the two kits give equal results or if measurements based on one kit are systematically different from those based on the other kit.

Such interpretation, however, is only valid if the two groups of mice and their measurements are identical in all aspects except the sample preparation kit. If we use one strain of mice for kit A and another strain for kit B, any difference might also be attributed to inherent differences between the strains. Similarly, if the measurements using kit B were conducted much later than those using kit A, any observed difference might be attributed to changes in, e.g., mice selected, batches of chemicals used, device calibration, or any number of other influences. None of these competing explanations for an observed difference can be excluded from the given data alone, but good experimental design allows us to render them (almost) arbitrarily implausible.

A second aspect for our analysis is the inherent uncertainty in our calculated difference: if we repeat the experiment, the observed difference will change each time, and this will be more pronounced for a smaller number of mice, among others. If we do not use a sufficient number of mice in our experiment, the uncertainty associated with the observed difference might be too large, such that random fluctuations become a plausible explanation for the observed difference. Systematic differences between the two kits, of practically relevant magnitude in either direction, might then be compatible with the data, and we can draw no reliable conclusions from our experiment.

In each case, the statistical analysis—no matter how clever—was doomed before the experiment was even started, while simple ideas from statistical design of experiments would have provided correct and robust results with interpretable conclusions.

1.3 The Language of Experimental Design

By an experiment we understand an investigation where the researcher has full control over selecting and altering the experimental conditions of interest, and we only consider investigations of this type. The selected experimental conditions are called treatments . An experiment is comparative if the responses to several treatments are to be compared or contrasted. The experimental units are the smallest subdivision of the experimental material to which a treatment can be assigned. All experimental units given the same treatment constitute a treatment group . Especially in biology, we often compare treatments to a control group to which some standard experimental conditions are applied; a typical example is using a placebo for the control group, and different drugs for the other treatment groups.

The values observed are called responses and are measured on the response units ; these are often identical to the experimental units but need not be. Multiple experimental units are sometimes combined into groupings or blocks , such as mice grouped by litter, or samples grouped by batches of chemicals used for their preparation. More generally, we call any grouping of the experimental material (even with group size one) a unit .

In our example, we selected the mice, used a single sample per mouse, deliberately chose the two specific vendors, and had full control over which kit to assign to which mouse. In other words, the two kits are the treatments and the mice are the experimental units. We took the measured enzyme level of a single sample from a mouse as our response, and samples are therefore the response units. The resulting experiment is comparative, because we contrast the enzyme levels between the two treatment groups.

Figure 1.1: Three designs to determine the difference between two preparation kits A and B based on four mice. A: One sample per mouse. Comparison between averages of samples with same kit. B: Two samples per mouse treated with the same kit. Comparison between averages of mice with same kit requires averaging responses for each mouse first. C: Two samples per mouse each treated with different kit. Comparison between two samples of each mouse, with differences averaged.

In this example, we can coalesce experimental and response units, because we have a single response per mouse and cannot distinguish a sample from a mouse in the analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1.1 A for four mice. Responses from mice with the same kit are averaged, and the kit difference is the difference between these two averages.

By contrast, if we take two samples per mouse and use the same kit for both samples, then the mice are still the experimental units, but each mouse now groups the two response units associated with it. Now, responses from the same mouse are first averaged, and these averages are used to calculate the difference between kits; even though eight measurements are available, this difference is still based on only four mice (Figure 1.1 B).

If we take two samples per mouse, but apply each kit to one of the two samples, then the samples are both the experimental and response units, while the mice are blocks that group the samples. Now, we calculate the difference between kits for each mouse, and then average these differences (Figure 1.1 C).

If we only use one kit and determine the average enzyme level, then this investigation is still an experiment, but is not comparative.

To summarize, the design of an experiment determines the logical structure of the experiment ; it consists of (i) a set of treatments (the two kits); (ii) a specification of the experimental units (animals, cell lines, samples) (the mice in Figure 1.1 A,B and the samples in Figure 1.1 C); (iii) a procedure for assigning treatments to units; and (iv) a specification of the response units and the quantity to be measured as a response (the samples and associated enzyme levels).

1.4 Experiment Validity

Before we embark on the more technical aspects of experimental design, we discuss three components for evaluating an experiment’s validity: construct validity , internal validity , and external validity . These criteria are well-established in areas such as educational and psychological research, and have more recently been discussed for animal research ( Würbel 2017 ) where experiments are increasingly scrutinized for their scientific rationale and their design and intended analyses.

1.4.1 Construct Validity

Construct validity concerns the choice of the experimental system for answering our research question. Is the system even capable of providing a relevant answer to the question?

Studying the mechanisms of a particular disease, for example, might require careful choice of an appropriate animal model that shows a disease phenotype and is accessible to experimental interventions. If the animal model is a proxy for drug development for humans, biological mechanisms must be sufficiently similar between animal and human physiologies.

Another important aspect of the construct is the quantity that we intend to measure (the measurand ), and its relation to the quantity or property we are interested in. For example, we might measure the concentration of the same chemical compound once in a blood sample and once in a highly purified sample, and these constitute two different measurands, whose values might not be comparable. Often, the quantity of interest (e.g., liver function) is not directly measurable (or even quantifiable) and we measure a biomarker instead. For example, pre-clinical and clinical investigations may use concentrations of proteins or counts of specific cell types from blood samples, such as the CD4+ cell count used as a biomarker for immune system function.

1.4.2 Internal Validity

The internal validity of an experiment concerns the soundness of the scientific rationale, statistical properties such as precision of estimates, and the measures taken against risk of bias. It refers to the validity of claims within the context of the experiment. Statistical design of experiments plays a prominent role in ensuring internal validity, and we briefly discuss the main ideas before providing the technical details and an application to our example in the subsequent sections.

Scientific Rationale and Research Question

The scientific rationale of a study is (usually) not immediately a statistical question. Translating a scientific question into a quantitative comparison amenable to statistical analysis is no small task and often requires careful consideration. It is a substantial, if non-statistical, benefit of using experimental design that we are forced to formulate a precise-enough research question and decide on the main analyses required for answering it before we conduct the experiment. For example, the question: is there a difference between placebo and drug? is insufficiently precise for planning a statistical analysis and determine an adequate experimental design. What exactly is the drug treatment? What should the drug’s concentration be and how is it administered? How do we make sure that the placebo group is comparable to the drug group in all other aspects? What do we measure and what do we mean by “difference?” A shift in average response, a fold-change, change in response before and after treatment?

The scientific rationale also enters the choice of a potential control group to which we compare responses. The quote

The deep, fundamental question in statistical analysis is ‘Compared to what?’ ( Tufte 1997 )

highlights the importance of this choice.

There are almost never enough resources to answer all relevant scientific questions. We therefore define a few questions of highest interest, and the main purpose of the experiment is answering these questions in the primary analysis . This intended analysis drives the experimental design to ensure relevant estimates can be calculated and have sufficient precision, and tests are adequately powered. This does not preclude us from conducting additional secondary analyses and exploratory analyses , but we are not willing to enlarge the experiment to ensure that strong conclusions can also be drawn from these analyses.

Risk of Bias

Experimental bias is a systematic difference in response between experimental units in addition to the difference caused by the treatments. The experimental units in the different groups are then not equal in all aspects other than the treatment applied to them. We saw several examples in Section 1.2 .

Minimizing the risk of bias is crucial for internal validity and we look at some common measures to eliminate or reduce different types of bias in Section 1.5 .

Precision and Effect Size

Another aspect of internal validity is the precision of estimates and the expected effect sizes. Is the experimental setup, in principle, able to detect a difference of relevant magnitude? Experimental design offers several methods for answering this question based on the expected heterogeneity of samples, the measurement error, and other sources of variation: power analysis is a technique for determining the number of samples required to reliably detect a relevant effect size and provide estimates of sufficient precision. More samples yield more precision and more power, but we have to be careful that replication is done at the right level: simply measuring a biological sample multiple times as in Figure 1.1 B yields more measured values, but is pseudo-replication for analyses. Replication should also ensure that the statistical uncertainties of estimates can be gauged from the data of the experiment itself, without additional untestable assumptions. Finally, the technique of blocking , shown in Figure 1.1 C, can remove a substantial proportion of the variation and thereby increase power and precision if we find a way to apply it.

1.4.3 External Validity

The external validity of an experiment concerns its replicability and the generalizability of inferences. An experiment is replicable if its results can be confirmed by an independent new experiment, preferably by a different lab and researcher. Experimental conditions in the replicate experiment usually differ from the original experiment, which provides evidence that the observed effects are robust to such changes. A much weaker condition on an experiment is reproducibility , the property that an independent researcher draws equivalent conclusions based on the data from this particular experiment, using the same analysis techniques. Reproducibility requires publishing the raw data, details on the experimental protocol, and a description of the statistical analyses, preferably with accompanying source code. Many scientific journals subscribe to reporting guidelines to ensure reproducibility and these are also helpful for planning an experiment.

A main threat to replicability and generalizability are too tightly controlled experimental conditions, when inferences only hold for a specific lab under the very specific conditions of the original experiment. Introducing systematic heterogeneity and using multi-center studies effectively broadens the experimental conditions and therefore the inferences for which internal validity is available.

For systematic heterogeneity , experimental conditions are systematically altered in addition to the treatments, and treatment differences estimated for each condition. For example, we might split the experimental material into several batches and use a different day of analysis, sample preparation, batch of buffer, measurement device, and lab technician for each batch. A more general inference is then possible if effect size, effect direction, and precision are comparable between the batches, indicating that the treatment differences are stable over the different conditions.

In multi-center experiments , the same experiment is conducted in several different labs and the results compared and merged. Multi-center approaches are very common in clinical trials and often necessary to reach the required number of patient enrollments.

Generalizability of randomized controlled trials in medicine and animal studies can suffer from overly restrictive eligibility criteria. In clinical trials, patients are often included or excluded based on co-medications and co-morbidities, and the resulting sample of eligible patients might no longer be representative of the patient population. For example, Travers et al. ( 2007 ) used the eligibility criteria of 17 random controlled trials of asthma treatments and found that out of 749 patients, only a median of 6% (45 patients) would be eligible for an asthma-related randomized controlled trial. This puts a question mark on the relevance of the trials’ findings for asthma patients in general.

1.5 Reducing the Risk of Bias

1.5.1 randomization of treatment allocation.

If systematic differences other than the treatment exist between our treatment groups, then the effect of the treatment is confounded with these other differences and our estimates of treatment effects might be biased.

We remove such unwanted systematic differences from our treatment comparisons by randomizing the allocation of treatments to experimental units. In a completely randomized design , each experimental unit has the same chance of being subjected to any of the treatments, and any differences between the experimental units other than the treatments are distributed over the treatment groups. Importantly, randomization is the only method that also protects our experiment against unknown sources of bias: we do not need to know all or even any of the potential differences and yet their impact is eliminated from the treatment comparisons by random treatment allocation.

Randomization has two effects: (i) differences unrelated to treatment become part of the ‘statistical noise’ rendering the treatment groups more similar; and (ii) the systematic differences are thereby eliminated as sources of bias from the treatment comparison.

Randomization transforms systematic variation into random variation.

In our example, a proper randomization would select 10 out of our 20 mice fully at random, such that the probability of any one mouse being picked is 1/20. These ten mice are then assigned to kit A, and the remaining mice to kit B. This allocation is entirely independent of the treatments and of any properties of the mice.

To ensure random treatment allocation, some kind of random process needs to be employed. This can be as simple as shuffling a pack of 10 red and 10 black cards or using a software-based random number generator. Randomization is slightly more difficult if the number of experimental units is not known at the start of the experiment, such as when patients are recruited for an ongoing clinical trial (sometimes called rolling recruitment ), and we want to have reasonable balance between the treatment groups at each stage of the trial.

Seemingly random assignments “by hand” are usually no less complicated than fully random assignments, but are always inferior. If surprising results ensue from the experiment, such assignments are subject to unanswerable criticism and suspicion of unwanted bias. Even worse are systematic allocations; they can only remove bias from known causes, and immediately raise red flags under the slightest scrutiny.

The Problem of Undesired Assignments

Even with a fully random treatment allocation procedure, we might end up with an undesirable allocation. For our example, the treatment group of kit A might—just by chance—contain mice that are all bigger or more active than those in the other treatment group. Statistical orthodoxy recommends using the design nevertheless, because only full randomization guarantees valid estimates of residual variance and unbiased estimates of effects. This argument, however, concerns the long-run properties of the procedure and seems of little help in this specific situation. Why should we care if the randomization yields correct estimates under replication of the experiment, if the particular experiment is jeopardized?

Another solution is to create a list of all possible allocations that we would accept and randomly choose one of these allocations for our experiment. The analysis should then reflect this restriction in the possible randomizations, which often renders this approach difficult to implement.

The most pragmatic method is to reject highly undesirable designs and compute a new randomization ( Cox 1958 ) . Undesirable allocations are unlikely to arise for large sample sizes, and we might accept a small bias in estimation for small sample sizes, when uncertainty in the estimated treatment effect is already high. In this approach, whenever we reject a particular outcome, we must also be willing to reject the outcome if we permute the treatment level labels. If we reject eight big and two small mice for kit A, then we must also reject two big and eight small mice. We must also be transparent and report a rejected allocation, so that critics may come to their own conclusions about potential biases and their remedies.

1.5.2 Blinding

Bias in treatment comparisons is also introduced if treatment allocation is random, but responses cannot be measured entirely objectively, or if knowledge of the assigned treatment affects the response. In clinical trials, for example, patients might react differently when they know to be on a placebo treatment, an effect known as cognitive bias . In animal experiments, caretakers might report more abnormal behavior for animals on a more severe treatment. Cognitive bias can be eliminated by concealing the treatment allocation from technicians or participants of a clinical trial, a technique called single-blinding .

If response measures are partially based on professional judgement (such as a clinical scale), patient or physician might unconsciously report lower scores for a placebo treatment, a phenomenon known as observer bias . Its removal requires double blinding , where treatment allocations are additionally concealed from the experimentalist.

Blinding requires randomized treatment allocation to begin with and substantial effort might be needed to implement it. Drug companies, for example, have to go to great lengths to ensure that a placebo looks, tastes, and feels similar enough to the actual drug. Additionally, blinding is often done by coding the treatment conditions and samples, and effect sizes and statistical significance are calculated before the code is revealed.

In clinical trials, double-blinding creates a conflict of interest. The attending physicians do not know which patient received which treatment, and thus accumulation of side-effects cannot be linked to any treatment. For this reason, clinical trials have a data monitoring committee not involved in the final analysis, that performs intermediate analyses of efficacy and safety at predefined intervals. If severe problems are detected, the committee might recommend altering or aborting the trial. The same might happen if one treatment already shows overwhelming evidence of superiority, such that it becomes unethical to withhold this treatment from the other patients.

1.5.3 Analysis Plan and Registration

An often overlooked source of bias has been termed the researcher degrees of freedom or garden of forking paths in the data analysis. For any set of data, there are many different options for its analysis: some results might be considered outliers and discarded, assumptions are made on error distributions and appropriate test statistics, different covariates might be included into a regression model. Often, multiple hypotheses are investigated and tested, and analyses are done separately on various (overlapping) subgroups. Hypotheses formed after looking at the data require additional care in their interpretation; almost never will \(p\) -values for these ad hoc or post hoc hypotheses be statistically justifiable. Many different measured response variables invite fishing expeditions , where patterns in the data are sought without an underlying hypothesis. Only reporting those sub-analyses that gave ‘interesting’ findings invariably leads to biased conclusions and is called cherry-picking or \(p\) -hacking (or much less flattering names).

The statistical analysis is always part of a larger scientific argument and we should consider the necessary computations in relation to building our scientific argument about the interpretation of the data. In addition to the statistical calculations, this interpretation requires substantial subject-matter knowledge and includes (many) non-statistical arguments. Two quotes highlight that experiment and analysis are a means to an end and not the end in itself.

There is a boundary in data interpretation beyond which formulas and quantitative decision procedures do not go, where judgment and style enter. ( Abelson 1995 )

Often, perfectly reasonable people come to perfectly reasonable decisions or conclusions based on nonstatistical evidence. Statistical analysis is a tool with which we support reasoning. It is not a goal in itself. ( Bailar III 1981 )

There is often a grey area between exploiting researcher degrees of freedom to arrive at a desired conclusion, and creative yet informed analyses of data. One way to navigate this area is to distinguish between exploratory studies and confirmatory studies . The former have no clearly stated scientific question, but are used to generate interesting hypotheses by identifying potential associations or effects that are then further investigated. Conclusions from these studies are very tentative and must be reported honestly as such. In contrast, standards are much higher for confirmatory studies, which investigate a specific predefined scientific question. Analysis plans and pre-registration of an experiment are accepted means for demonstrating lack of bias due to researcher degrees of freedom, and separating primary from secondary analyses allows emphasizing the main goals of the study.

Analysis Plan

The analysis plan is written before conducting the experiment and details the measurands and estimands, the hypotheses to be tested together with a power and sample size calculation, a discussion of relevant effect sizes, detection and handling of outliers and missing data, as well as steps for data normalization such as transformations and baseline corrections. If a regression model is required, its factors and covariates are outlined. Particularly in biology, handling measurements below the limit of quantification and saturation effects require careful consideration.

In the context of clinical trials, the problem of estimands has become a recent focus of attention. An estimand is the target of a statistical estimation procedure, for example the true average difference in enzyme levels between the two preparation kits. A main problem in many studies are post-randomization events that can change the estimand, even if the estimation procedure remains the same. For example, if kit B fails to produce usable samples for measurement in five out of ten cases because the enzyme level was too low, while kit A could handle these enzyme levels perfectly fine, then this might severely exaggerate the observed difference between the two kits. Similar problems arise in drug trials, when some patients stop taking one of the drugs due to side-effects or other complications.

Registration

Registration of experiments is an even more severe measure used in conjunction with an analysis plan and is becoming standard in clinical trials. Here, information about the trial, including the analysis plan, procedure to recruit patients, and stopping criteria, are registered in a public database. Publications based on the trial then refer to this registration, such that reviewers and readers can compare what the researchers intended to do and what they actually did. Similar portals for pre-clinical and translational research are also available.

1.6 Notes and Summary

The problem of measurements and measurands is further discussed for statistics in Hand ( 1996 ) and specifically for biological experiments in Coxon, Longstaff, and Burns ( 2019 ) . A general review of methods for handling missing data is Dong and Peng ( 2013 ) . The different roles of randomization are emphasized in Cox ( 2009 ) .

Two well-known reporting guidelines are the ARRIVE guidelines for animal research ( Kilkenny et al. 2010 ) and the CONSORT guidelines for clinical trials ( Moher et al. 2010 ) . Guidelines describing the minimal information required for reproducing experimental results have been developed for many types of experimental techniques, including microarrays (MIAME), RNA sequencing (MINSEQE), metabolomics (MSI) and proteomics (MIAPE) experiments; the FAIRSHARE initiative provides a more comprehensive collection ( Sansone et al. 2019 ) .

The problems of experimental design in animal experiments and particularly translation research are discussed in Couzin-Frankel ( 2013 ) . Multi-center studies are now considered for these investigations, and using a second laboratory already increases reproducibility substantially ( Richter et al. 2010 ; Richter 2017 ; Voelkl et al. 2018 ; Karp 2018 ) and allows standardizing the treatment effects ( Kafkafi et al. 2017 ) . First attempts are reported of using designs similar to clinical trials ( Llovera and Liesz 2016 ) . Exploratory-confirmatory research and external validity for animal studies is discussed in Kimmelman, Mogil, and Dirnagl ( 2014 ) and Pound and Ritskes-Hoitinga ( 2018 ) . Further information on pilot studies is found in Moore et al. ( 2011 ) , Sim ( 2019 ) , and Thabane et al. ( 2010 ) .

The deliberate use of statistical analyses and their interpretation for supporting a larger argument was called statistics as principled argument ( Abelson 1995 ) . Employing useless statistical analysis without reference to the actual scientific question is surrogate science ( Gigerenzer and Marewski 2014 ) and adaptive thinking is integral to meaningful statistical analysis ( Gigerenzer 2002 ) .

In an experiment, the investigator has full control over the experimental conditions applied to the experiment material. The experimental design gives the logical structure of an experiment: the units describing the organization of the experimental material, the treatments and their allocation to units, and the response. Statistical design of experiments includes techniques to ensure internal validity of an experiment, and methods to make inference from experimental data efficient.

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College Statistics

Course: ap®︎/college statistics   >   unit 6.

• Introduction to experiment design
• The language of experiments

Principles of experiment design

• Matched pairs experiment design
• Experiment designs
• Experiment design considerations

• (Choice A)   They represent a confounding variable. A They represent a confounding variable.
• (Choice B)   They help prevent nonresponse. B They help prevent nonresponse.
• (Choice C)   They serve as a control group. C They serve as a control group.
• (Choice A)   It creates a double-blind study. A It creates a double-blind study.
• (Choice B)   It guarantees no confounding will occur. B It guarantees no confounding will occur.
• (Choice C)   It tends to create roughly similar groups. C It tends to create roughly similar groups.
• (Choice A)   A difference between the two groups could be due to the placebo effect. A A difference between the two groups could be due to the placebo effect.
• (Choice B)   It may limit replication. B It may limit replication.
• (Choice C)   It makes the study observational and changes the conclusions we can draw. C It makes the study observational and changes the conclusions we can draw.
• (Choice A)   It supports randomization. A It supports randomization.
• (Choice B)   It protects against some possible sources of bias. B It protects against some possible sources of bias.
• (Choice C)   It makes replication easier. C It makes replication easier.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

• Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
• Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
• Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

1.1.5 - principles of experimental design.

The following principles of experimental design have to be followed to enable a researcher to conclude that differences in the results of an experiment, not reasonably attributable to chance, are likely caused by the treatments.

The benefits to randomization are:

• If  a random assignment  of treatment is done then significant results can be concluded as  causal or cause and effect  conclusions. That is, that the treatment  caused  the result. This treatment can be referred to as the  explanatory  variable and the result as the  response  variable.
• If  random selection  is done where the subjects are randomly selected from some population, then the results can be extended to that population. The random assignment is required for an experiment. When both random assignment and selection are part of the study then we have a completely randomized experiment. Without random assignment (i.e.an observational study) then the treatment can only be referred to as being  related to  the outcome.

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Experimental Design: Definition and Types

By Jim Frost 3 Comments

What is Experimental Design?

An experimental design is a detailed plan for collecting and using data to identify causal relationships. Through careful planning, the design of experiments allows your data collection efforts to have a reasonable chance of detecting effects and testing hypotheses that answer your research questions.

An experiment is a data collection procedure that occurs in controlled conditions to identify and understand causal relationships between variables. Researchers can use many potential designs. The ultimate choice depends on their research question, resources, goals, and constraints. In some fields of study, researchers refer to experimental design as the design of experiments (DOE). Both terms are synonymous.

Ultimately, the design of experiments helps ensure that your procedures and data will evaluate your research question effectively. Without an experimental design, you might waste your efforts in a process that, for many potential reasons, can’t answer your research question. In short, it helps you trust your results.

Learn more about Independent and Dependent Variables .

Design of Experiments: Goals & Settings

Experiments occur in many settings, ranging from psychology, social sciences, medicine, physics, engineering, and industrial and service sectors. Typically, experimental goals are to discover a previously unknown effect , confirm a known effect, or test a hypothesis.

Effects represent causal relationships between variables. For example, in a medical experiment, does the new medicine cause an improvement in health outcomes? If so, the medicine has a causal effect on the outcome.

An experimental design’s focus depends on the subject area and can include the following goals:

• Understanding the relationships between variables.
• Identifying the variables that have the largest impact on the outcomes.
• Finding the input variable settings that produce an optimal result.

For example, psychologists have conducted experiments to understand how conformity affects decision-making. Sociologists have performed experiments to determine whether ethnicity affects the public reaction to staged bike thefts. These experiments map out the causal relationships between variables, and their primary goal is to understand the role of various factors.

Conversely, in a manufacturing environment, the researchers might use an experimental design to find the factors that most effectively improve their product’s strength, identify the optimal manufacturing settings, and do all that while accounting for various constraints. In short, a manufacturer’s goal is often to use experiments to improve their products cost-effectively.

In a medical experiment, the goal might be to quantify the medicine’s effect and find the optimum dosage.

Developing an Experimental Design

Developing an experimental design involves planning that maximizes the potential to collect data that is both trustworthy and able to detect causal relationships. Specifically, these studies aim to see effects when they exist in the population the researchers are studying, preferentially favor causal effects, isolate each factor’s true effect from potential confounders, and produce conclusions that you can generalize to the real world.

To accomplish these goals, experimental designs carefully manage data validity and reliability , and internal and external experimental validity. When your experiment is valid and reliable, you can expect your procedures and data to produce trustworthy results.

An excellent experimental design involves the following:

• Lots of preplanning.
• Developing experimental treatments.
• Determining how to assign subjects to treatment groups.

The remainder of this article focuses on how experimental designs incorporate these essential items to accomplish their research goals.

Learn more about Data Reliability vs. Validity and Internal and External Experimental Validity .

Preplanning, Defining, and Operationalizing for Design of Experiments

This phase of the design of experiments helps you identify critical variables, know how to measure them while ensuring reliability and validity, and understand the relationships between them. The review can also help you find ways to reduce sources of variability, which increases your ability to detect treatment effects. Notably, the literature review allows you to learn how similar studies designed their experiments and the challenges they faced.

Operationalizing a study involves taking your research question, using the background information you gathered, and formulating an actionable plan.

This process should produce a specific and testable hypothesis using data that you can reasonably collect given the resources available to the experiment.

• Null hypothesis : The jumping exercise intervention does not affect bone density.
• Alternative hypothesis : The jumping exercise intervention affects bone density.

To learn more about this early phase, read Five Steps for Conducting Scientific Studies with Statistical Analyses .

Formulating Treatments in Experimental Designs

In an experimental design, treatments are variables that the researchers control. They are the primary independent variables of interest. Researchers administer the treatment to the subjects or items in the experiment and want to know whether it causes changes in the outcome.

As the name implies, a treatment can be medical in nature, such as a new medicine or vaccine. But it’s a general term that applies to other things such as training programs, manufacturing settings, teaching methods, and types of fertilizers. I helped run an experiment where the treatment was a jumping exercise intervention that we hoped would increase bone density. All these treatment examples are things that potentially influence a measurable outcome.

Even when you know your treatment generally, you must carefully consider the amount. How large of a dose? If you’re comparing three different temperatures in a manufacturing process, how far apart are they? For my bone mineral density study, we had to determine how frequently the exercise sessions would occur and how long each lasted.

How you define the treatments in the design of experiments can affect your findings and the generalizability of your results.

Assigning Subjects to Experimental Groups

A crucial decision for all experimental designs is determining how researchers assign subjects to the experimental conditions—the treatment and control groups. The control group is often, but not always, the lack of a treatment. It serves as a basis for comparison by showing outcomes for subjects who don’t receive a treatment. Learn more about Control Groups .

How your experimental design assigns subjects to the groups affects how confident you can be that the findings represent true causal effects rather than mere correlation caused by confounders. Indeed, the assignment method influences how you control for confounding variables. This is the difference between correlation and causation .

Imagine a study finds that vitamin consumption correlates with better health outcomes. As a researcher, you want to be able to say that vitamin consumption causes the improvements. However, with the wrong experimental design, you might only be able to say there is an association. A confounder, and not the vitamins, might actually cause the health benefits.

Let’s explore some of the ways to assign subjects in design of experiments.

Completely Randomized Designs

A completely randomized experimental design randomly assigns all subjects to the treatment and control groups. You simply take each participant and use a random process to determine their group assignment. You can flip coins, roll a die, or use a computer. Randomized experiments must be prospective studies because they need to be able to control group assignment.

Random assignment in the design of experiments helps ensure that the groups are roughly equivalent at the beginning of the study. This equivalence at the start increases your confidence that any differences you see at the end were caused by the treatments. The randomization tends to equalize confounders between the experimental groups and, thereby, cancels out their effects, leaving only the treatment effects.

For example, in a vitamin study, the researchers can randomly assign participants to either the control or vitamin group. Because the groups are approximately equal when the experiment starts, if the health outcomes are different at the end of the study, the researchers can be confident that the vitamins caused those improvements.

Statisticians consider randomized experimental designs to be the best for identifying causal relationships.

If you can’t randomly assign subjects but want to draw causal conclusions about an intervention, consider using a quasi-experimental design .

Learn more about Randomized Controlled Trials and Random Assignment in Experiments .

Randomized Block Designs

Nuisance factors are variables that can affect the outcome, but they are not the researcher’s primary interest. Unfortunately, they can hide or distort the treatment results. When experimenters know about specific nuisance factors, they can use a randomized block design to minimize their impact.

This experimental design takes subjects with a shared “nuisance” characteristic and groups them into blocks. The participants in each block are then randomly assigned to the experimental groups. This process allows the experiment to control for known nuisance factors.

Blocking in the design of experiments reduces the impact of nuisance factors on experimental error. The analysis assesses the effects of the treatment within each block, which removes the variability between blocks. The result is that blocked experimental designs can reduce the impact of nuisance variables, increasing the ability to detect treatment effects accurately.

Suppose you’re testing various teaching methods. Because grade level likely affects educational outcomes, you might use grade level as a blocking factor. To use a randomized block design for this scenario, divide the participants by grade level and then randomly assign the members of each grade level to the experimental groups.

A standard guideline for an experimental design is to “Block what you can, randomize what you cannot.” Use blocking for a few primary nuisance factors. Then use random assignment to distribute the unblocked nuisance factors equally between the experimental conditions.

You can also use covariates to control nuisance factors. Learn about Covariates: Definition and Uses .

Observational Studies

In some experimental designs, randomly assigning subjects to the experimental conditions is impossible or unethical. The researchers simply can’t assign participants to the experimental groups. However, they can observe them in their natural groupings, measure the essential variables, and look for correlations. These observational studies are also known as quasi-experimental designs. Retrospective studies must be observational in nature because they look back at past events.

Imagine you’re studying the effects of depression on an activity. Clearly, you can’t randomly assign participants to the depression and control groups. But you can observe participants with and without depression and see how their task performance differs.

Observational studies let you perform research when you can’t control the treatment. However, quasi-experimental designs increase the problem of confounding variables. For this design of experiments, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While special procedures can help control confounders in an observational study, you’re ultimately less confident that the results represent causal findings.

Learn more about Observational Studies .

For a good comparison, learn about the differences and tradeoffs between Observational Studies and Randomized Experiments .

Between-Subjects vs. Within-Subjects Experimental Designs

When you think of the design of experiments, you probably picture a treatment and control group. Researchers assign participants to only one of these groups, so each group contains entirely different subjects than the other groups. Analysts compare the groups at the end of the experiment. Statisticians refer to this method as a between-subjects, or independent measures, experimental design.

In a between-subjects design , you can have more than one treatment group, but each subject is exposed to only one condition, the control group or one of the treatment groups.

A potential downside to this approach is that differences between groups at the beginning can affect the results at the end. As you’ve read earlier, random assignment can reduce those differences, but it is imperfect. There will always be some variability between the groups.

In a  within-subjects experimental design , also known as repeated measures, subjects experience all treatment conditions and are measured for each. Each subject acts as their own control, which reduces variability and increases the statistical power to detect effects.

In this experimental design, you minimize pre-existing differences between the experimental conditions because they all contain the same subjects. However, the order of treatments can affect the results. Beware of practice and fatigue effects. Learn more about Repeated Measures Designs .

Design of Experiments Examples

For example, a bone density study has three experimental groups—a control group, a stretching exercise group, and a jumping exercise group.

In a between-subjects experimental design, scientists randomly assign each participant to one of the three groups.

In a within-subjects design, all subjects experience the three conditions sequentially while the researchers measure bone density repeatedly. The procedure can switch the order of treatments for the participants to help reduce order effects.

Matched Pairs Experimental Design

A matched pairs experimental design is a between-subjects study that uses pairs of similar subjects. Researchers use this approach to reduce pre-existing differences between experimental groups. It’s yet another design of experiments method for reducing sources of variability.

Researchers identify variables likely to affect the outcome, such as demographics. When they pick a subject with a set of characteristics, they try to locate another participant with similar attributes to create a matched pair. Scientists randomly assign one member of a pair to the treatment group and the other to the control group.

On the plus side, this process creates two similar groups, and it doesn’t create treatment order effects. While matched pairs do not produce the perfectly matched groups of a within-subjects design (which uses the same subjects in all conditions), it aims to reduce variability between groups relative to a between-subjects study.

On the downside, finding matched pairs is very time-consuming. Additionally, if one member of a matched pair drops out, the other subject must leave the study too.

Learn more about Matched Pairs Design: Uses & Examples .

Another consideration is whether you’ll use a cross-sectional design (one point in time) or use a longitudinal study to track changes over time .

A case study is a research method that often serves as a precursor to a more rigorous experimental design by identifying research questions, variables, and hypotheses to test. Learn more about What is a Case Study? Definition & Examples .

In conclusion, the design of experiments is extremely sensitive to subject area concerns and the time and resources available to the researchers. Developing a suitable experimental design requires balancing a multitude of considerations. A successful design is necessary to obtain trustworthy answers to your research question and to have a reasonable chance of detecting treatment effects when they exist.

Share this:

Reader Interactions

March 23, 2024 at 2:35 pm

Dear Jim You wrote a superb document, I will use it in my Buistatistics course, along with your three books. Thank you very much! Miguel

March 23, 2024 at 5:43 pm

Thanks so much, Miguel! Glad this post was helpful and I trust the books will be as well.

April 10, 2023 at 4:36 am

What are the purpose and uses of experimental research design?

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

Basic Principles of Experimental Designs

The basic principles of experimental designs are randomization, replication and local control. These principles make a valid test of significance possible. Each of them is described briefly in the following subsections.

(1) Randomization. The first principle of an experimental design is randomization, which is a random process of assigning treatments to the experimental units. The random process implies that every possible allotment of treatments has the same probability. An experimental unit is the smallest division of the experimental material, and a treatment means an experimental condition whose effect is to be measured and compared. The purpose of randomization is to remove bias and other sources of extraneous variation which are not controllable. Another advantage of randomization (accompanied by replication) is that it forms the basis of any valid statistical test. Hence, the treatments must be assigned at random to the experimental units. Randomization is usually done by drawing numbered cards from a well-shuffled pack of cards, by drawing numbered balls from a well-shaken container or by using tables of random numbers.

(2) Replication. The second principle of an experimental design is replication, which is a repetition of the basic experiment. In other words, it is a complete run for all the treatments to be tested in the experiment. In all experiments, some kind of variation is introduced because of the fact that the experimental units such as individuals or plots of land in agricultural experiments cannot be physically identical. This type of variation can be removed by using a number of experimental units. We therefore perform the experiment more than once, i.e., we repeat the basic experiment. An individual repetition is called a replicate. The number, the shape and the size of replicates depend upon the nature of the experimental material. A replication is used to:

(i) Secure a more accurate estimate of the experimental error, a term which represents the differences that would be observed if the same treatments were applied several times to the same experimental units;

(ii) Decrease the experimental error and thereby increase precision, which is a measure of the variability of the experimental error; and

(iii) Obtain a more precise estimate of the mean effect of a treatment, since $${\sigma ^2}_{\overline y } = \frac{{{\sigma ^2}}}{n}$$, where $$n$$ denotes the number of replications.

(3) Local Control. It has been observed that all extraneous sources of variation are not removed by randomization and replication. This necessitates a refinement of the experimental technique. In other words, we need to choose a design in such a manner that all extraneous sources of variation are brought under control. For this purpose, we make use of local control, a term referring to the amount of balancing, blocking and grouping of the experimental units. Balancing means that the treatments should he assigned to the experimental units in such a way that the result is a balanced arrangement of the treatments. Blocking means that like experimental units should be collected together to form a relatively homogeneous group. A block is also a replicate. The main purpose of the principle of local control is to increase the efficiency of an experimental design by decreasing the experimental error. The point to remember here is that the term local control should not be confused with the word control. The word control in experimental design is used for a treatment which does not receive any treatment when we need to find out the effectiveness of other treatments through comparison.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *