View an example
When you place an order, you can specify your field of study and we’ll match you with an editor who has familiarity with this area.
However, our editors are language specialists, not academic experts in your field. Your editor’s job is not to comment on the content of your dissertation, but to improve your language and help you express your ideas as clearly and fluently as possible.
This means that your editor will understand your text well enough to give feedback on its clarity, logic and structure, but not on the accuracy or originality of its content.
Good academic writing should be understandable to a non-expert reader, and we believe that academic editing is a discipline in itself. The research, ideas and arguments are all yours – we’re here to make sure they shine!
After your document has been edited, you will receive an email with a link to download the document.
The editor has made changes to your document using ‘Track Changes’ in Word. This means that you only have to accept or ignore the changes that are made in the text one by one.
It is also possible to accept all changes at once. However, we strongly advise you not to do so for the following reasons:
You choose the turnaround time when ordering. We can return your dissertation within 24 hours , 3 days or 1 week . These timescales include weekends and holidays. As soon as you’ve paid, the deadline is set, and we guarantee to meet it! We’ll notify you by text and email when your editor has completed the job.
Very large orders might not be possible to complete in 24 hours. On average, our editors can complete around 13,000 words in a day while maintaining our high quality standards. If your order is longer than this and urgent, contact us to discuss possibilities.
Always leave yourself enough time to check through the document and accept the changes before your submission deadline.
Scribbr is specialised in editing study related documents. We check:
Calculate the costs
The fastest turnaround time is 24 hours.
You can upload your document at any time and choose between four deadlines:
At Scribbr, we promise to make every customer 100% happy with the service we offer. Our philosophy: Your complaint is always justified – no denial, no doubts.
Our customer support team is here to find the solution that helps you the most, whether that’s a free new edit or a refund for the service.
Yes, in the order process you can indicate your preference for American, British, or Australian English .
If you don’t choose one, your editor will follow the style of English you currently use. If your editor has any questions about this, we will contact you.
Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
Learning objectives.
Learners will be able to…
Pre-awareness check (Knowledge)
What are your thoughts on the phrase ‘experiment’ in the realm of social sciences? In an experiment, what is the independent variable?
In social work research, experimental design is used to test the effects of treatments, interventions, programs, or other conditions to which individuals, groups, organizations, or communities may be exposed to. There are a lot of experiments social work researchers can use to explore topics such as treatments for depression, impacts of school-based mental health on student outcomes, or prevention of abuse of people with disabilities. The American Psychological Association defines an experiment as:
a series of observations conducted under controlled conditions to study a relationship with the purpose of drawing causal inferences about that relationship. An experiment involves the manipulation of an independent variable , the measurement of a dependent variable , and the exposure of various participants to one or more of the conditions being studied. Random selection of participants and their random assignment to conditions also are necessary in experiments .
In experimental design, the independent variable is the intervention, treatment, or condition that is being investigated as a potential cause of change (i.e., the experimental condition ). The effect, or outcome, of the experimental condition is the dependent variable. Trying out a new restaurant, dating a new person – we often call these things “experiments.” However, a true social science experiment would include recruitment of a large enough sample, random assignment to control and experimental groups, exposing those in the experimental group to an experimental condition, and collecting observations at the end of the experiment.
Social scientists use this level of rigor and control to maximize the internal validity of their research. Internal validity is the confidence researchers have about whether the independent variable (e.g, treatment) truly produces a change in the dependent, or outcome, variable. The logic and features of experimental design are intended to help establish causality and to reduce threats to internal validity , which we will discuss in Section 14.5 .
Experiments attempt to establish a nomothetic causal relationship between two variables—the treatment and its intended outcome. We discussed the four criteria for establishing nomothetic causality in Section 4.3 :
Experiments should establish plausibility , having a plausible reason why their intervention would cause changes in the dependent variable. Usually, a theory framework or previous empirical evidence will indicate the plausibility of a causal relationship.
Covariation can be established for causal explanations by showing that the “cause” and the “effect” change together. In experiments, the cause is an intervention, treatment, or other experimental condition. Whether or not a research participant is exposed to the experimental condition is the independent variable. The effect in an experiment is the outcome being assessed and is the dependent variable in the study. When the independent and dependent variables covary, they can have a positive association (e.g., those exposed to the intervention have increased self-esteem) or a negative association (e.g., those exposed to the intervention have reduced anxiety).
Since researcher controls when the intervention is administered, they can be assured that changes in the independent variable (the treatment) happens before changes in the dependent variable (the outcome). In this way, experiments assure temporality .
Finally, one of the most important features of experiments is that they allow researchers to eliminate spurious variables to support the criterion of nonspuriousness . True experiments are usually conducted under strictly controlled conditions. The intervention is given in the same way to each person, with a minimal number of other variables that might cause their post-test scores to change.
How do we know that one phenomenon causes another? The complexity of the social world in which we practice and conduct research means that causes of social problems are rarely cut and dry. Uncovering explanations for social problems is key to helping clients address them, and experimental research designs are one road to finding answers.
Just because two phenomena are related in some way doesn’t mean that one causes the other. Ice cream sales increase in the summer, and so does the rate of violent crime; does that mean that eating ice cream is going to make me violent? Obviously not, because ice cream is great. The reality of that association is far more complex—it could be that hot weather makes people more irritable and, at times, violent, while also making people want ice cream. More likely, though, there are other social factors not accounted for in the way we just described this association.
As we have discussed, experimental designs can help clear up at least some of this fog by allowing researchers to isolate the effect of interventions on dependent variables by controlling extraneous variables . In true experimental design (discussed in the next section) and quasi-experimental design, researchers accomplish this w ith a control group or comparison group and the experimental group . The experimental group is sometimes called the treatment group because people in the experimental group receive the treatment or are exposed to the experimental condition (but we will call it the experimental group in this chapter.) The control/comparison group does not receive the treatment or intervention. Instead they may receive what is known as “treatment as usual” or perhaps no treatment at all.
In a well-designed experiment, the control group should look almost identical to the experimental group in terms of demographics and other relevant factors. What if we want to know the effect of CBT on social anxiety, but we have learned in prior research that men tend to have a more difficult time overcoming social anxiety? We would want our control and experimental groups to have a similar portions of men, since ostensibly, both groups’ results would be affected by the men in the group. If your control group has 5 women, 6 men, and 4 non-binary people, then your experimental group should be made up of roughly the same gender balance to help control for the influence of gender on the outcome of your intervention. (In reality, the groups should be similar along other dimensions, as well, and your group will likely be much larger.) The researcher will use the same outcome measures for both groups and compare them, and assuming the experiment was designed correctly, get a pretty good answer about whether the intervention had an effect on social anxiety.
Random assignment [/pb_glossary], also called randomization, entails using a random process to decide which participants are put into the control or experimental group (which participants receive an intervention and which do not). By randomly assigning participants to a group, you can reduce the effect of extraneous variables on your research because there won’t be a systematic difference between the groups.
Do not confuse random assignment with random sampling . Random sampling is a method for selecting a sample from a population and is rarely used in psychological research. Random assignment is a method for assigning participants in a sample to the different conditions, and it is an important element of all experimental research in psychology and other related fields. Random sampling helps a great deal with external validity, or generalizability , whereas random assignment increases internal validity .
To control for spuriousness (as well as meeting the three other criteria for establishing causality), experiments try to control as many aspects of the research process as possible: using control groups, having large enough sample sizes, standardizing the treatment, etc. Researchers in large experiments often employ clinicians or other research staff to help them. Researchers train their staff members exhaustively, provide pre-scripted responses to common questions, and control the physical environment of the experiment so each person who participates receives the exact same treatment. Experimental researchers also document their procedures, so that others can review them and make changes in future research if they think it will improve on the ability to control for spurious variables.
An interesting example is Bruce Alexander’s (2010) Rat Park experiments. Much of the early research conducted on addictive drugs, like heroin and cocaine, was conducted on animals other than humans, usually mice or rats. The scientific consensus up until Alexander’s experiments was that cocaine and heroin were so addictive that rats, if offered the drugs, would consume them repeatedly until they perished. Researchers claimed this behavior explained how addiction worked in humans, but Alexander was not so sure. He knew rats were social animals and the experimental procedure from previous experiments did not allow them to socialize. Instead, rats were kept isolated in small cages with only food, water, and metal walls. To Alexander, social isolation was a spurious variable, causing changes in addictive behavior not due to the drug itself. Alexander created an experiment of his own, in which rats were allowed to run freely in an interesting environment, socialize and mate with other rats, and of course, drink from a solution that contained an addictive drug. In this environment, rats did not become hopelessly addicted to drugs. In fact, they had little interest in the substance. To Alexander, the results of his experiment demonstrated that social isolation was more of a causal factor for addiction than the drug itself.
One challenge with Alexander’s findings is that subsequent researchers have had mixed success replicating his findings (e.g., Petrie, 1996; Solinas, Thiriet, El Rawas, Lardeux, & Jaber, 2009). Replication involves conducting another researcher’s experiment in the same manner and seeing if it produces the same results. If the causal relationship is real, it should occur in all (or at least most) rigorous replications of the experiment.
[INSERT A PARAGRAPH ABOUT REPLICATION/REPRODUCTION HERE. CAN USE/REFERENCE THIS IF IT’S HELPFUL; include glossary definition as well as other general info]
To allow for easier replication, researchers should describe their experimental methods diligently. Researchers with the Open Science Collaboration (2015) [1] conducted the Reproducibility Project , which caused a significant controversy regarding the validity of psychological studies. The researchers with the project attempted to reproduce the results of 100 experiments published in major psychology journals since 2008. What they found was shocking. Although 97% of the original studies reported significant results, only 36% of the replicated studies had significant findings. The average effect size in the replication studies was half that of the original studies. The implications of the Reproducibility Project are potentially staggering, and encourage social scientists to carefully consider the validity of their reported findings and that the scientific community take steps to ensure researchers do not cherry-pick data or change their hypotheses simply to get published.
Let’s return to Alexander’s Rat Park study and consider the implications of his experiment for substance use professionals. The conclusions he drew from his experiments on rats were meant to be generalized to the population. If this could be done, the experiment would have a high degree of external validity , which is the degree to which conclusions generalize to larger populations and different situations. Alexander argues his conclusions about addiction and social isolation help us understand why people living in deprived, isolated environments may become addicted to drugs more often than those in more enriching environments. Similarly, earlier rat researchers argued their results showed these drugs were instantly addictive to humans, often to the point of death.
Neither study’s results will match up perfectly with real life. There are clients in social work practice who may fit into Alexander’s social isolation model, but social isolation is complex. Clients can live in environments with other sociable humans, work jobs, and have romantic relationships; does this mean they are not socially isolated? On the other hand, clients may face structural racism, poverty, trauma, and other challenges that may contribute to their social environment. Alexander’s work helps understand clients’ experiences, but the explanation is incomplete. Human existence is more complicated than the experimental conditions in Rat Park.
Social workers are especially attentive to how social context shapes social life. This consideration points out a potential weakness of experiments. They can be rather artificial. When an experiment demonstrates causality under ideal, controlled circumstances, it establishes the efficacy of an intervention.
How often do real-world social interactions occur in the same way that they do in a controlled experiment? Experiments that are conducted in community settings by community practitioners are less easily controlled than those conducted in a lab or with researchers who adhere strictly to research protocols delivering the intervention. When an experiment demonstrates causality in a real-world setting that is not tightly controlled, it establishes the effectiveness of the intervention.
The distinction between efficacy and effectiveness demonstrates the tension between internal and external validity. Internal validity and external validity are conceptually linked. Internal validity refers to the degree to which the intervention causes its intended outcomes, and external validity refers to how well that relationship applies to different groups and circumstances than the experiment. However, the more researchers tightly control the environment to ensure internal validity, the more they may risk external validity for generalizing their results to different populations and circumstances. Correspondingly, researchers whose settings are just like the real world will be less able to ensure internal validity, as there are many factors that could pollute the research process. This is not to suggest that experimental research findings cannot have high levels of both internal and external validity, but that experimental researchers must always be aware of this potential weakness and clearly report limitations in their research reports.
Experimental design is an umbrella term for a research method that is designed to test hypotheses related to causality under controlled conditions. Table 14.1 describes the three major types of experimental design (pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, and true experimental) and presents subtypes for each. As we will see in the coming sections, some types of experimental design are better at establishing causality than others. It’s also worth considering that true experiments, which most effectively establish causality , are often difficult and expensive to implement. Although the other experimental designs aren’t perfect, they still produce useful, valid evidence and may be more feasible to carry out.
) | ||
A. One-group pretest posttest | A. Pre- and posttests are administered, but no comparison group | XXXX |
B. One-shot case study | B. No pretest | What is the average level of loneliness among graduates of a peer support training program? What percent of graduates rate their social support as “good” or “excellent”? |
) | ||
C. Nonequivalent comparison group design | C. Similar to classical experimental design only without random assignment | XXXX |
D. Static-group design | D. No pretest, posttest administered after the intervention
| |
E. Natural experiments | E. Naturally occurring event becomes “experimental condition”; observational study in which some cases are exposed to condition (which becomes the “experimental condition”) and others are not; changes in “experimental” group can be assessed; | |
( ) | XXXX | |
F. Classical experimental design | F. Pre- and posttest; control group | |
G. Posttest only control group | G. Does not use a pretest and assumes random assignment results in equivalent groups | |
H. Solomon four group design | H. Random assignment, two experimental and two control groups, pretests for half of the groups and posttests for all |
TRACK 1 (IF YOU ARE CREATING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR THIS CLASS):
TRACK 2 (IF YOU AREN’T CREATING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR THIS CLASS):
Imagine you are interested in studying child welfare practice. You are interested in learning more about community-based programs aimed to prevent child maltreatment and to prevent out-of-home placement for children.
an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.
treatment, intervention, or experience that is being tested in an experiment (the independent variable) that is received by the experimental group and not by the control group.
Ability to say that one variable "causes" something to happen to another variable. Very important to assess when thinking about studies that examine causation such as experimental or quasi-experimental designs.
circumstances or events that may affect the outcome of an experiment, resulting in changes in the research participants that are not a result of the intervention, treatment, or experimental condition being tested
causal explanations that can be universally applied to groups, such as scientific laws or universal truths
as a criteria for causal relationship, the relationship must make logical sense and seem possible
when the values of two variables change at the same time
as a criteria for causal relationship, the cause must come before the effect
an association between two variables that is NOT caused by a third variable
variables and characteristics that have an effect on your outcome, but aren't the primary variable whose influence you're interested in testing.
the group of participants in our study who do not receive the intervention we are researching in experiments with random assignment
the group of participants in our study who do not receive the intervention we are researching in experiments without random assignment
in experimental design, the group of participants in our study who do receive the intervention we are researching
The ability to apply research findings beyond the study sample to some broader population,
This is a synonymous term for generalizability - the ability to apply the findings of a study beyond the sample to a broader population.
performance of an intervention under ideal and controlled circumstances, such as in a lab or delivered by trained researcher-interventionists
The performance of an intervention under "real-world" conditions that are not closely controlled and ideal
the idea that one event, behavior, or belief will result in the occurrence of another, subsequent event, behavior, or belief
Doctoral Research Methods in Social Work Copyright © by Mavs Open Press. All Rights Reserved.
Experimental procedure.
Whether you’re a teacher or a learner, vocabulary.com can put you or your class on the path to systematic vocabulary improvement..
When you’re a scientist, getting an unexpected result can be a double-edged sword. The best prevailing theories of the day can tell you what sort of data you ought to expect to acquire as you ask nature questions about itself, but only by confronting your predictions with real-world scientific inquiry — involving experiments, measurements, and observations — can you put those theories to the test. Most commonly, the results agree with what the leading theories predict; after all, that’s why they became the leading theories in the first place. Still, it’s important to keep pushing the frontiers of even the most well-established theories in new and untested regimes, as if there’s ever going to be a new scientific breakthrough, the first hints of it will come from experiments and observations that nature has never been subjected to before.
That’s why it’s so compelling when, every once in a while, scientists get a result that conflicts with our theoretical expectations. In general, when this happens in physics, most people default to the most skeptical of explanations: that there’s a problem with the experiment, the data, or the analysis. The general assumption is that either there’s:
But it’s also possible that something quite fantastic is afoot: we’re seeing the first signs of something new and unexpected in the Universe. It’s important to remain simultaneously both skeptical and open-minded, as these five examples from science history clearly illustrate.
Story 1 : It’s the 1880s, and scientists have measured the speed of light to very good precision: 299,800 km/s or so, with an uncertainty of about 0.005%. That’s precise enough that, if light travels through the medium of a fixed and unchanging space, we should be able to tell when and whether that light is moving with, against, or at an angle to Earth’s motion (at 30 km/s) around the Sun.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to test exactly this , anticipating that light would travel through the medium of space — then known as the aether — at different speeds dependent on the direction of Earth’s motion relative to the apparatus. Yet, when the experiment was performed, it always gave the same results: results that indicated that the speed of light was a constant in all directions at all times. This constancy was observed regardless of factors such as how the apparatus was oriented or when in Earth’s orbit the measurements were taken. This was an unexpected result that flew in the face of the leading theory of the day, but was performed so exquisitely that the results were extremely compelling to the broader community of physicists who were investigating nature at a fundamental level.
Story 2 : It’s the late 1920s, and scientists have now discovered three types of radioactive decay: alpha, beta, and gamma decays. In alpha decay, an unstable atomic nucleus emits an alpha particle (helium-4 nucleus), where the total energy and momentum of both “daughter” particles appears to be conserved, and equals the energy and momentum from the “parent” particle. In gamma decay, a gamma particle (photon) is emitted from an unstable atomic nucleus, where both energy and momentum are conserved from the initial to the final states as well. This energy and momentum conservation has also been observed to hold for all non-decaying particles and reactions as well; they appear to be immutable laws of nature.
However, then there was beta decay. In the process of beta decay, a beta particle (electron) is emitted from an atomic nucleus, which transmutes into a different element on the periodic table: one element up. In beta decay, however, the total energy is less for the two observed daughter particles (the emitted electron and the new nucleus) than it was for the parent particle (the old nucleus), and momentum is no longer conserved in this process. The expectation was that energy and momentum are two quantities that are expected to always be conserved in particle interactions, and so seeing a reaction where energy is lost and a net momentum appears out of nowhere violates both of those rules, never seen to be violated in any other particle reaction, collision, or decay.
Story 3 : It’s the late 1990s, and scientists are working hard to measure exactly how the Universe is expanding. Not only to answer the question of, “How fast is the Universe expanding today?” but also to answer the complementary question of, “How has the Universe’s expansion rate changed and evolved throughout its history?” In theory — and this had been known since the 1920s — if you could answer both of those questions, you could determine precisely what all the various different types of matter-and-energy were that existed throughout the Universe, and what their energy densities were at every point in cosmic history.
A combination of ground-based observations and space-based ones (including the then-relatively new Hubble Space Telescope) were using every type of distance indicator to measure those two key parameters:
After years of carefully measuring the brightnesses and redshifts of many different type Ia supernovae at large distances, two teams of scientists tentatively published their results. From their data, they each reached the same conclusion: that “the deceleration parameter” is actually negative ; instead of gravity slowing the Universe’s expansion, more distant galaxies appear to be speeding up in their apparent recession velocities as time goes on. In a Universe composed of normal matter, dark matter, radiation, neutrinos, and spatial curvature, this effect is theoretically impossible; either something was wrong with this data or how it was being interpreted, or some exotic form of energy must exist within our Universe.
Story 4 : It’s 2011, and the Large Hadron Collider has only been operating for a short while. After initially turning on in 2008, a leak in the liquid helium system caused extensive damage to the machine, requiring years of repairs. Now that there are beams of fast-moving protons circulating within it at incredible speeds, just 3 m/s below the speed of light, the first science results are poised to come in. A variety of experiments that take advantage of these energetic particles are underway, seeking to measure a variety of aspects about the Universe. Some of them involve collisions of particles in one direction with particles moving equally fast in the other direction; others involve “fixed target” experiments, where fast-moving particles are collided with stationary ones.
In this latter case, enormous numbers of particles are produced all moving in the same general direction: a particle shower. These so-called “daughter particles” proceed to travel at near-light speeds in the same direction that the original protons were moving in. Some of these daughter particles will quickly decay, producing neutrinos when they do. One experiment successfully measures these neutrinos from a downstream location that’s hundreds of kilometers away, reaching a startling conclusion: the particles are arriving tens of nanoseconds earlier than their predicted arrival time. If all particles, including neutrinos, are limited by the speed of light, this “early arrival time” should be theoretically impossible.
Story 5 : It’s now well into the 2010s, and the Large Hadron Collider has been operating for years. The full results from its first run are now in, and the Higgs boson has been discovered: a Nobel Prize-winning discovery. The last undiscovered particle in the Standard Model has now been found, and many of the other Standard Model particles have been subjected to unprecedented tests of their properties, showing no discernible deviation from their predicted behaviors. With all the pieces of the Standard Model now firmly in place, and little to point to anything being out of the ordinary otherwise, particle physics seems secure as-is, and the Standard Model seems more robust than ever.
Nevertheless, there are a few anomalous “bumps” that appear in the data: extra events that appear at certain energies where the Standard Model predicts that there should be no extra events. With two competing collaborations colliding particles at the maximum energies that the LHC can achieve, both working independently, a sensible cross-check would be to see if both CMS and ATLAS find similar evidence of any bumps occurring at the same energies and with the same level of significance. Remarkably there’s at least one location where both experiments see the exact same “extra” signal, consistent with the same “bump” in the data, and that’s an incredibly suggestive piece of evidence. Whatever’s going on, it doesn’t match the theoretical predictions that our most successful theories of all-time give, making us wonder if we aren’t on the cusp of discovering a new fundamental particle, interaction, or physical phenomenon.
In each of these cases, it’s important to recognize what the possible outcomes are. In general, there are three possibilities for what’s going to occur.
1.) There is literally nothing to see here. What’s being touted as a potential new discovery is nothing more than an error of some sort. Whether it’s because of:
is irrelevant; the claimed effect is not real.
2.) The rules of physics, as we’ve conceived them up until now, are not as we believed them to be, and this result is a hint — perhaps the first key hint — that there’s something different about our Universe than we’ve thought up until this point. It’s going to require a new physical law, principle, or even a whole new conception of reality to set things right.
3.) There is a new component to the Universe — something not previously included in our theoretical expectations — whose effects are showing up in these new results, possibly for the first time.
If you yourself are a scientist, you recognize immediately that your default assumption should be the first one, and that it would require an overwhelming amount of additional supporting evidence to show us that either the second or third option, both of which would be revolutionary, is instead correct.
Of course, that’s not at all how reality plays out for most of us. Many of our scientific colleagues these days are quick to write papers putting forth novel, fringe ideas that either alter the rules of physics or propose new, additional particles or interactions as “leading explanations” for these results. Most of the discussions you’ll see in popular, even mainstream media sources is about how some new evidence threatens to “break the Universe” or something equally sensationalistic. But these are not answers; these are merely examples of ambulance-chasing : where something loud, flashy, and new is attracting all sorts of attention, particularly unscrupulous attention, from people who should ethically know better.
How will we actually determine which explanation is the correct one for these new observations? The scientific process demands just one thing: that we gather more data, better data, and independent data that either confirms or refutes what’s been seen. New ideas and theories that supersede the old ones ought to be considered, so long as they:
The correct first response to an unexpected result is to try to independently reproduce it and to compare these results with other, complementary results that should help us interpret this new result in the context of the full suite of evidence.
Each one of these five historical stories had a different ending, although they all had the potential to revolutionize the Universe. In order, here’s what happened:
On the other hand, there are a large number of collaborations that are too quick to observe an anomaly and then make extraordinary claims based on that one observation. The DAMA collaboration claims to have directly detected dark matter , despite a whole slew of red flags and failed confirmation attempts . The Atomki anomaly, which observes a specific nuclear decay, sees an unexpected result in the distribution of angles of that decay , claiming the existence of a new particle, the X17, with a series of unprecedented properties. There have been numerous claims that cold fusion has been achieved , which defies the conventional rules of nuclear physics.
There have been claims of reactionless, thrustless engines , which defy the rules of momentum conservation. And there have been extraordinary claims made by real physicists, such as from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer or BICEP2 , that had mundane, rather than extraordinary, explanations. More recently, there have been claims about room-temperature superconductivity surrounding a substance known as LK-99 , now known not to superconduct at all, and the muon g -2 anomaly, which appears to be an experimental triumph but which comes alongside a theoretical calculation whose errors were badly underestimated .
Whenever you do a real, bona fide experiment, it’s important that you don’t bias yourself toward getting whatever result you anticipate or, worse, hope for. You, as the scientist, need to be the most skeptical of your own setup, the most honest about your errors and uncertainties, and the most forthcoming about your methodologies and their possible flaws. You’ll want to be as responsible as possible, doing everything you can to calibrate your instruments properly and understand all of your sources of error and uncertainty, but in the end, you have to report your results honestly, regardless of what you see. It’s going to be up to the rest of the scientific community to either validate or refute what you’ve found, and if you’ve been unscrupulous at any point along the way, you’re going to get exposed eventually.
There should be no penalty to collaborations for coming up with results that aren’t borne out by later experiments; the OPERA, ATLAS, and CMS collaborations in particular did admirable jobs in releasing their data with all the appropriate caveats. When the first hints of an anomaly arrive, unless there is a particularly glaring flaw with the experiment (or the experimenters), there is no way to know whether it’s an experimental flaw, evidence for an unseen component, or the harbinger of a new set of physical laws. Only with more, better, and independent scientific data can we hope to solve whatever puzzle our investigations reveal about the natural world.
Mode I fracture toughness is the most common amongst the three fracture modes because of its applications in rocks/materials engineering. There are different experimental methods that are available for its measurements and the selection of the available procedures to be used is usually a difficult task and highly multi criteria in nature. Therefore, this study proposed novel applications of two fuzzy-based multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for prioritising the experimental procedures. Thirteen different experimental methods were identified and evaluated under three different criteria by the experts. The weights were computed using both expert-assigned weights to each criterion and the fuzzy intuitionistic entropy measure obtained weights. This study reveals that ISRM-suggested cracked chevron notched Brazilian disc method is the most preferred follow by the semi-circular bend specimen and Brazilian disc method. The Pearson’s correlation between the models is very strong (˃ 0.9), indicating that either of the two proposed approaches is suitable for this purpose. The sensitivity analysis was conducted by generating twenty-one sets of weights and the outcome ranked ISRM-suggested cracked chevron notched Brazilian disc, the most suitable follow by semi-circular bend specimen and Brazilian disc methods. The correlations amongst the MCDM methods for the sensitivity analysis are also very strong as previously observed. This study shows that the proposed models are suitable in prioritising the most appropriate experimental procedures for mode I fracture toughness.
Experimental procedures for mode I fracture toughness are found in the literature but users are facing difficulties in selecting the most suitable.
Novel fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy GRA MCDM methods are used for selecting the best experimental procedure.
The ISRM-suggested cracked chevron notched Brazilian disc method is found to be most suitable by the novel methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Not applicable.
Afrasiabian B, Eftekhari M (2022) Prediction of mode I fracture toughness of rock using linear multiple regression and gene expression programming. J Rock Mech Geotechn Eng 14:1421–1432
Article Google Scholar
Amrollahi H, Baghbanan A, Hashemolhosseini H (2011) Measuring fracture toughness of crystalline marbles under modes I and II and mixed mode I-II loading conditions using CCNBD and HCCD specimens. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48(7):1123–1134
Atkinson C, Smelser RE, Sanchez J (1982) Combined mode fracture via the cracked Brazilian disk test. Int J Fract 18(4):279–291
Banaeian N, Mobli H, Fahimnia B, Nielsen IE, Omid M (2016) Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: a case study from the agri-food industry. Comput Oper Res 89:337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.02.015
Boran FE, Genç S, Kurt M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Exp Syst Appl 36:11363–11368
Chang SH, Lee CI, Jeon S (2002) Measurement of rock fracture toughness under modes I and II and mixed-mode conditions by using disc-type specimens. Eng Geo 66(1):79–97
Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzz Sets Syst 114:1–9
Chen F, Sun Z, Xu J (2001) Mode I fracture analysis of the double edge cracked Brazilian disk using a weight function method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(3):475–479
Chu MT, Shyu J, Tzeng GH, Khosla R (2007) Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis. Exp Syst Appl 33:1011–1024
Cong Z, Li Y, Liu Y, Xiao Y (2021) A new method for calculating the direction of fracture propagation by stress numerical search based on the displacement discontinuity method. Compu Geotech 140:104482
Cui ZD, Liu D-A, An G-M, Sun B, Zhou M, Cao F-Q (2010) A comparison of two ISRM suggested chevron notched specimens for testing mode-I rock fracture toughness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:871–876
Dong JL (1982) Control problems of grey systems. Syst Control Lett 5:288–94.
Ersoy N (2021) Normalization procedures for cocoso method: a comparative analysis under different scenarios. Dokuz Eylül Uni J Facul Bus 22(2):217–234
Google Scholar
Fowell RJ (1995) ISRM commission on testing methods. Suggested method for determining mode I fracture toughness using cracked chevron notched Brazilian disc (CCNBD) specimens. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 32(1):57–64
Fowell RJ, Chen JF (1990) The third chevron-notch rock fracture specimen-the cracked chevron-notched Brazilian disk. Proceedings 31st US Symposium Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 295–302
Gumus AT, Yayla AY, Celik E, Yildiz A (2013) A combined fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy-GRA methodology hydrogen energy storage method selection in Turkey. Energies 6:3017–3032
Guo H, Aziz NI, Schmidt LC (1993) Rock fracture-toughness determination by the Brazilian test. Eng Geo 33(3):177–188
Junior FRL, Osiro L, Carpinetti LCR (2014) A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 21:194–209
Kahraman S, Altindag R (2004) A brittleness index to estimate fracture toughness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(2):343–348
Krohling RA, Campanharo VC (2011) Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: a case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea. Exp Syst Appl 38:4190–4197
Kuruppu MD (1997) Fracture toughness measurement using chevron notched semi-circular bend specimen. Int J Fract 86(4):133–138
Kuruppu MD, Obara Y, Ayatollahi MR, Chong KP, Funatsu T (2014) ISRM-suggested method for determining the mode I static fracture toughness using semi-circular bend specimen. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:267–274
Lawal AI, Kwon S (2023) Reliability assessment of empirical equations, ANN and MARS models for predicting the mode I fracture toughness from non-destructive rock properties. Rock Mech Rock Eng 56:6157–6166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03345-9
Li GD, Yamaguchi D, Nagai MA (2008) Grey-based rough decision-making approach to supplier selection. Int J Adv Manu Techn 36:1032–1040
Li Y, Peng G, Tang J, Zhang J, Zhao W, Liu B, Pan Y (2023) Thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling simulation for fracture propagation in CO 2 fracturing based on phase-field model. Energy 284:128629
Article CAS Google Scholar
Lin M, Wang H, Xu Z (2020) TODIM-based multi-criteria decision-making method with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Artif Intell Rev 53:3647–3671
Nazim M, Mohammad CW, Sadiq M (2022) A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection. Alexandria Eng J 61:10851–10870
Ouchterlony F (1988) ISRM commission on testing methods. Suggested methods for determining fracture toughness of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Geomech Abst 25(2):71–96
Ouchterlony F (1991) Experiences from fracture toughness testing of rock: According to the ISRM suggested methods. SveDeFo
Rahimi M, Kumar P, Moomivand B, Yari G (2021) An intuitionistic fuzzy entropy approach for supplier selection. Compl Intell Syst 7:1869–1876
Roy B (2005) Paradigms and challenges. In: Greco S, Figueira J, Ehrgott M (Eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Springer, New York 78:3–24.
Roy DG, Singh TN, Kodikara J, Talukdar M (2017) Correlating the mechanical and physical properties with mode-I fracture toughness of rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(7):1941–1946
Roy DG, Singh TN, Kodikara J (2018) Predicting mode-I fracture toughness of rocks using soft computing and multiple regression. Meas J 126:231–241
Saeidi O, Torabi SR, Ataei M, Hoseinie SH (2012) Prediction of rock fracture toughness modes I and II utilising brittleness indexes. Int J Min Mineral Eng 4(2):163–173
Stanujkic D, Đorđević B, Đorđević M (2013) Comparative analysis of some prominent mcdm methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks. Serbian J Manag 8(2):213–241
Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2001) Entropy for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst 118:467–477
Tang TX, Bazant ZP, Yang S, Zollinger D (1996) Variable-notch one-size test method for fracture energy and process zone length. Eng Fract Mech 55(3):383–404
Thiercelin M, Roegiers JC (1988) Fracture toughness determination with the modified ring test. Proc Int Symp Eng Compl Rock Formations 284–290
Tseng ML, Chiu ASF (2013) Evaluating firm’s green supply chain management in linguistic preferences. J Cleaner Prod 40:2–31
Wang F (2021) Preference degree of triangular fuzzy numbers and its application to multi-attribute group decision making. Exp Syst Appl 178:114982
Wang QZ, Xing L (1999) Determination of fracture toughness KIC by using the flattened Brazilian disk specimen for rocks. Eng Fract Mech 64(2):193–201
Wang J, Ye N, Ge L (2020) Steady-state power quality synthetic evaluation based on the triangular fuzzy BW method and interval VIKOR method. Appl Sci 10:28–39. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10082839
Wang W, Zhao Y, Teng T, Zhang C, Jiao Z (2021) Influence of bedding planes on mode I and mixed-mode (I-ii) dynamic fracture toughness of coal: analysis of experiments. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54(1):173–189
Wu JZ, Zhang Q (2011) Multi-criteria decision making method based on intuitionistic fuzzy weighted entropy. Exp Syst Appl 38:916–922
Xu L, Shu Z, Pang C (2019) Interval multi-attribute decision making method based on pass value adaptive regret theory and evidence theory. J Syst Sci Math Sci 39:857–874
Yang S, Tang TX, Zollinger DR, Gurjar A (1997) Splitting tension tests to determine concrete fracture parameters by peak-load method. Adv Cem Base Mat 5(1):18–28
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Contr 8:338–353
Zhang SF, Liu SY (2011) A GRA-based intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making method for personnel selection. Exp Syst Appl 8:11401–11405
Zhang ZX, Kou S, Lindqvist P, Yu Y (1998) The relationship between the fracture toughness and tensile strength of rock strength theories: applications, development and prospects for 21st Century. Sci Press, Beijing, pp 215–219
Zhang N, Zhou Y, Pan Q, Wei G (2022) Multi-attribute decision-making method with triangular fuzzy numbers based on regret theory and the catastrophe progression method. Math Biosci Eng 19(12):12013–12030
Zhou YX, Xia K, Li XB, Li HB, Ma GW, Zhao J, Zhou ZL, Dai F (2012) Suggested methods for determining the dynamic strength parameters and mode-I fracture toughness of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 49:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.10.004
Download references
We declared that no funding was received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Mining Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
Abiodun Ismail Lawal
Department of Mining Engineering and Mine Surveying, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Nafiu O. Ogunsola
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
Aminat F. Ajeboriogbon
Institute of Innovation, Science and Sustainability, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC, Australia
Moshood Onifade
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Inha University, Yong-Hyun Dong, Nam Ku, Incheon, South Korea
Sangki Kwon
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Abiodun Ismail Lawal or Sangki Kwon .
Conflict of interests.
No relevant financial or non-financial interests to be declared.
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Lawal, A.I., Ogunsola, N.O., Ajeboriogbon, A.F. et al. Prioritising the Experimental Procedures for Mode I Fracture Toughness Using Fuzzy Group Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods. Rock Mech Rock Eng (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-024-04123-x
Download citation
Received : 22 March 2024
Accepted : 05 August 2024
Published : 30 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-024-04123-x
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
Here’s how you know
Meditation has a history that goes back thousands of years, and many meditative techniques began in Eastern traditions. The term “meditation” refers to a variety of practices that focus on mind and body integration and are used to calm the mind and enhance overall well-being. Some types of meditation involve maintaining mental focus on a particular sensation, such as breathing, a sound, a visual image, or a mantra, which is a repeated word or phrase. Other forms of meditation include the practice of mindfulness, which involves maintaining attention or awareness on the present moment without making judgments.
Programs that teach meditation or mindfulness may combine the practices with other activities. For example, mindfulness-based stress reduction is a program that teaches mindful meditation, but it also includes discussion sessions and other strategies to help people apply what they have learned to stressful experiences. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy integrates mindfulness practices with aspects of cognitive behavioral therapy.
Meditation and mindfulness practices usually are considered to have few risks. However, few studies have examined these practices for potentially harmful effects, so it isn’t possible to make definite statements about safety.
A 2020 review examined 83 studies (a total of 6,703 participants) and found that 55 of those studies reported negative experiences related to meditation practices. The researchers concluded that about 8 percent of participants had a negative effect from practicing meditation, which is similar to the percentage reported for psychological therapies. The most commonly reported negative effects were anxiety and depression. In an analysis limited to 3 studies (521 participants) of mindfulness-based stress reduction programs, investigators found that the mindfulness practices were not more harmful than receiving no treatment.
According to the National Health Interview Survey, an annual nationally representative survey, the percentage of U.S. adults who practiced meditation more than doubled between 2002 and 2022, from 7.5 to 17.3 percent. Of seven complementary health approaches for which data were collected in the 2022 survey, meditation was the most popular, beating out yoga (used by 15.8 percent of adults), chiropractic care (11.0 percent), massage therapy (10.9 percent), guided imagery/progressive muscle relaxation (6.4 percent), acupuncture (2.2 percent), and naturopathy (1.3 percent).
For children aged 4 to 17 years, data are available for 2017; in that year, 5.4 percent of U.S. children used meditation.
In a 2012 U.S. survey, 1.9 percent of 34,525 adults reported that they had practiced mindfulness meditation in the past 12 months. Among those responders who practiced mindfulness meditation exclusively, 73 percent reported that they meditated for their general wellness and to prevent diseases, and most of them (approximately 92 percent) reported that they meditated to relax or reduce stress. In more than half of the responses, a desire for better sleep was a reason for practicing mindfulness meditation.
Meditation and mindfulness practices may have a variety of health benefits and may help people improve the quality of their lives. Recent studies have investigated if meditation or mindfulness helps people manage anxiety, stress, depression, pain, or symptoms related to withdrawal from nicotine, alcohol, or opioids.
Other studies have looked at the effects of meditation or mindfulness on weight control or sleep quality.
However, much of the research on these topics has been preliminary or not scientifically rigorous. Because the studies examined many different types of meditation and mindfulness practices, and the effects of those practices are hard to measure, results from the studies have been difficult to analyze and may have been interpreted too optimistically.
Few high-quality studies have examined the effects of meditation and mindfulness on blood pressure. According to a 2017 statement from the American Heart Association, the practice of meditation may have a possible benefit, but its specific effects on blood pressure have not been determined.
Studies examining the effects of mindfulness or meditation on acute and chronic pain have produced mixed results.
Mindfulness meditation practices may help reduce insomnia and improve sleep quality.
Several clinical trials have investigated if mindfulness-based approaches such as mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) might help people recover from substance use disorders. These approaches have been used to help people increase their awareness of the thoughts and feelings that trigger cravings and learn ways to reduce their automatic reactions to those cravings.
Studies have suggested that meditation and mindfulness may help reduce symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Mindfulness-based approaches may improve the mental health of people with cancer.
Studies have suggested possible benefits of meditation and mindfulness programs for losing weight and managing eating behaviors.
Several studies have been done on using meditation and mindfulness practices to improve symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, the studies have not been of high quality and the results have been mixed, so evidence that meditation or mindfulness approaches will help people manage symptoms of ADHD is not conclusive.
Some research suggests that meditation and mindfulness practices may affect the functioning or structure of the brain. Studies have used various methods of measuring brain activity to look for measurable differences in the brains of people engaged in mindfulness-based practices. Other studies have theorized that training in meditation and mindfulness practices can change brain activity. However, the results of these studies are difficult to interpret, and the practical implications are not clear.
NCCIH supports a variety of meditation and mindfulness studies, including:
Nccih clearinghouse.
The NCCIH Clearinghouse provides information on NCCIH and complementary and integrative health approaches, including publications and searches of Federal databases of scientific and medical literature. The Clearinghouse does not provide medical advice, treatment recommendations, or referrals to practitioners.
Toll-free in the U.S.: 1-888-644-6226
Telecommunications relay service (TRS): 7-1-1
Website: https://www.nccih.nih.gov
Email: [email protected] (link sends email)
NCCIH and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provide tools to help you understand the basics and terminology of scientific research so you can make well-informed decisions about your health. Know the Science features a variety of materials, including interactive modules, quizzes, and videos, as well as links to informative content from Federal resources designed to help consumers make sense of health information.
Explaining How Research Works (NIH)
Know the Science: How To Make Sense of a Scientific Journal Article
Understanding Clinical Studies (NIH)
A service of the National Library of Medicine, PubMed® contains publication information and (in most cases) brief summaries of articles from scientific and medical journals. For guidance from NCCIH on using PubMed, see How To Find Information About Complementary Health Approaches on PubMed .
Website: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has created a website, NIH Clinical Research Trials and You, to help people learn about clinical trials, why they matter, and how to participate. The site includes questions and answers about clinical trials, guidance on how to find clinical trials through ClinicalTrials.gov and other resources, and stories about the personal experiences of clinical trial participants. Clinical trials are necessary to find better ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases.
Website: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you
RePORTER is a database of information on federally funded scientific and medical research projects being conducted at research institutions.
Website: https://reporter.nih.gov
Thanks to Elizabeth Ginexi, Ph.D., Erin Burke Quinlan, Ph.D., and David Shurtleff, Ph.D., NCCIH, for their review of this 2022 publication.
This publication is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. Duplication is encouraged.
NCCIH has provided this material for your information. It is not intended to substitute for the medical expertise and advice of your health care provider(s). We encourage you to discuss any decisions about treatment or care with your health care provider. The mention of any product, service, or therapy is not an endorsement by NCCIH.
Related Topics
Pain: Considering Complementary Approaches (eBook)
For Consumers
8 Things to Know About Meditation and Mindfulness
For Health Care Providers
Use of Yoga, Meditation, and Chiropractic by Adults and Children
Mind and Body Approaches for Chronic Pain
Meditation - Systematic Reviews/Reviews/Meta-analyses (PubMed®)
Meditation - Randomized Controlled Trials (PubMed®)
Research Results
National Survey Reveals Increased Use of Yoga, Meditation, and Chiropractic Care Among U.S. Adults
National Survey Reveals Increased Use of Yoga and Meditation Among U.S. Children
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Shown To Be Cost Effective for Chronic Low-Back Pain
arXiv's Accessibility Forum starts next month!
Help | Advanced Search
Title: find the assembly mistakes: error segmentation for industrial applications.
Abstract: Recognizing errors in assembly and maintenance procedures is valuable for industrial applications, since it can increase worker efficiency and prevent unplanned down-time. Although assembly state recognition is gaining attention, none of the current works investigate assembly error localization. Therefore, we propose StateDiffNet, which localizes assembly errors based on detecting the differences between a (correct) intended assembly state and a test image from a similar viewpoint. StateDiffNet is trained on synthetically generated image pairs, providing full control over the type of meaningful change that should be detected. The proposed approach is the first to correctly localize assembly errors taken from real ego-centric video data for both states and error types that are never presented during training. Furthermore, the deployment of change detection to this industrial application provides valuable insights and considerations into the mechanisms of state-of-the-art change detection algorithms. The code and data generation pipeline are publicly available at: this https URL .
Comments: | 23 pages (14 main paper, 2 references, 7 supplementary), 15 figures (8 main paper, 7 supplementary). Accepted at ECCV Vision-based InduStrial InspectiON (VISION) workshop |
Subjects: | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV) |
Cite as: | [cs.CV] |
(or [cs.CV] for this version) | |
Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Access paper:.
Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Experiment Definition in Science. By definition, an experiment is a procedure that tests a hypothesis. A hypothesis, in turn, is a prediction of cause and effect or the predicted outcome of changing one factor of a situation. Both the hypothesis and experiment are components of the scientific method. The steps of the scientific method are:
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.
Key Info. Write the experimental procedure like a step-by-step recipe for your science experiment. A good procedure is so detailed and complete that it lets someone else duplicate your experiment exactly! Repeating a science experiment is an important step to verify that your results are consistent and not just an accident.. For a typical experiment, you should plan to repeat it at least three ...
Each time that you perform your experiment is called a run or a trial. So, your experimental procedure should also specify how many trials you intend to run. Most teachers want you to repeat your experiment a minimum of three times. Repeating your experiment more than three times is even better, and doing so may even be required to measure very ...
Experimentation is one scientific research method, perhaps the most recognizable, in a spectrum of methods that also includes description, comparison, and modeling (see our Description, Comparison, and Modeling modules). While all of these methods share in common a scientific approach, experimentation is unique in that it involves the conscious ...
The experimental design is a set of procedures that are designed to test a hypothesis. The process has five steps: define variables, formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment, assign subjects ...
The six steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a question about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a hypothesis, 4) experimenting to test the hypothesis, 5) analyzing the data from the experiment and drawing conclusions, and 6) communicating the results ...
An experiment is a procedure carried out to support or refute a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy or likelihood of something previously untried. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Experiments vary greatly in goal and scale but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results.
An experiment is a procedure designed to test a hypothesis as part of the scientific method. The two key variables in any experiment are the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is controlled or changed to test its effects on the dependent variable. Three key types of experiments are controlled experiments, field ...
Experimental design means creating 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
Experimental research is commonly used in sciences such as sociology and psychology, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine etc. It is a collection of research designs which use manipulation and controlled testing to understand causal processes. Generally, one or more variables are manipulated to determine their effect on a dependent variable ...
In science, a procedure refers to a defined method, process, or set of steps to systematically carry out an experiment, test a hypothesis, or conduct research. If you're short on time, here's a quick answer: A scientific procedure details how to perform an investigation in a reproducible, standardized way. In this comprehensive article, we ...
Experimental Design. Experimental design is a process of planning and conducting scientific experiments to investigate a hypothesis or research question. It involves carefully designing an experiment that can test the hypothesis, and controlling for other variables that may influence the results. Experimental design typically includes ...
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 ...
Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation. Roger Bacon (1214-1294) Experiments are part of the scientific method that helps to decide the fate of two or more competing hypotheses or explanations on a phenomenon. The term 'experiment' arises from Latin, Experiri, which means, 'to try'.
simulation. scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science.
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:
Experimental research design is a framework of protocols and procedures created to conduct experimental research with a scientific approach using two sets of variables. Herein, the first set of variables acts as a constant, used to measure the differences of the second set. The best example of experimental research methods is quantitative research.
Experimental designs are a set of procedures that you plan in order to examine the relationship between variables that interest you. To design a successful experiment, first identify: A testable hypothesis. One or more independent variables that you will manipulate.
Social Sciences. Experimental method refers to the systematic procedures and steps followed in a research study to conduct experiments, gather data, and analyze results. It aims to provide a detailed description that allows other researchers to replicate the study and evaluate its validity.
Key Takeaways. Experimental designs are useful for establishing causality, but some types of experimental design do this better than others. Experiments help researchers isolate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable by controlling for the effect of extraneous variables.; Experiments use a control/comparison group and an experimental group to test the effects of ...
By definition, procedures classified by ASRM as experimental or investigational require further research. This research may or may not be required to be conducted under the oversight of a properly constituted Institutional Review Board (IRB) (1). The consent form for the intervention should state clearly that the procedure is experimental.
experimental procedure: 1 n the specific techniques used in conducting a particular experiment Types: double-blind experiment , double-blind procedure , double-blind study an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment Type of: ...
This is an example of a statistical fluctuation, one of the 'red herrings' of experimental physics that can easily lead scientists astray. Credit : CERN, CMS + ATLAS collaborations, Matt Strassler
Mode I fracture toughness is the most common amongst the three fracture modes because of its applications in rocks/materials engineering. There are different experimental methods that are available for its measurements and the selection of the available procedures to be used is usually a difficult task and highly multi criteria in nature. Therefore, this study proposed novel applications of ...
For this purpose, a time-dependent numerical model of the TES is developed, which describes the thermal states of the MST/PCM, HTF, and housing as well as the thermal interaction between them (see the experimental procedures). The numerical model provides insights into the transient behavior of TES devices and enables parametric investigation ...
In a 2012 U.S. survey, 1.9 percent of 34,525 adults reported that they had practiced mindfulness meditation in the past 12 months. Among those responders who practiced mindfulness meditation exclusively, 73 percent reported that they meditated for their general wellness and to prevent diseases, and most of them (approximately 92 percent) reported that they meditated to relax or reduce stress.
View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract: Understanding human actions from videos is essential in many domains, including sports. In figure skating, technical judgments are performed by watching skaters' 3D movements, and its part of the judging procedure can be regarded as a Temporal Action Segmentation (TAS) task.
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is ...
procedure is a physical method based on the absorption of radiation at 253.7 nanometers by mercury vapor. Mercury is first reduced to its elemental state using a potassium permanganate