it's beyond time to drop the terms causal comparative and correlational research in education presentations of causal comparative and correlational research methods in educational research textbooks are critiqued. Causal comparative research is neither better nor worse than correlational research in establishing evidence of causality. The second contention is that the terms causal comparative research and correlational research are outdated, and researchers should use more current and accurate terminology. The two most effective ways to classify quantitative, nonexperimental research are, first, based on the primary research objective i.e. Description, prediction, and explanation and, second, based on the time dimension i.e. Another classification dimension is based on the scaling of the independent, dependent, and control variables. Because of the importance of nonexperimental research in education, it is essential that we work toward the development of defensible nonexperimental classifications that make sense in an interdisciplinary research environment.

Authors of several popular educational research methods books make a distinction between two nonexperimental methods called causal comparative research and correlational research e.g. Charles, 1995 fraenkel amp wallen, 1996 gay, 1996 martella, nelson, amp marchand martella, 19. According to these authors, a primary distinction between these two methods is that causal comparative includes a categorical independent and/or dependent variable hence the word comparative implying a group comparison and correlational only includes quantitative variables. Most of these authors also suggest that causal comparative research provides better evidence of cause and effect relationships than correlational research.

The following quotes from gay s 1996 popular text demonstrate these points: like correlational research, causal comparative research is sometimes treated as a type of descriptive research since it too describes conditions that already exist. Causal comparative research, however, also attempts to determine reasons, or causes, for the current status of the phenomena under study. P.321 causal comparative studies attempt to establish cause effect relationships, correlational studies do not. P.322 correlational research attempts to determine whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables.

Both attempt to establish cause effect relationships both involve group comparisons. Each variable must be expressible in numerical form, that is, must be quantifiable. P.318 the purpose of a correlational study may be to determine relationships between variables, or to use relationships in making predictions. Variables that are highly related in correlational research may suggestcausal comparative or experimental studies to determine if the relationships are causal. P.296 emphasis added charles 1998 says, causal comparative research strongly suggests cause and effect. P.305 but that correlational research may sometimes be used to examine the possible existence of causation emphasis added p.260.

In one of the newer educational research methods books on the market, martella, nelson, and marchand martella 19 contend that correlational research has a lower constraint level than causal comparative research. There is not an active attempt to determine the effects of the independent variable in any direct way. Emphasis added p.20 the next quote is from fraenkel, the first author of the leading selling educational research text fraenkel amp wallen, 1996. 1 in the following message available on the aera division d archives, february 11, 1998 , fraenkel answers the question, why do educational researchers. Seem to believe that evidence for cause and effect will be any stronger in causal comparative research than in correlational research?: causal comparative research involves comparing thus the comparative aspect two groups in order to explain existing differences between them on some variable or variables of interest.

The only difference between causal comparative and experimental research is that the groups being compared in causal comparative research have already been formed, and any treatment if there was a treatment has already been applied. Of necessity, the researcher must examine the records of the two groups to see if he or she can offer a reasonable explanation for i.e. Correlational research, on the other hand, does not look at differences between groups. One is only entitled to conclude that a relationship of some sort exists, not that variable a caused some variation in variable b.

Critical Essay Framework

Although the majority supported the distinction, only a minority of those replying to a follow up open ended question asking why they felt the distinction was needed indicated a clearly faulty view of causality in nonexperimental research. Fraenkel s point that one approach compares groups but the other only looks at one group has absolutely nothing to do with establishing evidence of causality using nonexperimental research. Likewise, the fact that some writers choose to label the independent variable a predictor variable in correlational research but not in causal comparative has nothing to do with establishing evidence of causality.

Casual Comparative Design Dissertation Text

Critical Essay Framework

Custom Writing Plagiarism Checker Online