Causal comparative research is a non-experimental method that compares groups that already differ, then looks back for the likely cause of that difference. Researchers use it when they cannot ethically or practically assign people to a treatment. Think of comparing smokers with non-smokers, or students who attended tutoring with those who did not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The method is also called ex post facto research, which means “after the fact.” It points to possible causes. It does not prove them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this guide, we’ll cover what the method is, how it differs from similar designs, how to run a study step by step, and how to judge whether your results hold up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Causal comparative research is a quantitative, non-experimental design that compares two or more existing groups on an outcome to explore whether a specific factor may have caused the difference. The researcher does not manipulate that factor. It has already happened before the study begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grand Canyon University’s research guide notes that the effect and the suspected cause both exist before the study starts<\/a>. That is why the method is called ex post facto. Four terms define every study:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The result is evidence of association and a plausible explanation. It is not proof of causation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Four designs get confused because all four study cause and effect. The difference comes down to who controls the cause and whether groups or variables are compared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
How is causal comparative research different from similar designs?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n