u09d2 Non-Experimental Designs and Your Literature Review

For this discussion, briefly summarize what you have learned about the non-experimental
approach and designs. Identify the material you are most confident about and the material you
are least confident about. Post questions about the material you are least confident about.
Examine the literature review you have compiled thus far on your research topic, especially the
methodology and approaches reported in the articles. Be sure to answer the following questions:
1. Are non-experimental designs used very often in the literature you have reviewed? In
what way?
2. What variables have been investigated?
3. What have non-experimental designs contributed to the knowledge about your research
topic?
4. How will future non-experimental research on your research topic advance the
knowledge base in psychology? What specific variables should be investigated?
Ensure that your post includes proper APA citations. Provide an APA References list at the end of
your post.
Response Guidelines
Read your peers' discussion posts and respond to at least two of them. Ask questions of
clarification or interest and provide feedback on the substance of their posts. In addition, share
any relevant resources with your peers that might be helpful. Your responses are expected to be
substantive in nature and should reference the assigned readings, as well as other theoretical,
empirical, or professional literature to support your views.
1) Briefly summarize what you have learned about the non-experimental approach and designs.
Identify the material you are most confident about and the material you are least confident about.
The non-experimental approach to research allows a researcher to investigate events or
conditions after (e.g. ex post facto) they have occurred to determine the extent of relationship
between independent and dependent variables (Leddy & Ormrod, 2013). Non-experimental
research is similar to correlational and experimental designs by examining existing conditions
and designating appropriate variables. However, the major difference between experimental and
non-experimental designs is the independent variables are not manipulated, thus introducing

potential threats to internal validity. Moreover, the inability of non-experimental designs to

control for covariation, and the lack of random assignment of participants into groups suggest
causal inferences cannot be fully assumed. Thus, the extent of the relationship between
explanatory and response variables in non-experimental research represents more of an
association rather than a statistically significant causal inference (Leddy & Ormrod, 2013).
According to Weisberg (2005), survey error in non experimental designs can occur at every stage
of a survey. Systemic bias is always an ominous threat to internal validity within non-probability
sampling frames. Survey errors such as coverage error, unit non-response error, measurement
error and post survey error. To minimize survey error, a researcher must consider the cost, time
and ethics of expanding the research endeavor to compensate for systemic and random error. For
example, face to face interviews may incur less error than other survey methodologies; however
one must also consider the additional costs and time involved when using this sampling strategy.
The above basic information on non-experimental designs is clearly understood. I wonder
though in regards to survey modes (e.g. mail surveys, telephone surveys, etc.) which one has
typically yields the highest level of internal validity? Would a combination of survey modes be
useful in spiking internal validity and yet reducing costs and time investments compared to the
time consuming use of face-to-face interviews?
2) Are non-experimental designs used very often in the literature you have reviewed? In what
way?
Its important to note that the chief obstacle this author has encountered in perusing extant
research literature on Reiki treatments is the exiguous amount of valid and reliable quantitative
experimental research designs currently available on the perceived efficacy of Reiki treatments
(Tsang, Carlson, Olson, 2007, Vandervaart, Gijsen, Saskia, 2009). Some clinical research studies
have indicated negligible results due to the quality of internal criteria such as inadequacy of
blinding, dropped data in laboratory studies, unreliability of outcome measures, rare use of
power estimations and confidence intervals, and lack of independent replication or external
validity (Cindy, Andrew, & Wayne, 2003). Moreover, some researchers have criticized Reiki
practitioners as clinically functioning in an exploratory mode (Tsang, Carlson, Olson, 2007;
Vandervaart, Gijsen, Saskia, 2009). Thus, there is a need for high quality quantitative
experimental research that will provide causal inference and valuable insights on the
effectiveness of Reiki treatments.
Because of this current and urgent need for more valid experimental research to add to the
knowledge base, non-experimental designs are generally not a prominent design methodology in
currently use for Reiki research. Two studies were located in my literature review so far. A
research article (Shaikh et al., 2009) as previous mentioned in u09d1 of this discussion unit was a
non-experimental, questionnaire based research study which sought to identify and evaluate the
extent of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in urban and rural segments of

Pakistan society. Another article entitled, Symptomatic Improvement Reported After Receiving
Reiki at a Cancer Infusion Center (Marcus, Blazek-O Neill and Kopar, 2012) used a survey
sampling design to examine patient perceived benefits from Reiki treatments at a cancer infusion
center.
3) What variables have been investigated?
In the article by Shaikh et al., (2009), the independent variable was choice of medical treatment
to treat physical maladies and the dependent variable was the percentage of CAM usage. A total
of 8879 questionnaires were distributed with a 98.65% response rate. The results of the study
indicated that 52% of the population in Pakistan is using CAM, while 48.3% chose to use
conventional medicine. Of those who chose CAM, 20% also used biomedicine as well; 16%
homeopathy, 12.4% unani medicine (herbal), 2.1% mind body medicine (faith healing), 0.9%
biologically based practices (home remedies, diet and nutrition), 0.05% energy medicine (Reiki),
0.05% Traditional Chinese Medicine, and 0.02% aromatherapy.
In the article by Marcus, Blazek-O Neill and Kopar (2012), the independent variable was Reiki
treatments and the dependent variable was perceived benefits of Reiki treatment. In total 145
surveys were completed (34.5% response rate). Reiki was rated as a positive experience by 94%
at the cancer center and 93% at other locations, with 92% at the cancer center and 86% of others
interested in receiving additional Reiki sessions. Symptomatic improvement was much to great
improvement for 89% and 86% for relaxation, 75% and 75% for anxiety/worry, 81% and 78%
for improved mood, 43% and 35% for improved sleep, 45% and 49% for reduced pain, 38% and
43% for reduced isolation/loneliness, 75% and 63% for improved attitude, and 30% and 30% for
improved appetite.
4) What have non-experimental designs contributed to the knowledge about your research topic?
The article by Shaikh et al., (2009) reflects an increasing popularity of CAM treatment
modalities in Pakistan. Combined use of biomedicine with CAM was common, which indicates
an increasing trend towards coordinated and combined use of conventional medicine and CAM
treatments. Overall, this indicates that CAM modalities are growing in popularity in South Asia,
which enhances my research study of determining the popularity and effectiveness of Reiki in
general as a treatment choice. The article by Marcus, Blazek-O Neill and Kopar (2012)
indicates positive effects of Reiki treatments among cancer patients which provide further
supporting evidence of the efficacy of Reiki bioenergy treatments in treating various negative
cancer related symptoms including stress and anxiety, which are primary affective constructs of
my research study.
5) How will future non-experimental research on your research topic advance the knowledge
base in psychology? What specific variables should be investigated?

My research topic will investigate the efficacy of Reiki treatments to enhance stress and anxiety
management among a broad range of randomly selected and assigned participants to
experimental conditions who statistically demonstrate the effects of pain, depression, anxiety and
psychological dysfunction. Future non-experimental research based upon my research may
enhance the knowledge base by continuing to measuring the effects of Reiki treatments among
individuals with specific DSM-IV psychopathological disorders, various addictions or
neurological and physiological disorders. Specific variables may consist of various DVs of
systemic symptomatic origin that are characteristic of clinically tested individuals, who test
positive for a broad range of physiological, psychological, neurological disorders such as ADHD,
AIDS, forms of dementia, PTSD, etc.
Anthony Rhodes
General Psychology PhD.
References
Cindy, C. C., Andrew, G. S., & Wayne, B. J. (2003). A systematic review of the quality of
research on hands-on and distance healing: Clinical and laboratory studies. Alternative Therapies
in Health and Medicine, 9(3), A96-104. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/204826814?accountid=27965
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. ISBN: 9780132693240.
Marcus, D., Blazek-O Neill, B. and Kopar, J. (2012). Symptomatic Improvement Reported
After Receiving Reiki at a Cancer Infusion Center. American Journal of Hospice and Pallative
Medicine. 30(2), 216-217.
Shaikh, S., Malik, F., James, H., & Abdul, H. (2009). Trends in the use of complementary and
alternative medicine in Pakistan: a population-based survey. Journal Of Alternative &
Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 545-550.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1089/acm.2008.0232
Tsang K.L., Carlson L.E., Olson K. (2007). Pilot crossover trial of Reiki versus rest for treating
cancer-related fatigue. Integrative Cancer Therapies. 6, 2535. Retrieved January 30, 2013 from
http://ict.sagepub.com.library.capella.edu/content/6/1/25.full.pdf+html
Vandervaart, Sondra, Gijsen V., Saskia, N. (2009). A Systematic Review of the Therapeutic
Effects of Reiki.Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.15(11), 1157-1169.
Weisberg, H. F. (2005). Total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey
research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.