When a researcher evaluates an anti-bullying program by implementing it in one school and comparing the results to a second similar school, what major limitation makes this a quasi-experimental study?

Based on the example of the anti-bullying program study, match each component of the research design with its correct role or methodological concern.

A researcher implements an anti-bullying program in School A and uses School B (which did not receive the program) as a comparison. After one semester, bullying incidents in School A drop by 30% while School B shows no change. The researcher concludes: 'The anti-bullying program caused the reduction in bullying at School A.' Is this causal conclusion fully justified by the study design?

In the example of the anti-bullying program study, a researcher evaluates an intervention across two similar schools but lacks the ability to use random assignment. Arrange the following steps to demonstrate the logical sequence of how this specific design limitation creates a 'selection effect' that threatens internal validity.

A researcher finds that bullying decreased in a school that implemented a new program compared to a similar school that did not. To critically evaluate the claim that the program was responsible for this change, the researcher must account for a(n) ________ effect, which serves as a plausible alternative explanation for the findings because participants were not randomly assigned to the schools.

You are tasked with designing a modification to the anti-bullying study example to account for potential 'selection effects' (preexisting differences between schools). Arrange the following steps to construct a research protocol that establishes a baseline and evaluates the program's impact relative to that baseline.

In the quasi-experimental anti-bullying program study, students are randomly assigned to either the school that receives the program or the school that does not receive the program.

In the quasi-experimental study evaluating an anti-bullying program across two schools, how does a 'selection effect' function as an alternative explanation for the reduction in bullying at the treatment school?

In the quasi-experimental anti-bullying program study, match each design feature or observed outcome to its correct methodological function or implication.

A school board is reviewing the quasi-experimental anti-bullying study to decide whether district-wide adoption is warranted. A research-literate board member argues the evidence is insufficient, reasoning that the study cannot eliminate _____ as a rival explanation—the possibility that students in the two schools already differed in meaningful ways before the program was ever introduced.

According to the example of the anti-bullying program study, identify the key design feature of a true experiment that this study lacks. Then, state and define the specific threat to internal validity that is introduced because of this limitation.

Based on the provided example of the anti-bullying study, diagnose why the difference in student behavior policies between the schools makes it difficult to draw a causal conclusion about the anti-bullying program. In your explanation, describe how this scenario illustrates a selection effect.

Suppose a school board claims that because the researcher selected two 'similar' schools for the anti-bullying study, selection effects have been completely controlled for. In 1 to 3 sentences, apply the concept of selection effects to explain why simply selecting 'similar' schools is insufficient to guarantee group equivalence.