This is a question I’ve been asked about randomization since I began working with experimental design. It is a question that has perplexed me for a couple of years, as I’ve been trying to figure out if it’s really worth it to randomize the assignment of participants.
Experimentation is all about the randomization of participants. You can’t truly know what’s going to happen, unless you can control that randomization. However, in the experimental design, randomization is really only important if you can control the experiment. This is because you cannot really know what will happen until you’ve gotten the results of the experiment. In an experimental design, if you can’t control the experiment, the results will be impossible to predict.
Like many experiments that do not have control groups, this one was actually done as the experiment was to test a novel approach to randomization. The idea being that if it was a success, it was the outcome that mattered in the end. The experiment turned out to be rather poor because the researchers used a combination of randomization with group differences. The result is that most of the students were left with a bad feeling about the randomization. It makes me want to go back to the drawing board.
While the experiment was performed, the results were rather disturbing. Students who had a chance to choose which method of randomization they would choose reported a much more positive opinion of it compared to those who received a paper and a pencil. However, when they got a chance to do it themselves, they were much more likely to want to try using randomization. The idea is that randomization does not have to be done perfectly. It just has to work.
A lot of people in psychology have a strong aversion to randomization (e.g., psychologists who think it’s worthless). One reason is that it is often used to bias the results of a study, like in the case of the famous “Pavlov’s Dogs” experiment. It’s also a very common technique used in evolutionary biology to reduce bias. But, as I said, I want to go back to the drawing board.
As for why this is important, it is because it is a technique used in psychology and evolutionary biology. This is because people tend to think that randomness is useless or that it is simply a way to bias the data. But its not true. The problem is that most people in psychology just don’t understand randomization correctly. People think that randomization is a technique that is used to change the order of things, or the way that things are displayed.
In psychology, this is usually considered a way to “randomize” the presentation of numbers. In fact, it is used to “randomize” the order of presentation of numbers in a test (but that’s not all). It does NOT mean to eliminate all order. However, it is used to eliminate some order and thus bias results.
Randomization is a scientific method used to reduce order bias in a test. The idea is to create a series of tests that use exactly the same items, but that are presented in different orders to see if the order of presentation has any effect on the results. In a classic randomization test, participants are given the same items that have been on one or more previous tests. It is then, the order in which the items are presented is randomised.
I think randomization has its uses in experimental design, especially in a field where results are often repeatable, though there are other ways to create order bias in a similar way. For example, in psychology, random allocation of participants is used in experiments where we want to see how people behave, or how people think, or how they respond to stimuli. I think randomization in experimental design has its limits, however.
I have been taught that randomization is always bad and that it is a good thing that we always try to find a better way to keep our data consistent. But I’m not sure that’s entirely true. To be clear, randomization is not the only possible way to do things in experimental design. There are many other ways to design experiments that are not random. And there are other ways to do experimental design that are not random either.