Unit 3, lesson 16

Randomized Experiments, Blocking and Matched Pairs

How random assignment of experimental units, a control group, placebos and blinding support a causal comparison, how blocking and matched pairs can make it more precise, and how random assignment differs from random sampling.

  • Video 16
  • Observational Studies and Experiments

A team wants to know whether a new interface lets people finish a task faster than the current one. If participants pick their own interface, experienced users might prefer the new one, and a difference in completion times would then mix the interface with experience. A randomized experiment avoids this by letting chance assign the interfaces and by treating both groups alike in every other way. This lesson shows how such an experiment is built, how blocks and matched pairs can make its comparison more precise, and why a causal conclusion about the units in the study is a different claim from a conclusion about a wider population.

Key terms

Experimental unit

Definition In an experiment the investigator imposes treatments, the conditions whose effects are being compared, and then measures a response. The experimental unit is the entity to which a treatment is assigned, the smallest division of the material such that any two units could receive different treatments. A person, a classroom, a plot of land or a device can be the unit, depending on what the design assigns. Replication means applying each treatment to more than one experimental unit, and the number of replicates counts experimental units. Repeated measurements of one unit, and measurements of smaller parts inside it such as the students of an assigned classroom, share a single assignment. Analyzing them as if they were independent replicates is called pseudoreplication, and it tends to make the uncertainty look smaller than it is.

In plain words To find the experimental unit, ask what the treatments were assigned to. Count replicates by counting those units, not the rows of the data. Measuring a unit again tells you more about that unit, but it does not add another independent test of the treatment.

Example Suppose four participants are each assigned an interface and timed on three attempts. The data have 12 rows, but there are four experimental units, and an even split gives each interface two replicates. Now suppose a school uses a new teaching method in one classroom of 25 students and the old method in another classroom of 25. The method was assigned to classrooms, so each method has one replicate, not 25. Any difference between the two classes, such as their teacher, schedule or preparation, is entangled with the difference between the methods, and analyzing the 50 students as independent replicates would hide that problem. Recruiting more classrooms and randomly assigning the methods among them gives genuine replication at the level where assignment happens.

Random assignment

Definition Random assignment allocates the treatments to the experimental units by a chance mechanism with known probabilities, such as a random number generator, fixed before any response is seen. Neither the investigator nor the participants choose who receives which treatment. In a completely randomized design with nn units, of which n1n_1 receive the treatment and n0=n−n1n_0 = n - n_1 the comparison condition, where 1≤n1≤n−11 \le n_1 \le n - 1, each of the (nn1)\binom{n}{n_1} possible treatment groups has the same probability. Every unit then has the same probability n1/nn_1/n of receiving the treatment, whatever its characteristics, and over the possible assignments the mean of any pre-treatment variable in either group has expected value equal to its mean over all nn units.

For unit ii, let Yi(1)Y_i(1) and Yi(0)Y_i(0) be its potential responses under the treatment and under the comparison condition, of which at most one is observed. The average causal effect for the units in the experiment is

τi=Yi(1)−Yi(0),τˉ=1n∑i=1nτi.\begin{gathered} \tau_i = Y_i(1) - Y_i(0), \\[0.4em] \bar{\tau} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \tau_i . \end{gathered}

Suppose the design is completely randomized, each unit’s response depends only on its own assignment, every unit receives the condition it is assigned and every response is recorded. Let yˉ1\bar{y}_1 and yˉ0\bar{y}_0 be the mean observed responses in the treatment group and in the comparison group. Then, with the expectation taken over the random assignment,

E(yˉ1−yˉ0)=τˉ,E(\bar{y}_1 - \bar{y}_0) = \bar{\tau},

so the difference of the group means is an unbiased estimate of the average causal effect for these units.

In plain words Letting chance decide stops anyone, the participants included, from sorting units into groups in a way that is related to their responses. Over the possible assignments the groups are alike on average in everything that existed before treatment, measured or not, and that is what allows a difference in responses to be read as an effect of the treatment. One particular assignment can still be lopsided, and that chance variation is part of what a statistical analysis of the experiment has to account for.

Example The table below is constructed so that both responses of every participant are visible, which no real experiment allows. Participants A and B are experienced and C and D are novices, the times are in minutes, and the new interface saves each of them exactly 2 minutes, so τˉ=−2\bar{\tau} = -2.

ParticipantYi(0)Y_i(0) currentYi(1)Y_i(1) newτi\tau_i
A108−2-2
B1210−2-2
C1614−2-2
D1816−2-2

Choosing two participants at random for the new interface gives (42)=6\binom{4}{2} = 6 equally likely assignments. For the new-interface groups AB, AC, AD, BC, BD and CD, the estimate yˉ1−yˉ0\bar{y}_1 - \bar{y}_0 is −8-8, −4-4, −2-2, −2-2, 00 and 44 minutes. Their average is exactly −2-2, as the unbiasedness result says. Yet the two assignments that put both experienced participants in the same group, which together have probability 1/31/3, give −8-8 and 44, and the estimate 44 even suggests that the new interface is slower. Each participant has probability 1/21/2 of receiving the new interface, but the labels are not independent. If A is in the new group, exactly one of the other three joins A, so B also gets the new interface with probability 1/31/3.

Control group and placebo

Definition A control group is a group of experimental units that receives a comparison condition instead of the treatment under study, such as no treatment, the current standard or a placebo. It should be handled like the treatment group in every respect except the intended difference, with the same tasks, instructions, timing and measurement. A placebo is a dummy condition made to resemble the treatment as participants experience it while lacking the component whose effect is being studied. A response caused by receiving an apparent treatment, through expectation or attention, is called the placebo effect, and a placebo control lets the comparison separate the active component from that effect. Some questions call instead for an active control, an existing treatment or a condition that gives similar attention and practice. Not every experiment needs a placebo, and the question being asked decides which comparison is appropriate.

In plain words A result after treatment means little without something to compare it with. Without a control group, a change could come from practice, time, attention or expectations rather than from the treatment. A control group handled in the same way goes through the same practice, time and attention, so the comparison points at the treatment itself. Its members share the expectations only if their condition also seems like a treatment, which is why a placebo matters when simply believing that you are treated could change the response.

Example In the interface study the control group uses the current interface, with the same tasks, instructions, time limit and timing software as the new-interface group. If only the new-interface group received a training session, the comparison would mix the interface with the training. No placebo is needed there, because the question itself compares two working interfaces. A placebo does fit a study of caffeine and reaction time, where the control group swallows a capsule that looks exactly like the caffeine capsule but contains an inactive filler.

Blinding

Definition Blinding, also called masking, means keeping people involved in an experiment from knowing which treatment each unit received, to prevent their expectations from influencing behavior, the delivery of treatments or the measurement of the response. The participants, the staff who deliver treatments or interact with participants, the people who assess outcomes and the analysts can each be blinded or not. Labels such as single-blind and double-blind are used in different ways, so a clear report states exactly who was blinded.

In plain words People who know who got what can act differently without meaning to, by trying harder, encouraging one group more or scoring one group more generously. Blinding removes that knowledge where it could matter. When participants cannot be blinded, the person who measures the outcome often still can be.

Example Participants in the interface study see which layout they are using, so they usually cannot be blinded. If the quality of their finished work is also scored, the rater can receive the work with every sign of the interface removed, and software can record the completion times automatically. In the caffeine study, identical capsules in coded containers allow both the participants and the staff who measure reaction time to be blinded, with the code held by someone outside the measuring team until the data are recorded.

Blocking and matched pairs design

Definition A block is a group of experimental units that are alike in a characteristic, recorded before treatment, that is expected to affect the response. In a randomized block design the treatments are randomly assigned separately within each block, the treatments are compared within blocks, and the analysis keeps track of the blocks. Comparing within blocks keeps the differences between blocks out of the treatment comparison, which can make the estimate more precise when the blocking variable is related to the response. Blocking does not replace randomization, which still balances the characteristics not used to form the blocks, on average over the possible assignments.

A matched pairs design is a block design with blocks of size two. Either two similar units are matched, with one of them chosen at random for the first treatment and the other given the second, or a single subject or object receives both treatments in a randomly chosen order, and its two measurements form the pair. In the second form the design has to deal with order effects and with carryover from the first condition into the second, for example by leaving enough time between them. The analysis uses the within-pair differences did_i, one per pair and always taken in the same direction, and their mean dˉ\bar{d}.

In plain words First group similar units, then let chance decide within each group. Each comparison is then made between similar units, so differences between the blocks, such as experience, are kept out of it. Pairing is the smallest version, with one comparison per pair. Paired results stay paired in the analysis, so four times from two pairs give two comparisons, not four independent observations.

Example In the four-participant table above, the experience blocks are A and B, and C and D. Randomly choosing one participant from each block for the new interface allows four equally likely assignments, AC, AD, BC and BD, with estimates −4-4, −2-2, −2-2 and 00 minutes. Their average is still −2-2, and the estimates now range from −4-4 to 00 instead of from −8-8 to 44, because the assignments that put both experienced participants in one group can no longer occur. The variance of the estimate over the possible assignments falls from 40/340/3 to 22 square minutes. Since the blocks have size two, this is a matched pairs design. Suppose chance picks A and D. The observed times are 8 minutes for A on the new interface and 12 for B on the current one, and 16 for D on the new interface and 16 for C on the current one. The differences, new minus current, and their mean are

d1=8−12=−4,d2=16−16=0,dˉ=−4+02=−2 min.\begin{gathered} d_1 = 8 - 12 = -4, \\[0.4em] d_2 = 16 - 16 = 0, \\[0.4em] \bar{d} = \frac{-4 + 0}{2} = -2 \text{ min}. \end{gathered}

Had chance picked A and C, the same calculation would give dˉ=−4\bar{d} = -4. This spread between the possible results is the chance variation that the analysis of the pairs has to account for.

Random sampling versus random assignment

Definition Random sampling uses chance to decide which units of a population enter a study. Random assignment uses chance to decide which treatment each unit in the study receives. A probability sample with adequate response supports generalizing from the sample to the population that was sampled. Random assignment supports a causal comparison of the treatments for the units in the experiment, under the conditions of the experiment. A study may use both, one or neither, and neither feature supplies the conclusion that belongs to the other.

How the units enteredTreatments randomly assignedTreatments not randomly assigned
Random sampleCausal conclusions that extend to the sampled populationAssociations that extend to the sampled population
No random sampleCausal conclusions for the units studiedAssociations among the units studied

A conclusion that goes beyond its cell needs other support, such as explicit assumptions for a causal claim without random assignment, or an argument that the results carry over to units that were not sampled.

In plain words Sampling decides who is in the study, and assignment decides what happens to them once they are in. The first is about how far the results reach, the second about whether a difference can be read as an effect of the treatment.

Example If volunteers at one university are randomly assigned to the two interfaces, a clear difference supports a causal conclusion for those volunteers under the study’s conditions. Applying it to all learners needs a further reason, such as evidence that the volunteers resemble other learners in the ways that matter for the effect. If instead a random sample of a city’s adults reports which interface each person chose and how long tasks take, the association between interface and time can reasonably be generalized to the adults of that city, provided the response is adequate. People chose their own interface, though, so experience or another variable could confound the association.

Check yourself

  1. A school has six classes of 25 students. Three classes, chosen at random, use a new learning interface and the other three use the current one. A report analyzes the 150 students as independent replicates, 75 per interface. What is the experimental unit, how many replicates does each interface have, and what is wrong with the report?
Show the answer

The interface was assigned to classes, so the class is the experimental unit, and each interface has three replicates. The students are measured inside the classes, and students in one class share a teacher, a schedule and each other’s company, so they do not supply 75 independent assignments per interface. Treating them that way is pseudoreplication and tends to make the uncertainty look too small. An analysis that follows the design works at the class level, for example by comparing the six class means of the response, three per interface. The design allows (63)=20\binom{6}{3} = 20 equally likely choices of the three classes. Randomizing individual students instead would make the students the experimental units, which suits settings where students in the same class can be kept from influencing each other’s results.

  1. A company recruits 60 volunteers from its own staff and randomly assigns 30 to each interface. The new-interface group finishes faster on average, by much more than random assignment alone would typically produce. A manager concludes that switching will make every one of the company’s customers faster. Which part of this conclusion does the design support?
Show the answer

Random assignment supports a causal conclusion that the new interface reduced the average completion time for these 60 volunteers under the study’s conditions. The volunteers were not randomly sampled from the customers, so the design does not support extending the result to customers, who may differ from staff in experience or in the tasks they do. That step would need an experiment run on a probability sample of customers or a well-supported argument that the effect carries over. The experiment also estimates an average effect, which does not show that every individual is faster.

  1. Plan a paired comparison of two kitchen scales, A and B, using five objects, and say which difference you will analyze. Then compute it from the readings below, in grams.
Object12345
Scale A1022514987501003
Scale B1002504957481000
Show the answer

Weigh every object on both scales, and choose the order of the two scales for each object at random, so that a change between the first and second weighing, such as an object drying out slightly, does not systematically favor one of them. Each object is a block of two measurements, and the analysis uses one difference per object in a fixed direction, here di=Ai−Bid_i = A_i - B_i. The differences are 22, 11, 33, 22 and 33 grams, so

dˉ=2+1+3+2+35=2.2 g,\begin{aligned} \bar{d} &= \frac{2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 3}{5} \\[0.4em] &= 2.2 \text{ g}, \end{aligned}

and their sample standard deviation is sd=0.7≈0.84s_d = \sqrt{0.7} \approx 0.84 grams. Comparing the two sets of readings as independent groups would ignore the pairing. The readings on either scale vary from object to object with a standard deviation of about 365 grams, which would swamp a disagreement of about 2 grams, while the differences remove that object-to-object variation. A positive mean difference says that scale A read higher than scale B on average on these objects. It does not say which scale is accurate, which would need reference weights of known mass.

How this lesson connects