Albert, A; Hallowell, M R; Lingard, H and Kleiner, B M (2015) Multiple baseline testing: Experimental method for drawing causal inferences in construction engineering and management research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(7): 4015012, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Identifying and evaluating solutions for critical industry challenges is a major theme of construction engineering and management (CEM) research. Researchers and practitioners in the construction sector often seek to invent, test, implement, and disseminate practical interventions that improve safety, productivity, quality, and other project success factors. Robust scientific research design is imperative for drawing valid causal inferences when testing the impact of new interventions. Unfortunately, the transient and dynamic nature of construction obfuscates the isolation of variables, thus making true experiments impractical or unethical. With roots in pharmaceutical research, multiple baseline testing (MBT), commonly known as multiple baseline design, is a promising and viable experimental technique that provides reinforced evidence for drawing causal inferences and analyzing change. The requisite process of replication through concurrent longitudinal studies, phased implementation, and inter- and intra-experimental unit comparisons allow researchers to isolate the impact of an intervention within constantly changing environments. This paper describes a protocol for the rigorous and valid implementation of MBT on construction projects based on the authors' collective experience with the method. This paper describes how the proper use of MBT minimizes threats to internal validity and ensures the ethical treatment of research participants in subject-based research. The paper concludes by reviewing the common challenges associated with the adoption of MBT in construction research. It is expected that the discussions will equip researchers with the tools to conduct rigorous, robust, and reliable intervention studies with improved evidence for causality.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | evaluating strategies; experimental research; intervention studies; measuring change; multiple baseline design; multiple baseline testing; quantitative methods; research methods |
| Index terms: | construction engineering, implementation, testing, project success, validity, productivity, research design, practitioner, quantitative method, evidence, construction project, construction sector, management research, experiment, drawing, strategy |
| Subjects: | production management, project management theory and practice, management, engineering methods, industry analysis, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, research design and methodology, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, professional practice, technical documentation |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here