UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statement B is wrong because correlation alone does not establish causation; even a high correlation does not prove that one variable causes changes in another, as there may be third variables or reverse causation. Statements A, C, D and E correctly describe correlational research as examining relationships, often using large samples and correlation statistics, enabling prediction and observing variables without manipulation. Thus, B alone is the incorrect statement and must be singled out.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect as it treats both A and B as wrong, even though A correctly states that correlational research deals with the degree of relationship between variables. Rejecting A would deny the very definition of correlational studies.

Option B:
Option B is wrong because it groups B and C together, thereby misclassifying C, which rightly recognises the use of correlation coefficients and often large samples. Including C among wrong statements undermines a standard methodological feature.

Option C:
Option C is also incorrect because it labels several correct statements as wrong and includes B alongside A, C and E. A, C and E accurately characterise correlational research, so combining them with B in a “wrong” set is inappropriate.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it isolates B as the only flawed statement and affirms implicitly that A, C, D and E align with accepted views about correlational research and its capabilities and limits.

Ex post facto research examines relationships between variables after the events or treatments have already occurred, without the researcher manipulating the independent variable. Groups are formed on the basis of existing characteristics, such as gender or prior experience, and the researcher attempts to infer possible causes of observed differences. Because manipulation and random assignment are not possible, it is classified as a non-experimental design. The stem clearly points to this situation, so ex post facto research is the correct answer.

Option A:
Experimental research actively manipulates one or more independent variables and randomly assigns participants to groups, allowing strong causal inferences. In ex post facto studies, such manipulation is not feasible, so experimental is not an accurate term for the design described.

Option B:
Ex post facto studies try to approximate causal explanations by comparing groups that differ on the independent variable that has already occurred, controlling for some extraneous factors statistically if possible. This aligns with the stem’s key feature: the independent variable cannot be manipulated by the researcher.

Option C:
Action research is a practitioner-led cyclic approach (plan–act–observe–reflect) aimed at improving local practice. It involves intentional interventions by the practitioner, unlike ex post facto designs where the “cause” has already occurred and is not manipulated.

Option D:
Longitudinal research studies the same individuals over time to observe change. While it may involve repeated measures, it is defined by time-based follow-up, not specifically by the “already occurred and cannot be manipulated” feature that defines ex post facto research.

Statements A, C and D correctly portray causal-comparative research as non-experimental studies that use existing groups and try to manage extraneous variables statistically or through design. Such studies are conducted after the critical conditions have occurred, hence the term ex post facto. Statement B is false because there is no manipulation or random assignment and E is false because unmeasured factors may also explain differences, so strong causal claims are not guaranteed. Therefore, the set including A, C and D, and excluding B and E, is the only correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it includes only A and C, omitting D, which notes the attempts to control extraneous variables statistically or through design. Without D, the description understates the strategies used to strengthen inferences in causal-comparative research.

Option B:
Option B includes C and D but leaves out A, so it does not explicitly state that existing groups differing on some variable are central to this design. The absence of A means an essential definitional feature of causal-comparative studies is missing.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it combines the three statements that accurately describe what ex post facto research is, how it is timed and how it seeks to handle confounding influences. It explicitly excludes B and E, which wrongly equate it with true experimental manipulation and unjustified strong causal inference.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it contains E, the claim that group differences are necessarily due to the independent variable, which ignores possible confounds. It also omits C, thereby failing to emphasise the “after the fact” nature of these studies.