Below explain how you might rule out one of the confounding variables that are identified.

Thirty program participants and thirty waiting list participants made up the control group in the Chi-Square study, which used a quasi-experimental research method. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the employment rates of those who underwent rehabilitation intervention differed from those of those who had not received the treatment program. Considering the data, the research study's conclusions seem appropriate (Dudley 2020).

A quasi-experimental research approach was employed in the Chi-Square study, which involved thirty persons in enrollment. The Program Participation Cross Tabulation (Walden University, 2022) data, specifically Table 2, demonstrates that individuals on the waiting list for the intervention program had a significantly higher unemployment rate, while those who took part in the rehabilitation intervention had a much higher rate of full- or part-time employment.

History: It's possible that routine life events changed the results after these individuals were released from prison, but it's impossible to tell for sure in this test group (Flannelly et al., 2018).

Maturity: Obtaining employment after being released from prison requires a lengthy process in and of itself. Several factors, such as their safety, nutrition, and health status, could have affected why some people found work and others did not (Flannelly et al., 2018).

Testing: since the sole screening was done at the start of the experiment and not regularly thereafter, it did not appear to have an impact on the observation of persons looking for work in the study.

Selection Bias: Because the study's "control group" and the selected group were chosen using a very particular list, selection bias is present (Flannelly et al., 2018).

Attrition: The study had a very low attrition rate, as evidenced by the fact that only one participant's data was missing after the trial and by the subsequent data collection.

The primary reason for the study's limited conclusions is selection bias, which poses a threat to internal validity because the groups were nearly identical in the end and because individuals on waiting lists might not have experienced the same circumstances as those who swiftly obtained employment through the employment program (Flannelly et al., 2018).