Meta and Quasi, etc.

I found the reading interesting this week, though I must admit that I doubt I'll ever need to apply this to my own research.

To me, it seems that when it comes to conducting a True versus a Quasi, the latter would be far more practical, logistics-wise, for the average person. Also, I fail to see how the True is that much more valid than the Quasi if the Quasi is administered with proper pretesting (to make sure the groups are relatively equal). As long as the groups are equal, I would think, one would be able to make fairly confident cause-and-effect statements.

As for the Meta: wow. This was way over my head. Again, not something I expect to actually have to know for my own purposes. Interesting to know, but not very relevant to me.