A continuous improvement method has the capability of improving results since the participants have practiced and have gained skill improvement, leading to the higher correlation in the last six iterations. In the first four, a lower correlation is experienced because the participants were still unaware of the research design (Higham, Tharmanathan & Birks, 2015). They had nothing much to predict as they were yet to understand the whole process and what the research was all about. However, just as is the case with other activities, practicing over time improves performance as new skill is gained through a better understanding of a process.
In this research, it is possible that when the continuous improvement process was used to focus the participants on variation sources and how improvements can be achieved, they were able to gain new knowledge, hence learning what the whole process was about, and even being able to know what the researcher intends to achieve (Higham, Tharmanathan & Birks, 2015). Therefore, to reduce this issue, there is a need to always present a random factor into the research design that will act by causing “confusion” to the participants during iterations. It will act by preventing them from determining what exactly the research is about and the kind of answer the researcher seeks.
Hence, instead of removing the continuous improvement method as an approach for improvement of the research, the inclusion of a random element during each of the 10 iterations should be employed to deal with these issues (Higham, Tharmanathan & Birks, 2015). It offers an opportunity for the researcher to maintain the research questions while using new elements during each phase to account for the acquiring of new skill over practicing the same questions for a long time. The participants will not be able to determine why the set of questions required keeps changing, this makes it impossible for them to predict the exact cause of the research process.
Higham, R., Tharmanathan, P., & Birks, Y. (2015). Use and reporting of restricted randomization: a review. Journal Of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 21(6), 1205-1211. doi:10.1111/jep.12408