Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In other words, the relevance of external and internal validity to a research study depends on the goals of the study. Furthermore, conflating research goals with validity concerns can lead to the mutual-internal-validity problem, where theories are able to explain only phenomena in artificial laboratory settings but not the real world. [13] [14]
Internal validity, therefore, is more a matter of degree than of either-or, and that is exactly why research designs other than true experiments may also yield results with a high degree of internal validity. In order to allow for inferences with a high degree of internal validity, precautions may be taken during the design of the study.
By using one of these methods to account for nuisance variables, researchers can enhance the internal validity of their experiments, ensuring that the effects observed are more likely attributable to the manipulated variables rather than extraneous influences. In the first example provided above, the sex of the patient would be a nuisance variable.
External validity is the validity of applying the conclusions of a scientific study outside the context of that study. [1] In other words, it is the extent to which the results of a study can generalize or transport to other situations, people, stimuli, and times.
Ecological validity, the ability to generalize study findings to the real world, is a subcategory of external validity. [6] Another example highlighting the differences between these terms is from an experiment that studied pointing [7] —a trait originally attributed uniquely to humans—in captive chimpanzees. This study certainly had ...
External validity pertains to the process of generalizing the findings of the study to the population from which the sample was drawn (or even beyond that population to a more universal statement). This requires an understanding of which conditions are relevant (or irrelevant) to the generalization.
Field experiments offer researchers a way to test theories and answer questions with higher external validity because they simulate real-world occurrences. [6] Some researchers argue that field experiments are a better guard against potential bias and biased estimators. As well, field experiments can act as benchmarks for comparing ...
In qualitative research, a member check, also known as informant feedback or respondent validation, is a technique used by researchers to help improve the accuracy, credibility, validity, and transferability (also known as applicability, internal validity, [1] or fittingness) of a study. [2]