Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In many studies and research designs, there may be a trade-off between internal validity and external validity: [16] [17] [18] Attempts to increase internal validity may also limit the generalizability of the findings, and vice versa. This situation has led many researchers call for "ecologically valid" experiments.
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.
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.
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]
There are five key principles relating to internal validity (study design) and external validity (generalizability) which rigorous impact evaluations should address: confounding factors, selection bias, spillover effects, contamination, and impact heterogeneity. [5]
Critical appraisal (or quality assessment) in evidence based medicine, is the use of explicit, transparent methods to assess the data in published research, applying the rules of evidence to factors such as internal validity, adherence to reporting standards, conclusions, generalizability and risk-of-bias.
Internal validity – Extent to which a piece of evidence supports a claim about cause and effect; Model identification – Statistical property which a model must satisfy to allow precise inference; Overfitting – Flaw in mathematical modelling; Perplexity – Concept in information theory