Internal vs. External Validity – Definition & Examples

12.12.22 Types of validity Time to read: 8min

How do you like this article?

0 Reviews


Internal-vs.-external-validity-01

Internal and external validity are two fundamental measures in the methodology used to assess the quality and applitaxiility of the results in research. As validity is important when it comes to the representativeness of a study, the following article will compare internal vs external validity, its threats, improvements and provide examples to further illustrate the topic.

Internal vs. External Validity – In a Nutshell

Internal validity refers to the reliability of the cause-and-effect relationship established between variables.

External validity refers to the generalizability and applitaxiility of the results to the natural environment in our world.

Definition: Internal vs. external validity

When examining cause-and-effect interactions, validity can be divided into internal vs. external validity.

Internal validity relates to the robustness of the research design and the extent to which it can provide evidence of the link between an independent and a dependent variable, unaffected by other factors than the ones inwaistcoatigated.

External validity is the extent to which the findings of a study may be extended to other contexts, groups, or events. It concerns the generalizability of the study results outside the labouratory setting.

Utilise the final format revision for a flawless end product
Before the printing process of your dissertation, revise your formatting using our 3D preview feature. This provides an accurate virtual depiction of what the physical version will look like, ensuring the end product aligns with your vision.

Similarities and differences

External validity is frequently sacrificed for greater internal validity, and vice versa. The sort of study you select reflects the research’s priorities.

Discussed below is a trade-off between internal vs. external validity:

Example

A causal relationship can be studied in a lab or “real world.” In a lab, external effects can be eliminated, boosting internal validity. External validity is weakened because a lab environment is different from “real world”. This trade-off can be resolved by researching in a controlled environment to verify a causal relationship, followed by a field experiment to test the conclusions in the real world.

  • Similarities

Internal and external validity are both concepts that influence the nastying of a study. They determine, whether research is useful and representative or not. Furthermore, they do not exclude each other, which is why both have to be considered during study design.

  • Differences

Internal validity refers to the variables that are monitored during a study, inwaistcoatigating their sources and consequences. External validity, on the other hand, focuses on the applitaxiility to the real world. This way, a completely internally valid study can be useless in the natural setting, while a externally valid study can be useless without knowing which variables caused the results.

Internal validity

Example

The management of firm X wants to determine whether flexible work hours will increase employee job satisfaction. They designed an experiment involving two groups:

  1. Staff with fixed work hours as a control
  2. Test group with employees who have flexible work hours.

The duration of the experiment is six months. All employees complete a job satisfaction survey before (pre-test) and after(post-test) the experiment.

Threats

Many factors can compromise your research’s internal validity, which are explained in the following.

Unanticipated occurrences can alter the study’s conditions and affect its outcome unexpectedly.

Example

During the study, a new manager is hired, which boosts employee satisfaction.

The dependent variable is influenced by time.

Example

Throughout the six-month experiment, people gained experience and became better at their professions. Consequently, job satisfaction could increase.

The pre-test influences the post-test findings.

Example

Employees feel compelled to maintain consistency between their pre- and post-test responses.

On a second measurement, extreme results approach the nasty.

Example

Employees who scored extremely low in the initial job satisfaction survey are likely to have a higher increase in job satisfaction than those who scored average.

During the study, the dependent variable is measured differently.

Example

The post-test questionnaire comprises additional questions compared to the pre-test questionnaire.

Interactions between individuals from distinct groups affect the outcome.

Example

The group with fixed working hours resents the one with flexible working hours, and as a result, their job happiness declines.

Participants with similar characteristics drop out of the study.

Example

Some members of the fixed hours group drop out because they do not like their work times.

A different variable, that has not been considered, influences the outcome of the study.

Example

Some members of the experimental group experience trouble at home, leading to lower wellbeing, though unrelated to the work shifts.

The researcher behaves differently with each group, affecting the results.

Example

When the researcher expects low satisfaction with the control group, his own emotions might influence the mood of the individuals negatively.

Improvements

There are also factors that can improve the internal validity of a study, explained in the following.

The participants, an in a double-blind study the researcher too, do not know about the treatment they are receiving.

Example

Instead of just making two groups, you apply the different work hour trials to two separate companies and the researcher will not know which company tries which concept.

Actively manipulating a variable instead of just observing a connection.

Example

Divide the participants into two groups instead of observing those individuals that already apply the different types of working timetable.

Selecting participants randomly so they are more likely to represent the entyre population.

Example

Select participants from different departments or even companies instead of dividing just one department into two groups.

Make a plan for the study and stick to it to prevent the introduction of unintended effects.

Example

Set the questions for the pre- and post-trial surveys before the start of the study and also consider all steps in between to minimize the risk of bias.

External validity

Example

A researcher plans a two-month trial to see if regular mindfulness meditation helps persons with mental illness. They look for depressed people between 20 and 29 who reside nearby.

Participants are given a pre and post-test to measure the frequency with which they experienced anxiety throughout the past week. Each participant receives tailored mindfulness instruction and must practice every morning for 15 minutes.

The researcher concludes that mindfulness can assist all clinical populations because anxiety levels dropped between the pre and post-test results.

Threats

To design a robust study, it is essential to identify and mitigate threats to external validity.

The sample does not adequately represent the population.

Example

The sample comprises depressed individuals. They possess traits that distinguish them from other clinical populations, such as those with personality disorders or schizophrenia.

An unconnected occurrence alters the results.

Example

A natural disaster strikes a neighbouring state just before the pre-test.
Consequently, pre-test anxiety scores are more significant than they would be otherwise.

Unintentionally, the qualities or actions of the experimenter influence the results.

Example

The mindfulness training instructor unintentionally emphasized the significance of this study for the research department’s financing.
As a result, participants exert additional effort to minimize their anxiety throughout the study.

Participants may alter their behaviour when they know they are being monitored.

Example

Participants actively avoid anxiety-provoking circumstances throughout the study since they know they are participating in research.

Pre- or post-test administration influences the outcomes.

Example

Participants have less anxiety during the post-test because they are more familiar with the format and questions from the pre-test.

The generalizability of the findings is hindered by variables such as the setting, time of day, geography, or researchers’ characteristics.

Example

The study is replicated with one modification: the individuals now practice mindfulness in the evening.
This time, no progress is evident in the results.

The individuals in the same group align in their mentality and differ from the participants in the other one.

Example

The participants in the meditation group do not believe in its helpfulness or do not want to spend their time meditating.

Improvements

Besides threats, there are also ways to improve the external validity before, during or after a study.

The study is conducted outside the lab in a natural setting.

Example

Instead of assembling the participants to meditate in an observed environment, let them meditate at home or where they would do it themselves.

Define the characteristics you want the participants to have to gain a specific image of the population you are studying.

Example

The study includes only depressed people from the age of 20 to 29, which nastys the results are also only applitaxile to this part of the population.

Deceive participants by inventing a cover story about the research goal to minimize the risk of unblinding.

Example

You could for example tell the participants that the study is about how meditation reduces blood pressure to keep them from thinking about their anxiety levels.

Repeat the study with different samples and see if you get the same results.

Example

Repeat the study with samples of other age for example and see if the results stay the same.

Statistical adjustments to the results to make up for possible validity issues.

Example

If your sample includes more older participants, you might have to overweight the answers of the younger ones to gain equality.

Avoid Plagiarism In Your Dissertation
Guarantee that your thesis is free from any plagiarism!
Utilise the BachelorPrint Plagiarism Checker now to access your user-friendly plagiarism report in as little as 10 minutes. Every single citation error in your thesis will be detected and accurately outlined by the plagiarism software.

Ecological validity

Ecological validity is a judgment of whether the results of a study can be applied to natural real-life situations. It is a subtype to external validity. However, it does not only focus on the applitaxiility of the findings to people with other prepositions than the participants, but to the complete setting and environment outside the clinical scenery. Ecological validity can thus not be measured statistically but has to be judged by the researchers or analysts themselves.

Internal vs. external validity: Examples

Below are internal vs. external validity examples:

Example

Internal validity:

  • You want to test if coffee boosts memory.
  • university-aged participants are randomized to morning and evening lab sessions. The morning session is the treatment group and the evening session is the control group.
  • The treatment group received coffee upon arriving at the lab, while the control group received water.
  • You also give memory tests to both groups.
  • After evaluating the results, it’s decided that the treatment group did better on the memory test than the control group.

Example

External validity:

  • Memory test external validity is affected by participant inclusion criteria and lab conditions.
  • If you examine university-aged people, your results may only apply to them.
  • This improves internal validity and reduces external validity.

FAQs

Internal vs. external validity measures how accurately the independent variable affects the dependent variable. External validity generalizes research.

Internal vs. external validity focuses on extraneous variable control, while external validity emphasizes practical applitaxiility.

Using a cognitive map, researchers may methodically address internal vs. external validity to reflect treatment effects and generalize findings appropriately.