Factors which jeopardize internal validity History --the specific events which occur between the first and second measurement. Factors which jeopardize external validity Reactive or interaction effect of testing --a pretest might increase or decrease a subject's sensitivity or responsiveness to the experimental variable.
X --Treatment O --Observation or measurement R --Random assignment The three experimental designs discussed in this section are: A group is introduced to a treatment or condition and then observed for changes which are attributed to the treatment X O The Problems with this design are: A total lack of control.
Also, it is of very little scientific value as securing scientific evidence to make a comparison, and recording differences or contrasts. O 1 X O 2 However, there exists threats to the validity of the above assertion: History --between O 1 and O 2 many events may have occurred apart from X to produce the differences in outcomes. The longer the time lapse between O 1 and O 2 , the more likely history becomes a threat. X O 1 O 2 Threats to validity include: Selection --groups selected may actually be disparate prior to any treatment.
Three True Experimental Designs The next three designs discussed are the most strongly recommended designs: An explanation of how this design controls for these threats is below. History --this is controlled in that the general history events which may have contributed to the O 1 and O 2 effects would also produce the O 3 and O 4 effects. This is true only if the experiment is run in a specific manner--meaning that you may not test the treatment and control groups at different times and in vastly different settings as these differences may effect the results.
Rather, you must test simultaneously the control and experimental groups. Intrasession history must also be taken into consideration.
For example if the groups truly are run simultaneously, then there must be different experimenters involved, and the differences between the experimenters may contribute to effects. A solution to history in this case is the randomization of experimental occasions--balanced in terms of experimenter, time of day, week and etc. The factors described so far effect internal validity. These factors could produce changes which may be interpreted as the result of the treatment.
These are called main effects which have been controlled in this design giving it internal validity. However, in this design, there are threats to external validity also called interaction effects because they involve the treatment and some other variable the interaction of which cause the threat to validity.
It is important to note here that external validity or generalizability always turns out to involve extrapolation into a realm not represented in one's sample. In contrast, internal validity are solvable within the limits of the logic of probability statistics. This means that we can control for internal validity based on probability statistics within the experiment conducted, however, external validity or generalizability can not logically occur because we can't logically extrapolate to different conditions.
Hume's truism that induction or generalization is never fully justified logically. Interaction of testing and X --because the interaction between taking a pretest and the treatment itself may effect the results of the experimental group, it is desirable to use a design which does not use a pretest.
Research should be conducted in schools in this manner--ideas for research should originate with teachers or other school personnel. The designs for this research should be worked out with someone expert at research methodology, and the research itself carried out by those who came up with the research idea. Results should be analyzed by the expert, and then the final interpretation delivered by an intermediary. Tests of significance for this design--although this design may be developed and conducted appropriately, statistical tests of significance are not always used appropriately.
Wrong statistic in common use--many use a t-test by computing two ts, one for the pre-post difference in the experimental group and one for the pre-post difference of the control group. In other words, they want to know if they pay Sean a higher salary, will he work more?
At first glance, the answer appears to be yes. After all, the people who get paid the most at the company tend to be the ones that come in early and stay late.
They are the hardest working people in the company. So, it stands to reason that the more a person gets paid, the harder they will work, right? Maybe, but it's actually a bit more complicated than that. Maybe those people get paid the most because they were already hard workers. Maybe they're motivated to work hard because they really like what they do and the pay is incidental. Maybe they are hyper competitive and don't want to be the first to leave the office. How do we know what the cause of their hard work is?
In research, internal validity is the extent to which you are able to say that no other variables except the one you're studying caused the result. For example, if we are studying the variable of pay and the result of hard work, we want to be able to say that no other reason not personality, not motivation, not competition causes the hard work. We want to say that pay and pay alone makes people like Sean work harder. You may be wondering why we should care about internal validity. If people who work the hardest get paid the most, then why not just say that's what happens and call it a day?
The purpose of most research is to study how one thing called the independent variable affects another called the dependent variable.
The strongest statement in research is one of causality. That is, if we can say that the independent variable causes the dependent variable, we have made the strongest statement there is in research. But, that's not possible if an experiment has low internal validity. Remember our example from above? How do we know that pay causes harder work if there are other possibilities, like competition or motivation?
The answer is that we don't. That's why internal validity is so important. The best experiments are designed to try to eliminate the possibility that anything other than the independent variable caused the changes in the dependent variable. In our experiment, we would try to eliminate all other things that might be causing the hard work by the workers. If we can do that, then we can show that higher pay causes harder work.
But, designing a study that allows you to prove causality isn't as easy as it might seem. That's because there are several common threats to internal validity. These are things that make it difficult to prove that the independent variable is causing the changes in the dependent variable. One threat to internal validity is selection. This is simply the fact that the people who are studied may not be normal. Do the people at Sean's company who get paid the most work hard because they are paid a lot, or do they get paid a lot because they are inherently hard workers?
By studying them, we might be studying just people who already work hard; we have accidentally selected people whose experience does not mirror everyone else's. Get access risk-free for 30 days, just create an account. Another threat to internal validity is maturation. How do we know that people wouldn't change during the study because they matured instead of because of the effect of the independent variable? For example, imagine that we look at Sean's productivity before and after he got a raise and figure out that he is more productive after the raise.
But, what if he became a harder worker because he is aging and becoming more responsible? What if he became more productive because he's had more time at his job and has learned how to do it better? We don't know if one of these is the reason or if the raise is the reason.
Likewise, if a one-time historical event happens that affects Sean's productivity, it's the threat of history. Maybe Sean's wife had a baby around the time he got a raise; being a dad has made him more responsible and a harder worker.
Maybe we look at how productive Sean is one week before his raise and one week after his raise. But, what if the week before his raise was a bad week for him, and the week afterwards, he goes back to his normal level of productivity? To us, it looks like he's working harder, but the truth is that he was just really bad the week before. This threat is called regression to the mean. And, what if our measurement of productivity isn't actually the best measure? For example, maybe we measure how long a person stays at work, but Sean is able to get his work done faster.
He does the same amount of work but in less time. This is a problem with our instrumentation. What if we give Sean a test the first week to measure how hardworking he is? The second week, after the raise, we give him the test again. Because he took the test already, he's better at it the second time. This is called testing effects. Finally, what if we measure Sean's productivity before his raise, but shortly after his raise, he quits? Because he no longer works at the company, we can't measure his post-raise productivity.
This type of threat to internal validity is called mortality, and it happens when members of the study leave the study for some reason. An experiment that is high in internal validity is able to prove that the independent variable caused the dependent variable and no other variable did. It is important in order to show causality between variables. There are several threats to internal validity, though, including selection, maturation, history, regression to the mean, instrumentation, testing and mortality.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study. Did you know… We have over college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1, colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree.
Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level. To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page. Not sure what college you want to attend yet? The videos on Study. Students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. By creating an account, you agree to Study.
Explore over 4, video courses. Find a degree that fits your goals. What is Internal Validity in Research? But, what happens when other variables come into play? In this lesson, we'll explore the definition, importance and threats to internal validity.
Try it risk-free for 30 days. An error occurred trying to load this video. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. You must create an account to continue watching. Register to view this lesson Are you a student or a teacher? I am a student I am a teacher. What teachers are saying about Study. Are you still watching? Your next lesson will play in 10 seconds. Add to Add to Add to. Want to watch this again later? What is External Validity in Research? Researcher Variables that Affect Internal Validity.
Threats to Internal Validity I: Threats to External Validity: Threats to Internal Validity II: Drawing Conclusions Based on Internal Validity.
Requirements of External Validity: Methods for Increasing External Validity. Threats to External Validity. Participant Variables that Affect Internal Validity.
Random Assignment in Research: Internal Validity in Psychology: External Validity in Psychology: Main Effects in Factorial Design. The Validity of Measurement: Research Methods in Psychology:
What is Validity? Validity encompasses the entire experimental concept and establishes whether the results obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific research method. For example, there must have been randomization of the sample groups and appropriate care and diligence shown in the allocation of controls.
Reliability and Validity. In order for research data to be of value and of use, they must be both reliable and valid.. Reliability.
Research validity in surveys relates to the extent at which the survey measures right elements that need to be measured. In simple terms, validity refers to how well an instrument as measures what it is intended to measure. Nov 20, · Validity is described as the degree to which a research study measures what it intends to measure. There are two main types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity refers to the validity of the measurement and test itself, whereas external validity refers to the ability to generalise the findings to the target population.
Validity In its purest sense, this refers to how well a scientific test or piece of research actually measures what it sets out to, or how well it reflects the reality it claims to represent. Like reliability, validity in this sense is a concept drawn from the positivist scientific tradition and needs specific interpretation and usage in the. In research, internal validity is the extent to which you are able to say that no other variables except the one you're studying caused the result. For example, if we are studying the variable of.