When treatment research does have such an impact on others it has a degree of external validity (Campbell and Stanley 1963). In the context of treatment research, external validity refers to the de- gree to which the results of a study can be applied elsewhere, to other clients treated by other therapists.
Full Answer
What is validity in research?
Validity refers to the accuracy of the measurement. Validity shows how a specific test is suitable for a particular situation. If the results are accurate according to the researcher's situation, explanation, and prediction, then the research is valid.
What are the two types of study validity?
There are 2 types of study validity: internal validity and external validity. A trial is said to have internal validity if the observed differences between groups of patients allocated to different interventions can be correctly attributed to the intervention under investigation.
How do you determine the validity of a clinical trial?
A clinical trial should have both internal and external validity. Assessment of internal validity involves looking out for sources of bias and random error. External validity is concerned with the applicability of the results of the trial to the real-world population.
How do you know if a research is valid?
If the results are accurate according to the researcher’s situation, explanation, and prediction, then the research is valid. If the method of measuring is accurate, then it’ll produce accurate results. If a method is reliable, then it’s valid.
What is considered valid research?
The validity of a research study refers to how well the results among the study participants represent true findings among similar individuals outside the study. This concept of validity applies to all types of clinical studies, including those about prevalence, associations, interventions, and diagnosis.
What is treatment validity?
the extent to which an instrument is of value in identifying those individuals who are likely to benefit from a particular treatment or intervention.
How can you make sure your research is valid?
8 ways to determine the credibility of research reportsWhy was the study undertaken? ... Who conducted the study? ... Who funded the research? ... How was the data collected? ... Is the sample size and response rate sufficient? ... Does the research make use of secondary data? ... Does the research measure what it claims to measure?More items...•
What is the treatment effectiveness?
The term treatment effectiveness connotes a technical but straight for-ward meaning throughout the health-care community. Basically, effectiveness is the likelihood that a certain treatment protocol will benefit patients in a certain clinical population when administered in clinical practice.
How do you ensure treatment fidelity?
Strategies to ensure fidelity of treatment delivery include use of a detailed, scripted treatment manual; structured training; supervisory monitoring and feedback; and delivery and accuracy checklists (Burgio et al., 2001).
What are the two components of treatment fidelity?
Treatment fidelity consists of two general components: 1) treatment integrity, the degree to which a treatment is implemented as intended, and 2) treatment differentiation, the degree to which two or more study arms differ along critical dimensions (2, 3, 4, 5).
What makes research reliable and valid?
The reliability and validity of your results depends on creating a strong research design, choosing appropriate methods and samples, and conducting the research carefully and consistently.
How is treatment efficacy measured?
Such measures quantify the differences between treatments and help patients and clinicians make informed choices. The usual measure of treatment efficacy in periodontal research has been the mean difference between treatments in probing level measures.
How do you evaluate effectiveness of medication?
The evaluation of effectiveness of pharmacotherapy includes measurable improvement in clinical signs and symptoms and/or laboratory values. The evaluation of the safety of pharmacotherapy includes evidence of adverse drug reactions and/or toxicity.
What makes a medication effective?
Effectiveness can be defined as 'the extent to which a drug achieves its intended effect in the usual clinical setting'. It can be evaluated through observational studies of real practice. This allows practice to be assessed in qualitative as well as quantitative terms.
Randomization
Randomization in studies is critical to ensuring the validity of research. Randomized trials in the clinical setting generally assign groups of randomly chosen individuals to either receive a treatment or to receive a placebo (or no treatment).
Sample Size
In the medical setting, research is done to find a solution to a particular problem, or to assess the impact of a treatment. In an ideal situation, the entire desired population should be studied in order to reach a conclusion. However, surveying or carrying out a study with an entire population is almost impossible and very costly.
Bias in Studies
Bias is defined as “the combination of various design, data, analysis, and presentation factors that tend to produce research findings when they should not be produced.” (9) “Bias is a form of systematic error, and there are innumerable causes.
How does qualitative research help in primary care?
Five qualitative studies are chosen to illustrate how various methodologies of qualitative research helped in advancing primary healthcare, from novel monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) via mobile-health technology ,[1] informed decision for colorectal cancer screening,[2] triaging out-of-hours GP services,[3] evaluating care pathways for community psychiatry[4] and finally prioritization of healthcare initiatives for legislation purposes at national levels.[5] With the recent advances of information technology and mobile connecting device, self-monitoring and management of chronic diseases via tele-health technology may seem beneficial to both the patient and healthcare provider. Recruiting COPD patients who were given tele-health devices that monitored lung functions, Williams et al.[1] conducted phone interviews and analyzed their transcripts via a grounded theory approach, identified themes which enabled them to conclude that such mobile-health setup and application helped to engage patients with better adherence to treatment and overall improvement in mood. Such positive findings were in contrast to previous studies, which opined that elderly patients were often challenged by operating computer tablets,[6] or, conversing with the tele-health software.[7] To explore the content of recommendations for colorectal cancer screening given out by family physicians, Wackerbarth, et al.[2] conducted semi-structure interviews with subsequent content analysis and found that most physicians delivered information to enrich patient knowledge with little regard to patients’ true understanding, ideas, and preferences in the matter. These findings suggested room for improvement for family physicians to better engage their patients in recommending preventative care. Faced with various models of out-of-hours triage services for GP consultations, Egbunike et al.[3] conducted thematic analysis on semi-structured telephone interviews with patients and doctors in various urban, rural and mixed settings. They found that the efficiency of triage services remained a prime concern from both users and providers, among issues of access to doctors and unfulfilled/mismatched expectations from users, which could arouse dissatisfaction and legal implications. In UK, a care pathways model for community psychiatry had been introduced but its benefits were unclear. Khandaker et al.[4] hence conducted a qualitative study using semi-structure interviews with medical staff and other stakeholders; adopting a grounded-theory approach, major themes emerged which included improved equality of access, more focused logistics, increased work throughput and better accountability for community psychiatry provided under the care pathway model. Finally, at the US national level, Mangione-Smith et al.[5] employed a modified Delphi method to gather consensus from a panel of nominators which were recognized experts and stakeholders in their disciplines, and identified a core set of quality measures for children's healthcare under the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program. These core measures were made transparent for public opinion and later passed on for full legislation, hence illustrating the impact of qualitative research upon social welfare and policy improvement.
What is reliability in research?
Reliability. In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. In qualitative research with diverse paradigms, such definition of reliability is challenging and epistemologically counter-intuitive.
What are the three gold criteria for qualitative and quantitative research?
In summary, the three gold criteria of validity, reliability and generalizability apply in principle to assess quality for both quantitative and qualitative research, what differs will be the nature and type of processes that ontologically and epistemologically distinguish between the two.
What is qualitative research?
The essence of qualitative research is to make sense of and recognize patterns among words in order to build up a meaningful picture without compromising its richness and dimensionality. Like quantitative research, the qualitative research aims to seek answers for questions of “how, where, when who and why” with a perspective to build a theory or refute an existing theory. Unlike quantitative research which deals primarily with numerical data and their statistical interpretations under a reductionist, logical and strictly objective paradigm, qualitative research handles nonnumerical information and their phenomenological interpretation, which inextricably tie in with human senses and subjectivity. While human emotions and perspectives from both subjects and researchers are considered undesirable biases confounding results in quantitative research, the same elements are considered essential and inevitable, if not treasurable, in qualitative research as they invariable add extra dimensions and colors to enrich the corpus of findings. However, the issue of subjectivity and contextual ramifications has fueled incessant controversies regarding yardsticks for quality and trustworthiness of qualitative research results for healthcare.
Is qualitative research a unified field?
Despite various measures to enhance or ensure quality of qualitative studies, some researchers opined from a purist ontological and epistemological angle that qualitative research is not a unified, but ipso facto diverse field ,[8] hence any attempt to synthesize or appraise different studies under one system is impossible and conceptually wrong. Barbour argued from a philosophical angle that these special measures or “technical fixes” (like purposive sampling, multiple-coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) can never confer the rigor as conceived.[11] In extremis, Rolfe et al.opined from the field of nursing research, that any set of formal criteria used to judge the quality of qualitative research are futile and without validity, and suggested that any qualitative report should be judged by the form it is written (aesthetic) and not by the contents (epistemic).[41] Rolfe's novel view is rebutted by Porter,[42] who argued via logical premises that two of Rolfe's fundamental statements were flawed: (i) “The content of research report is determined by their forms” may not be a fact, and (ii) that research appraisal being “subject to individual judgment based on insight and experience” will mean those without sufficient experience of performing research will be unable to judge adequately – hence an elitist's principle. From a realism standpoint, Porter then proposes multiple and open approaches for validity in qualitative research that incorporate parallel perspectives[43,44] and diversification of meanings.[44] Any work of qualitative research, when read by the readers, is always a two-way interactive process, such that validity and quality has to be judged by the receiving end too and not by the researcher end alone.
Is qualitative research the same as quantitative research?
In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations. In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research as a whole has been constantly critiqued, if not disparaged, ...
Is generalizability of qualitative research findings expected?
Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute.
What is the purpose of treatment research?
The purpose of treatment research is to identify specific inter-ventions with a beneficial impact for specific types of clientswith specific types of problems (Beutler 1979; Paul 1969). Ideal-ly, a client coming to see a clinician will be more likely toreceive effective therapy because of treatment research.
What is the dominant model of external validity?
The dominant model of external validity has prevented a properconcern for the relevance of external validity to the design oftreatment research. According to this model, a correctly designedstudy possesses external validity as a matter of mathematicalnecessity. Every beginning researcher learns the model--typicallyas a theory of proper research method; some students even confuseit with the scientific method itself. The model is fundamentallyflawed as a guide to the external validity of treatment researchand is never truly followed by treatment researchers, despitemighty efforts to do so. Furthermore, even if the model could be
How to Implement Reliability and Validity in your Thesis?
According to the experts, it is helpful if to implement the concept of reliability and Validity. Especially, in the thesis and the dissertation, these concepts are adopted much. The method for implementation given below:
What is the Validity?
Validity refers to the accuracy of the measurement. Validity shows how a specific test is suitable for a particular situation. If the results are accurate according to the researcher’s situation, explanation, and prediction, then the research is valid.
How to Increase Validity?
Ensuring Validity is also not an easy job. A proper functioning method to ensure validity is given below:
What is Reliability?
Reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement. Reliability shows how trustworthy is the score of the test. If the collected data shows the same results after being tested using various methods and sample groups, the information is reliable. If your method has reliability, the results will be valid.
What is reliability in testing?
Reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement. Reliability shows how trustworthy is the score of the test. If the collected data shows the same results after being tested using various methods and sample groups, the information is reliable. If your method has reliability, the results will be valid.
What is face validity in a language test?
It indicates that a test has high content validity. Face validity. It is about the validity of the appearance of a test or procedure of the test.
What is internal validity?
Internal validity is the ability to draw a causal link between your treatment and the dependent variable of interest. It means the observed changes should be due to the experiment conducted, and any external factor should not influence the variables. Example: age, level, height, and grade.
How to evaluate efficacy of a treatment?
Methods for evaluating efficacy often begin with health care professionals' judgments and then progress through more highly systematized research strategies. For some treatments, the most accessible source of information on treatment efficacy may be the judgment of health care professionals and patients who have experience with the treatments. It is important to distinguish between the context of discovery of an intervention and the context of verification of its clinical efficacy. Historically, some interventions that were later proven by systematic evaluation to be very powerful have arisen from clinical innovations and case studies. The question of whether particular interventions have beneficial effects is best answered using research methodologies that have been refined over many years to reduce the uncertainties inherent in subjective judgment alone and to increase confidence in the strength of the intervention. The systematic application of these research strategies also promotes the welfare of patients.
Why are guidelines important for treatment?
Good guidelines allow for flexibility in treatment selection so as to maximize the range of choices among effective treatment alternatives.
Why is it important to use guidelines in clinical practice?
Another common assumption is that standardizing treatment via guidelines will always be beneficial because it reduces practice variation. However, variation in clinical practice is often based on the needs of individual patients and their responses to specific treatments. When the application of guidelines results in a rigid system that eliminates the ability to respond to individual needs of the patient and the opportunity for self-correction in treatment, this can be detrimental to patient care.
Why should treatment guidelines be open to public scrutiny?
Treatment guidelines have the potential to influence the health care of many patients, and therefore the guidelines and the process used in their development should be open to public scrutiny. Moreover, failure to disclose the scientific justification for a guideline violates a basic principle of science, which requires open scrutiny and debate. Without the disclosure of adequate scientific information, guidelines are mere expressions of opinion.
Why are quasi experiments important?
Quasi experiments do not involve randomization but include other controls that are designed to rule out some threats to the internal validity of inferences regarding treatment efficacy. Some single-subject designs also include such controls. Randomized controlled experiments represent a more stringent way to evaluate treatment efficacy because they are the most effective way to rule out threats to internal validity in a single experiment. Random assignment of patients to conditions reduces the likelihood that the groups differ before treatment with respect to characteristics that could influence subsequent status. The advantage of randomized clinical trials is their ability to rule out rival plausible alternatives to the notion that the treatment produced an effect. However, they are potentially subject to several threats to their external and construct validity, some of which are described later in this document. Randomized controlled experiments are definitive only when all aspects of the experimental design, including the participant population, are fully representative of the phenomena of interest.
Why are guidelines promulgated?
Guidelines are promulgated to encourage high quality care. Ideally, they are not promulgated as a means of establishing the identity of a particular professional group or specialty, nor are they used to exclude certain persons from practicing in a particular area.
What is treatment guidelines?
That is, treatment guidelines are patient directed or patient focused as opposed to practitioner focused, and they tend to be condition or treatment specific (e.g., pediatric immunizations, mammography, depression).
Why is external validity important in clinical trials?
Lack of external validity may lead to clinicians being unwilling to use treatments proven to be effective in trials (22). There are a number of issues that could threaten the external validity of a trial. These include the setting of the trial, selection of participants, characteristics of the participants, types of interventions used and how they were administered, and the way outcomes were measured (22). The representativeness of participants is a particular problem, especially because subject selection in many studies is usually restricted to patients with the most typical features of the disease or those who happen to be available or willing to participate in the trial. To improve generalisability of trials, researchers should make efforts to recruit large numbers of participants from diverse population settings, enroll patients with a broad range of clinical features including those with comorbid conditions, ensure that the way interventions are administered is feasible in routine practice, and assess a broad range of clinically relevant outcomes. Patient values and preferences also should be taken into consideration in determining the external validity of a study.
Why do clinical trials use scientific methods?
Clinical trials use scientific methods to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treatments or other interventions. Trials should have both internal and external validity, and a well-conducted randomised controlled trial is considered to be the most powerful tool for evaluating interventions.
WHAT IS A CLINICAL TRIAL?
A clinical trial is a research study in which people are the units of observation and that aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of a drug or other intervention. Clinical trials use scientific methods to investigate clinical questions and aim to find better ways of treating individuals with a specific disease.
What is phase 3 in RCT?
Phase 3: After a drug has been shown to be reasonably effective in phase 2 trials, phase 3 trials may begin. These are larger, full-scale RCTs that usually involve more than 200 patients. The aim of phase 3 trials is to further evaluate effectiveness and safety. The drug may be compared with currently used treatments and further information on efficacy and safety collected. A well-designed RCT is regarded as the most powerful trial for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions (2).
Why is randomization important?
An important aim of randomisation is to balance known and unknown confounding factors. In large clinical trials, simple randomisation should lead to a balance between groups in the number of patients allocated to each of the groups and in patient characteristics. However, in smaller studies, this may not be the case.
What is the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions?
The RCT is the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. The basic issues that underpin the validity of RCTs also can be applied to the quality assessment of all studies that aim to assess the effectiveness of interventions. For this reason, most of this article will be devoted to the RCT and important issues that one needs to consider when assessing the validity of an RCT.
What is the purpose of phase 3 trials?
These are larger, full-scale RCTs that usually involve more than 200 patients. The aim of phase 3 trials is to further evaluate effectiveness and safety. The drug may be compared with currently used treatments and further information on efficacy and safety collected.
What is internal validity?
Internal validity is scientific validity. The extent to which a researcher devises a solid experiment, controls for confounding variables, and executes the procedure as planned determines a finding’s internal validity.
What is the asymmetry between internal and external validity?
There is an important asymmetry between internal and external validity, which gives insight into the answer to this question. It has to do with how these different kinds of validity are measured. Scientists are trained every day of their professional lives to be sensitive to internal validity.
Why do individual estimates vary from the population value of.50?
You will find that the results of the individual estimates will vary from the population value of .50 by a random amount soley due to sample size variation.
What is science dot org?
As Science dot org defines it: Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Ergo you can study Love from the perspective of science. The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
What do individual studies and the statistics used do?
Essentially what individual studies and the statistics used do is provide a point estimator of the actual relationship within the population. However due to a variety of factors, including sampling variation, range restriction and test reliability, these study results will randomly vary from the actual relationship within the population
Is external validity optimized for internal validity?
It is, in short, relatively obvious how to optimize for internal validity. But external validity is not so easily optimized for. It is much more difficult to point at an experiment and claim that it bears little resemblance to the real world in a crucial and undeniable way.
Can you spot a confounding variable in a study from a mile away?
They can spot a confounding variable in a study from a mile away. And once one is identified, it’s difficult to shake it off as inconsequential to the study’s findings. Perhaps more importantly, it’s embarrassing for a scientist to run a shoddy experiment in which people can easily point out procedural flaws.
