Describe the two different characterizations of the relationship between internal validity and
external validity. Which do you prefer and why?
From Cal The most common error on this question is to not answer it! The question is
about how internal and external validity relate to each other, and which characterization of the
relationship you prefer. The question is not about what each is and which you prefer. I’ve
included some answers to the following question, so emphasize the difference and because
some of them are very good descriptions of these two types of validity – just didn’t answer the
question!
1.
Internal validity is all about control. External validity is all about naturalness and
generalizability. My preference is dependent on the purpose of the study. I a study needs to
have a large amount of applicability, I favor external validity. If a study needs to be replicated
or evaluated to determine if there are any other variables that may be producing the results, I
prefer internal validity. In closing, it is difficult to pick just one, because so much is dependent
upon context.
2.
(From Cal  remember that you are to use sentence & paragraph form on the exam!!!!)
nternal validity refers to causal interpredbility, where external validity refers to generlizability
and representation.
The components of Internal validity are 1) Initial equivalence and 2) ongoing equivalence.
Initial equivalence is concerned with subject variables which are measured. Ongoing
equivalence is concerned with procedural variables which are manipulated.
The componets of External validity are population, who is in the study; setting, where the study
takes place; task/stimulus, what the task or stimulus is for the study; and final
societal/temporal, will this study be valid in several years? Can we use a study that was
conducted several year ago?
There are two models for comparing external and internal validity.
1) Trade off model. This model claims that you can only have external or internal validity, it is a
trade off, you can't have both, the researcher has to choose. This model favors associatve and
causual research hypotheses.
2) Precursor model. This model claims that internal validity is a precursor to external validity.
For example, as in our notes, what is there to generalize if there is no causal intepreability?
This model favors internal validity.
4. I prefer the trade off model because assoicate research is important as well as causal reseach.
Many of the descisons that we make are based on associate research. Associate research is a
stepping stone or basis for causal research.
3.
5.
Internal validity is all about control. External validity is all about representation and naturalness.
The two different characterizations of the relationship between internal validity and external
validity are the trade-off model and the precursor model. The trade-off model states that every
decision we make as researchers influences both internal and external validity. We cannot
maximize both. You trade off one for the other. The precursor model states that internal validity
is a precursor to external validity. In other words, if you don't have causal interpretability, what
is there to generalize? I prefer the trade-off model because it implies that both associative and
causal knowledge are important, while the precursor model only values causal knowledge. If
you don't have generalizability, even if you have causal interpretability, what's the point? Also,
our world is based on associative knowledge. We base our decisions regarding science,
politics, economics, etc. on associative knowledge.
6.
When speaking of internal validity, you are talking about causal interpretability and
applicability. On the other hand, external validity is about generalizability. If I had to chose one,
I believe that I would have to go with internal valididty. I chose this because I think that without
causal interpretability the results of a study cannot be generalized.
7.
Internal validity relates to the degree that the IV affects the DV, and that there are no (or few)
confounds. External validity relates to the generalizability of the study to the outside world. One
characterization is that there is a trade-off between the two, so when you have more internal
validity you sacrifice external validity, and vice versa. The other characterization claims that
internal validity has to be a precursor to external validity. In other words, if the internal validity
does not exist, then the experiment is bunk and there is nothing to generalize to the outside
world. I agree with the second characterization, because without internal validity, the research
is meaningless. Once you prove that an IV leads to a DV, then you can see how it can be
generalized to the outside world.
8.
Internal validity is about having good controls when conducting a study whereas external
validity is about generalizability and naturalness of a study. One model that shows the
relationship between those two valiables is called Trade-off model. It says that every decision
we make influences both internal and external validity and it is impossible to have both
validities perfect in a study. The other model is called precursor model. It says that internal
validiy is a precursor for the external validity. The former model take account of both of the
validities on the same level but the latter mainly emphasizes on internal validity. I prefer the
trade-off model because it can be used to consider both associative and causal hypotheses
whereas precursor model tend to focus on only causal hypotheses. There are many
associative reserach hypotheses that are effectively used for the decision making in any field
of science. Therefore, I think trade-off model is a more useful approach
9.
The two different characterizations of the relationship between internal validity and external
validity is that with internal validity you have initial or ongoing equivalence whereas with
external validity you have the population, setting, task/stimulus, and societal temperance.
Another difference between them involves generalizability and applicability. Internal Validity
relies on applicability whereas external validity is more on generalizability. Plus, with Internal
validity you have more control than you do with external validity. However, I prefer external
validity to use because yes it is harder to maintain the control, but at least all the facts are
present when you are setting up an experiment and you don't have to assume something
which may lead to bias.
10.
Internal validity is about causality. It tells us how one behavior will influens the other behavior.
External validity is about Population, settings, time/societal changes.
The internal valididy plays greater role in any study or experiment. The attributes that influence
internal validity are assignment and manipulation of independent variable by the researcher. It
is important that the participants are randomly assigned by the researcher. Also the
manipulation of the IV should not take place before the study.
11.
External validity involves generalizability, the dependent variable and ongoing equivalence of
procedural variables, while internal validity involves initial equivalence of subject variables and
the independent variable (which must always manipulated). Personally, I prefer interal
equivalence because without intial equivalence it would seem to me that you're experiment
would just spiral downward from there. In addition, it seems much easier to "fix" an experiment
with external validity problems than one with internal validity. Also, you could possibly be
getting yourself into some ethical issues (depending on how your conducting your study) if all
of your subjects are not treated the same manner and condition.
12.
Internal validity deals with ongoing equivalence and initial equivalence. It also deals with
causal interpretability. Whereas external validity deals with the control of the experiment such
as the setting (naturalistic or lab), sampling and selection, and when the experiment will take
place. I prefer external validity because I think it is important to observe participants in their
natural environment to get true results.
13.
External Validity concerns how applicable or gererizable the results of an experiment are.
External validity is composed of the experiment's participants, the setting of the experiment
(lab, field, or structured), the task or stimulus involved with the experiment, and the societal or
temporal precedence. Internal Validity concerns the ongoing and initial equivalence of an
experiment and whether the statistical conclusions are valid. Internal validitiy is concerned with
causal intrepratibility. Internal validity asks, "are your findings valid internally?" whereas
External Validity asks, "do they apply to the real world" You might have an experiment that is
internally valid but not externally applicable. Much research is conducted on college students
but perhaps not generalizable to an adult population. I prefer internal validity because
regardless of whether a reliable statical relationship can be transfered to all circumanstances,
populations, or situations, a connection is discoved that can be further examined and explored.
It seems like good internal validity promotes further research increasing or decreasing external
validity in subsequent experiments.
14.
Internal validity represents the causal relationship between the subject variables in a study,
whereas, external validity, containing procedural variables, represents the generalizability of
the study and how well it generalize to a particular population. I would prefer to have internal
validity in a study as compared to external because without equivalence of particpants you
can't fully measure the effect of the IV in a true experiment.
15.
Internal validity is about control within a study. External validity has more to do with the
generalizability and applicability of study results. I do not support the precursor model, which
states that one must establish internal validity before external, because it rejects associative
hypotheses, and implies that there are behavioral axioms from which to establish "proof" for
certain results before testing them externally. Due to the fact that we can never be 100%
certain in our results, we rely on converging operations and replication to reach probabalistic
conclusions. Because of this method, I support the trade off model, which states that you trade
internal validity for more external and vice versa, as a more suitable paridigm for approaching
scientific psychological research.
16.
There is a relationship that exists between internal validity and external validity. This
relationship is expressed through the trade-off model and the precurssor model. The trade-off
model states that a trade-off exists between internal validity and external validity. You can
never have both. So if you want internal validity then you have to sacrifice external validty (and
vice versa). The precursor model states that if you can not have causal interpretability (internal
validity) then why bother doing experiments. I prefer the trade-off model because even though
you have to chose between internal and external validity it does not necessarily mean that you
can not acquire any useful information that is not causal in nature.
17.
One characterization of the relationship between internal and external validity is that now
matter what we do, our choice to emphasize one component will affect the other component. If
we focus on producing high internal validity, the external validity of the study will suffer. If we
focus on external validity, internal validity will suffer.
The other characterization says that without internal validity, it is impractical to have any
external validity. This claims that if we have poor internal validity, the results of a study are not
applicable to an external population, and therefore don't have any external validity.
I prefer the first characterization because it shows just how much every aspect of a study is
tied to every other aspect of the study. In a study, like in real life, if we focus on one issue,
another different issue will undoubtebly suffer.
18.
The two different characterizations of the relationship between internal validity and external
validity are the "Trade-off" model and the "precursor" model. The trade-off model says that
both associative and causal information are important. Internal validity is needed for causal
interpretable results, and external validity is needed for generalizability. According to the tradeoff model, every decision a researcher makes effects one or the other and the two are in
opposition to one another. You can have either internal validity and causal interpretability or
external validity and generalizability. The precursor model focuses only on causal information.
It says without internal validity and causal interpretability, what is there to generalize? I prefer
the trade-off model because both associative information and causal information are important.
It is very difficult to run causal interpretable studies and most of the knowledge we have and
gain today is associative including much of our knowledge of science.
19.
When conducting any research study, it is almost impossible to promote both internal and
external validity with much certainty in the results. For this reason, many researchers use the
trade-off model when designing their studies. The basis of this model is that, since it is
impossible to promote both internal and external validity, it is necessary to choose one type of
validity and emphasize it. The hope is that by sacrificing some aspects of one type of validity,
they will strengthen the other type of validity. However, some researchers disagree with this
model. These researchers believe that without causal interpretability, there can be nothing to
generalize in a study either. Those who believe this support the precursor model, which
focuses entirely on the internal validity of a study at the expense of external validity. If I were to
conduct a study, I would prefer to use the trade-off model. I think it is important to be able to
generalize a study to more than just your data sample, so I think ignoring external validity is
not very wise. Furthermore, perfect internal validity would be impossible to achieve, so the
researcher might as well try to make the study as internally and externally valid as possible.
20.
The two different characterizations of the relationship between internal validity and external
validity are the trade-off model and the precursor model. The trade-off model suggests that
every desicion the researcher makes effects both internal and external validity. It also
states that it is very hard to maintain both internal and external validity at the same time.
So the experiment is give and take with the two types of validity. The precursor model says
that if there is no control in the experiment, or internal validity, there is is no way a person
can genralize the results, so there is no reason for external validity in that case. I prefer the
trade-off model because I believe that when it comes to validity it is almost impossible to
have both in the same experiment. Even if the results of the experiment can not be
causally interpreted they can still serve a useful purpose. If the experiment goes though
replication and converging operations than the results can be generalized better and tell us
a great deal about our experiment. So, associative research hypotheses can be helpful just
like causal research hypotheses.