Establishing the internal and external validity of experimental studies.

The information needed to determine the internal and external validity of an experimental study is discussed. Internal validity is the degree to which a study establishes the cause-and-effect relationship between the treatment and the observed outcome. Establishing the internal validity of a study is based on a logical process. For a research report, the logical framework is provided by the report's structure. The methods section describes what procedures were followed to minimize threats to internal validity, the results section reports the relevant data, and the discussion section assesses the influence of bias. Eight threats to internal validity have been defined: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection, experimental mortality, and an interaction of threats. A cognitive map may be used to guide investigators when addressing validity in a research report. The map is based on the premise that information in the report evolves from one section to the next to provide a complete logical description of each internal-validity problem. The map addresses experimental mortality, randomization, blinding, placebo effects, and adherence to the study protocol. Threats to internal validity may be a source of extraneous variance when the findings are not significant. External validity is addressed by delineating inclusion and exclusion criteria, describing subjects in terms of relevant variables, and assessing generalizability. By using a cognitive map, investigators reporting an experimental study can systematically address internal and external validity so that the effects of the treatment are accurately portrayed and generalization of the findings is appropriate.

[1]  A. Kristal,et al.  A dietary intervention in primary care practice: the Eating Patterns Study. , 1997, American journal of public health.

[2]  D. DeMets,et al.  Fundamentals of Clinical Trials , 1982 .

[3]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: Current Issues and Future Directions , 1996, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[4]  Debashis Ghosh,et al.  Statistical Aspects of the Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials , 2002 .

[5]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[6]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[7]  J. Janosky,et al.  Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold in children: a randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[8]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. , 2001, JAMA.

[9]  James Hartley.  From Structured Abstracts to Structured Articles: A Modest Proposal , 1999 .

[10]  Curtis L. Meinert,et al.  A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. , 1994, JAMA.

[11]  S. Medendorp,et al.  Zinc Gluconate Lozenges for Treating the Common Cold , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. , 1995, Controlled clinical trials.

[13]  D G Altman,et al.  Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. , 1994, JAMA.

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. , 2001, JAMA.

[15]  D. Alberts,et al.  Lack of effect of a high-fiber cereal supplement on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Phoenix Colon Cancer Prevention Physicians' Network. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Johanna Kipperman,et al.  Learning through Discussion , 1994 .

[17]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[18]  S. Blalock,et al.  Determining the Statistical Knowledge of Pharmacy Practitioners: A Survey and Review of the Literature 1 , 1999 .

[19]  T C Chalmers,et al.  A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. , 1981, Controlled clinical trials.

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[21]  M. Evans,et al.  Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold. , 1997, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[22]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[23]  P. Théroux,et al.  Aspirin, heparin, or both to treat acute unstable angina. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[25]  D. G. Altman,et al.  Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials , 1990, The Lancet.