Skip to content
Free planNo credit card requiredStart writing
AI for Research home
AI for Research home
Dashboard
Sign inGet started

Search 250 million research papers

Read the abstract, see who wrote it and who cites it, and get the citation in APA, MLA, Chicago or Harvard.

About 10,000 papers for “External validity”

External Validity

Karen Chapman‐Novakofski · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · 2020

Cited by 0

External Validity

Michelangelo Vianello, Pasquale Anselmi, Elisa Maria Galliani et al. · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2023

This folder contains data and sintax to run the linear regression analysis to examine the relationship of each facet of calling with concurrent measures (having a vocation and calling orientation) and outcomes (living a calling, intention to continue studying and academic satisfaction).

Cited by 0

External validity.

Maximilian Nicolaus Burger (12969212), Matthias Mayer (474301), Ivo Steimanis (12969215) · Figshare · 2022

Cited by 0Open access

External Validity

Anna Dalla Rosa, Michelangelo Vianello, Pasquale Anselmi et al. · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2018

This folder contains data and sintax to run the linear regression analysis to examine the relationship of each facet of calling with concurrent measures (having a vocation and calling orientation) and outcomes (living a calling, intention to continue studying and academic satisfaction).

Cited by 0

External Validity

J. H. Duffus · IUPAC Standards Online · 2016

The glossary contains definitions and explanatory notes, if needed, for over 1200 terms frequently used in the multidisciplinary field of toxicology. The glossary is compiled primarily for chemists who now find themselves working in toxicology or requiring a knowledge of the subject, especially for hazard and risk assessment Many medical terms are included because of their frequent occurrence in the toxicological literature and because chemists would not normally be expected to be familiar with them. There are two annexes, one containing a list of abbreviations used in toxicology and and one containing a list of abbreviations used by international bodies and by legislation relevant to toxicology and chemical safety.

Cited by 0

External Validity

Anna Dalla Rosa, Michelangelo Vianello, Pasquale Anselmi et al. · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)

This folder contains data and sintax to run the linear regression analysis to examine the relationship of each facet of calling with concurrent measures (having a vocation and calling orientation) and outcomes (living a calling, intention to continue studying and academic satisfaction).

Cited by 0

external validity

Duncan Cramer, Dennis Howitt · The SAGE Dictionary of Statistics · 2004

Cited by 0

External Validity

Michelangelo Vianello, Pasquale Anselmi, Elisa Maria Galliani et al. · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2018

This folder contains data and sintax to run the linear regression analysis to examine the relationship of each facet of calling with concurrent measures (having a vocation and calling orientation) and outcomes (living a calling, intention to continue studying and academic satisfaction).

Cited by 0

External Validity

Georg E. Matt, Addie L. Brewer, Marisa Sklar · Elsevier eBooks · 2010

Cited by 5

Against external validity

Julian Reiss · Synthese · 2018

Francesco Guala once wrote that ‘The problem of extrapolation (or external validity as it is sometimes called) is a minor scandal in the philosophy of science’. This paper agrees with the statement, but for reasons different from Guala’s. The scandal is not, or not any longer, that the problem has been ignored in the philosophy of science. The scandal is that framing the problem as one of external validity encourages poor evidential reasoning. The aim of this paper is to propose an alternative—an alternative which constitutes much better evidential reasoning about target systems of interest, and which makes do without (much) consideration of external validity.

Cited by 58Open access

External validity indices.

Michelangelo Vianello (486608), Anna Dalla Rosa (6086744), Pasquale Anselmi (486607) et al. · Figshare · 2018

Cited by 0Open access

Assessing External Validity

Hao Bo, Sebastián Galiani · National Bureau of Economic Research · 2019

In designing any causal study, steps must be taken to address both internal and external threats to its validity. Researchers tend to focus primarily on dealing with threats to internal validity. However, once they have conducted an internally valid analysis, that analysis yields an established set of findings for the specific case in question. As for the future usefulness of that result, however, what matters is its degree of external validity. In this paper we provide a formal, general exploration of the question of external validity and propose a simple and generally applicable method for evaluating the external validity of randomized controlled trials. Although our method applies only to RCTs, the issue of external validity is general and not restricted to RCTs, as shown in our formal analysis.

Cited by 5Open access

Improving External Validity May Jeopardize Internal Validity

Mahmoud Daoud · Anesthesiology · 2019

I read with interest the recently published article by Ramgolam et al.1 that sought to find the safer way to induce anesthesia in children at risk of developing perioperative respiratory complications. I would like to congratulate the authors for their tenacity to complete the study despite the obstacles in the recruitment of the staff and patients. However, I have few concerns regarding the current study by Ramgolam et al.To preserve internal validity of controlled trials and eliminate confounders, all participants in each group should receive the same treatment, and all the groups should be treated equally apart from the intervention.2 Unfortunately, this was violated multiple times in the current study by Ramgolam et al. The cause of this violation is not clear. It might be an attempt to make the setting more natural to improve the external validity, or it might be because of the recruitment of new staff to complete the study. For example, a drop of oxygen saturation less than 95% was one of the outcomes; however, the fraction of inspired oxygen was variable in the inhalational group, nitrous oxide was used in half of the patients in the inhalational group, and preoxygenation was not routine in the intravenous group. Another example was that anesthesiologists were free to administer propofol in the inhalational group. Forty-nine percent of patients in the inhalational group received propofol in a dosage that is roughly equal to one third of the dose of propofol in the intravenous group. The rationale for administering propofol was not mentioned. Propofol might be administered because of the fear of, or the actual, light anesthesia in the inhalational group. This light anesthesia in the inhalational group and not the inhalational induction may be the cause of the perioperative respiratory adverse events. Patient who received propofol in the inhalational group (with possible light anesthesia) had more perioperative respiratory adverse events (49%) compared with those who did not receive propofol (39%). Although the post hoc analysis demonstrated that this difference was not statistically significant, this statistical insignificance may be unreliable because the subgroup analysis was underpowered. The current study by Ramgolam et al. was powered to determine the difference in the incidence of perioperative respiratory adverse events between children receiving an inhalational induction and an intravenous induction. For comparison of subgroups of the same size and with the same power as the overall effect, the sample sizes should be inflated fourfold.3 It would be more appropriate if a specific minimum alveolar concentration value was targeted that was equipotent to the dose of propofol given in the intravenous group. Also, targeting a bispectral index value might be used to ensure equal depth of anesthesia in all participants.Ramgolam et al. suggested that the combination of sevoflurane and nitrous oxide induces an inflammatory response in the airway, leading to the higher rate of perioperative respiratory adverse events observed in the inhalational group. First, the respiratory adverse events observed during induction develop within seconds or minutes during induction, while the mechanism proposed needs hours to develop as occurred in the study by Kumakura et al.4 Second, the proposed mechanism tried to explain the development of perioperative respiratory adverse events in patients who received sevoflurane and nitrous oxide (about half of the patient in the inhalational group). However, the proposed mechanism failed to explain the development of adverse events in the remaining half who received sevoflurane and air. Surprisingly, patients who revived sevoflurane and air are supposed to have an antiinflammatory response according to the study by Kumakura et al.The author declares no competing interests.

Cited by 2Open access