COMPLETE TWO RESPONSES TO CLASSMATES POSTS, AT LEAST 200 WOR

COMPLETE TWO RESPONSES TO CLASSMATES POSTS, AT LEAST 200 WOR.
COMPLETE TWO RESPONSES TO CLASSMATES POSTS, AT LEAST 200 WORDS EACH, 1 REFERENCE EACH, AND PLEASE SEPARATE EACH RESPONSE.POST 1:Part 1:What is internal and external validity?One of the best ways to comprehending Internal Validity (IV) is the recognition, when it is associated with experimental research, refers both to how well the study was run (research design, operational definitions used, how variables were measured, what was/wasn t measured, etc.), and how confidently one can conclude, that the change in the dependent variable was produced solely by the independent variable, and not extraneous ones (Huitt & Kaeck, 1999). External Validity is the extent to which a study s results, regardless of whether the study is descriptive or experimental, can be generalized/applied to other people or settings, reflects its external validity. Typically, group research employing randomization will initially possess higher External Validity than will studies. For example, case studies and single-subject experimental research that do not use random selection/assignment (Huitt & Kaeck, 1999). When conducting research, why is there often a trade-off between internal and external validity?At a very basic level, a tradeoff between two variables must imply that the more we get of one, the less we get of the other. If we want to make the question of the trade-off between internal and external validity analytically tractable, we can take a general assertion about this trade-off to mean two differentiated things: Either we mean that we can only obtain experiments that have low internal validity and high external validity and vice versa, or that in a given experimental design, internal validity can be increased at the expense of external validity and vice versa (Jim nez-Buedo & Miller, 2009). Is there a benefit in achieving a high level of one type of validity (internal versus external) over the other?It has been frequently argued that Internal Validity is the priority for research. However, in an applied discipline, the purpose of which includes working to improve the health of the public, it is also important that External Validity be emphasized and strengthened. For example, it is important to know not only that a program is effective, but that it is likely to be effective in other settings and with other populations (Steckler & McLeroy, 2008).Is there a way to design a study or series of studies to have high internal as well as high external validity? What would be the benefit?In group research, the primary methods used to achieve internal and external validity are randomization, the use of a research design and statistical analysis that are appropriate to the types of data collected, and the question(s) the investigator(s) is trying to answer. Single-subject experimental studies almost always have high internal validity because subjects serve as their own controls but are extremely low with respect to external validity Huitt & Kaeck, 1999). Single-subject studies acquire external validity through the process of replication and extension (i.e., repeating the study in different settings, with a different subject, etc.). The results of group studies are also more acceptable by the scientific community when replicated Huitt & Kaeck, 1999). Part 2: Using the Argosy University online library resources, locate a research study related to the human services field.Khorsan, R., & Crawford, C. (2014). How to assess the external validity and model validity of therapeutic trials: A conceptual approach to systematic review methodology. Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, doi: Evaluate the level of internal and external validity achieved in the study.It is believed that internal validity is a prerequisite for the external validity and efficacy and effectiveness exist on a continuum. Study results that deviate from the true effect due to systematic error lack the basis for generalizability Khorsan, & Crawford (2014, p.12). Without generalizability the true therapeutic effect of clinical trials cannot be assessed. As Dekkers and colleagues state, from a clinician s point of view the generalizability of study results is of paramount importance (Khorsan, & Crawford, 2014).Dekkers also argue that there are two reasons why most clinical trials neglect external validity: (1) most clinical trials focus their outcome assessment based on the specific, narrow and ideal setting, and ignore the question to whether the intervention has an effect when applied in general practice or routine clinical practice and (2) researchers underestimate the complexity of external validity and often conceptualize external validity to a deceptively simple description of those persons not included in the study. Therefore it is important to make a distinction between research finding of efficacy and effectiveness of an intervention for health care providers, policy makers, and other stakeholders (Khorsan, & Crawford, 2014).Discuss how the interpretation of the data is affected by the level of validity (both strengths and weaknesses.Strength In research terms, good randomized clinical trial (RCT) designs have strong internal validity to test efficacy; that is, well-controlled experimental conditions are chosen to optimize certainty that the independent variable alone (i.e., a specific intervention) produced the observed effect. External validity, on the other hand, addresses the generalizability of an observed effect for the larger population from whom the study participants were drawn; and model validity relates to the concordance between the study design and an idealized setting (Khorsan, & Crawford, 2014).For external and model validity in studies, practitioners would need to (a) use indivisible, interdependent, iterative packages of care rather than isolated standardized elements of a package; (b) ensure that practitioners involved in studies are well trained and highly experienced; (c) treat real-world patients with confounding co-morbid conditions, psychosocial factors, and other treatments; and (d) evaluate complex, emergent patient-wide outcomes in each case, rather than the simple organ- or disease-specific effects (Khorsan, & Crawford, 2014).WeaknessLastly, due to failure to measure external validity and model validity, practitioners are often unable to determine if a given study s findings apply to their local setting, population staffing, or resources. The lack of information on external validity and model validity can contribute to the failure to translate research into public health practice. Therefore, policy and administrative decision makers are unable to determine the generalizability or breadth of applicability of research findings (Khorsan, & Crawford, 2014).ReferencesHuitt, W. J. & Kaeck, Hummel D. (1999). Educational psychology: Internal and External validity. Internal and External Validity General Issues. Retrieved fromwww.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/intro/valdgn.htmlJim nez-Buedo, Maria & Miller, Luis M. (2009). Why a Trade-off? The Relationship between the External and Internal Validity of Experiments. Experiments in the Social Sciences: The relationship between External and Internal Validity. THEORIA: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science. Vol 25, No 3 (2010). Retrieved from philsci-archive.pitt.edu/ /jimenezbuedomiller_version_why_a_trade_off_philsci.pdfSteckler, A., & McLeroy, K. R. (2008). The Importance of External Validity. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 9 10. 2:Part 1What is internal and external validity? When conducting research, why is there often a trade-off between internal and external validity?According to the reference used of researchers Cook and Campbell (1979, p.37), internal validity refers to the approximate validity with which we infer that a relationship between two variables is causal or that the absence of a relationship implies the absence of cause, and external validity refers to the approximate validity with which we can infer that the presumed causal relationship can be generalized to and across alternate measures of the cause and effect and across different types of persons, settings, and times. When conducting research, a trade-off between internal and external validity occurs when establishing internal validity, the experiment ensures one potential cause and effect, the more variables included in the experiment presents a trade-off.The results of the experiment can no longer be as confident. confident until there are factors such as time and settings changed. This can affect the relevance of the results. Is there a benefit in achieving a high level of one type of validity (internal versus external) over the other? Is there a way to design a study or series of studies to have high internal as well as high external validity? What would be the benefit? It has been frequently argued that internal validity is the priority for research. However, in an applied discipline, the purpose of which includes working to improve the health of the public, it is also important that external validity be emphasized and strengthened. For example, it isimportant to know not only that a program is effective, but that it is likely to be effective in other settings and with other populations. The two main research levels were efficacy trials and effectiveness trials. Efficacy trials were to be highly controlled studies and effectiveness trials were less controlled. The argument was that a given public health intervention should be successful in both types of trials before it was ready for dissemination to and by public health practitioners. True experiments are designs that have strong internal validity; that is, participants are randomized to experimental conditions, and other means are used to ensure that changes in the dependent variable can be attributed to the experimental manipulation of the independent variable. There are several types of threat to internal validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Finger & Rand, 2003; Rosenthal, 2002) Part 2 Evaluate the level of internal and external validity achieved in the study.In the study of patient centered medical care; the patient s ability to self-care is achieved by one group of care providers; primary care physician, therapist, counselors and other treatment care providers gather as a team in internal validity, the study showed the patient health was increased.When the patient is seen by multiple providers under separate and different environment i.e. External validity is low.The writer indicates the decline in health, rise of medical cost and increased anxiety.Discuss how the interpretation of the data is affected by the level of validity (both strengths and weaknesses). The research revealed the primary weakness found in interpreting the data is that a large number of primary doctors when given an assessment of interest in patient centered medical care scored low in a team based care for patients.Our results suggest that the measure adequately addresses the specific requirements and assumptions underlying the BCBSM PCMH program ability to assess change in level of implementation; ability to compare across practices regardless of size, affiliation, or payer mix; and ability to assess implementation of the PCMH through different sequencing of capabilities and domains. ReferencesThe Importance of External Validity Experimental Designs www.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa696/696quasi.htmWhy a Trade-Off? The Relationship between the External and Internal and Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home NCBI Literature PubMed Central (PMC)Assessment and Measurement of Patient-Centered Medical Home
COMPLETE TWO RESPONSES TO CLASSMATES POSTS, AT LEAST 200 WOR