noting specific advantages of using a systematic approach to work through research problems. Ask at least one question in response to an original peer post that you would like the author to explore further. no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please use the references below

Validity is often referred to as whether the experimental results demonstrate what the researchers think they are demonstrating (Malec & Newman, 2013). Internal validity assesses the degree to which the results can be attributed to the independent variables, the extent to which a cause-and-effect relationship exists between a treatment and an outcome (Malec & Newman, 2013). External validity assesses the way to which results in generalize situations beyond the conditions which are laid out in the experiment (Malec & Newman, 2013). To avoid threats to internal validity, it is essential to control and minimize the influence of extraneous variables that may add “noise” to a hypothesis test. Often, external variables can be thought of as minor nuisances. Internal validity can also be threatened when groups are different before the manipulation; selection bias. Selection bias can cause problems as inherent differences may be the driving factor behind the results of the experiment (Malec & Newman, 2013). One way to avoid this is through a random selection. Experimenter expectancies can cause researchers to see what they expect to see; participants can behave differently based on their expectancies of the goals of the study (Malec & Newman, 2013).

One example of an experimental study would be for an employer to determine if a flexible work schedule can improve overall job satisfaction amongst employees. The experiment can be set up, utilizing two separate groups. Group one, the control group, would consist of employees who are working fixed hours. Group two, the experiment group, would consist of employees who are working flexible hours. The experiment would run for a predetermined length of time. Each employee would be required to complete a survey before the experiment and again immediately following the experiment, to measure their job satisfaction.

There are a few factors that can impact the validity of this research study. For example, internal validity can be affected by the following, which can immediately lead to improved job satisfaction: a new supervisor is hired during the study, employees become more experienced and better at their jobs, and dissatisfied employees quit their role during the study; therefore, their responses are not included in the post-survey. The two main factors that can threaten the external validity regarding this example are: the pre-survey questionnaire triggers employees to start thinking more consciously about their job satisfaction, and employees participating in the experiment can be significantly younger than employees within other departments, so the results can’t be generalized. Internal validity can be improved by ensuring an investigation is measuring what it is meant to while external validity can be improved by investigating realistic settings to make the findings more relevant to everyday life.

Within this specific example, external validity would be more valuable as researchers would want to know that the same factors can improve job satisfaction in a multitude of employment settings with a variety of populations. Most challenging when evaluating research is ensuring that the samples have been randomly chosen so that not to show bias, knowing that no other variables except the one that is being studied caused the result (Diem, 2002). One question that continues to be raised following this exercise is how to know that the results of an experiment are reliable.

References

Diem, K. G. (2002). A step-by-step guide to developing effective questionnaires and survey procedures for program evaluation & research. Available at http://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/publication.asp?pid=…

Malec, T. & Newman, M. (2013). Research methods: Building a knowledge base. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.