Assessing the generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations
Open accessAbstract
Recent years have seen increasing interest in and attention to evidence-based practices, where the "evidence" generally comes from well-conducted randomized trials. However, while those trials yield accurate estimates of the effect of the intervention for the participants in the trial (known as "internal validity"), they do not always yield relevant information about the effects in a particular target population (known as "external validity"). This may be due to a lack of specification of a target population when designing the trial, difficulties recruiting a sample that is representative of a prespecified target population, or to interest in considering a target population somewhat different from the population directly targeted by the trial. This paper first provides an overview of existing design and analysis methods for assessing and enhancing the ability of a randomized trial to estimate treatment effects in a target population. It then provides a case study using one particular method, which weights the subjects in a randomized trial to match the population on a set of observed characteristics. The case study uses data from a randomized trial of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS); our interest is in generalizing the results to the state of Maryland. In the case of PBIS, after weighting, estimated effects in the target population were similar to those observed in the randomized trial. The paper illustrates that statistical methods can be used to assess and enhance the external validity of randomized trials, making the results more applicable to policy and clinical questions. However, there are also many open research questions; future research should focus on questions of treatment effect heterogeneity and further developing these methods for enhancing external validity. Researchers should think carefully about the external validity of randomized trials and be cautious about extrapolating results to specific populations unless they are confident of the similarity between the trial sample and that target population.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
More generalizable findings apply to more people, making them more valuable for clinicians and policymakers in the real world.
“More generalizable findings apply to more people, making them more valuable for clinicians and policymakers in the real world [2,3].”
From Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 296
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hedges LV Olkin I 1985 Statistical methods for meta-analysis Orlando, FL Academic Press
- Authors
- Stuart, E. A., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- University of Virginia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stuart, Elizabeth A.
- Venue
- Prevention Science
- Published
- 2014-10-12
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 475-485
- ISSN
- 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6695
- PMC
- PMC4359056
- OpenAlex
- W2114938072
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 9.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U49CE000728, K01CE001333, 1 U49CE000728)
- U.S. Public Health Service (R49/CCR318627)
- National Institute of Mental Health (1R01MH67948, R01MH067948, K25MH083846)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- generalizability, target population, population weighting, matching, SWPBIS, treatment effect heterogeneity, evidence-based practice, sample representativeness
- MeSH terms
- Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Health Promotion, Humans, Maryland, School Health Services, Social Behavior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Practice, Propensity Score
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review