CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 922Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research: Issues in External Validation and Translation Methodology

Green, Lawrence W., Glasgow, Russell E.·2006·Evaluation & the Health Professions
DOI 10.1177/0163278705284445
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Starting with the proposition that “if we want more evidence-based practice, we need more practice-based evidence,” this article (a) offers questions and guides that practitioners, program planners, and policy makers can use to determine the applicability of evidence to situations and populations other than those in which the evidence was produced (generalizability), (b) suggests criteria that reviewers can use to evaluate external validity and potential for generalization, and (c) recommends procedures that practitioners and program planners can use to adapt evidencebased interventions and integrate them with evidence on the population and setting characteristics, theory, and experience into locally appropriate programs. The development and application in tandem of such questions, guides, criteria, and procedures can be a step toward increasing the relevance of research for decision making and should support the creation and reporting of more practice-based research having high external validity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0163278705284445

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Evidence for determining which interventions are evidence based often comes from systematic reviews of controlled trials that prioritize internal validity over external validity.

    “Often, this evidence comes from systematic reviews of controlled trials that prioritize internal validity (e.g., does the intervention work?) over external validity (e.g., can the findings be generalized, and among what populations and settings?) (48, 54).”

    From The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care (2018) · cites this paper as [54]

  • D&I research explicitly attends to external validity, whereas most randomized efficacy and effectiveness trials mainly emphasize internal validity.

    “Dissemination and implementation research pays explicit (although not exclusive) attention to external validity, in contrast to the main emphasis on internal validity in most randomized efficacy and effectiveness trials (20, 48, 52).”

    From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [52]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
ORCID
Glasgow, Russell E.
Venue
Evaluation & the Health Professions
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-03
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
126-153
ISSN
  • 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3918
DOI
10.1177/0163278705284445
OpenAlex
W2167619051
Cited by
922
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 63
FWCI
99.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Evaluation & the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA 90974-01, R01CA090974)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
practice-based evidence, evidence-based practice, generalizability, research relevance, program planning, research utilization, practice-based research
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation, Evidence-Based Medicine

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