Cited by 36Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Interaction of Theory and Practice to Assess External Validity

Leviton, Laura C., Trujillo, Mathew D.·2017·Evaluation Review

Abstract

Background: Variations in local context bedevil the assessment of external validity: the ability to generalize about effects of treatments. For evaluation, the challenges of assessing external validity are intimately tied to the translation and spread of evidence-based interventions. This makes external validity a question for decision makers, who need to determine whether to endorse, fund, or adopt interventions that were found to be effective and how to ensure high quality once they spread. Objective: To present the rationale for using theory to assess external validity and the value of more systematic interaction of theory and practice. Methods: We review advances in external validity, program theory, practitioner expertise, and local adaptation. Examples are provided for program theory, its adaptation to diverse contexts, and generalizing to contexts that have not yet been studied. The often critical role of practitioner experience is illustrated in these examples. Work is described that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is supporting to study treatment variation and context more systematically. Results: Researchers and developers generally see a limited range of contexts in which the intervention is implemented. Individual practitioners see a different and often a wider range of contexts, albeit not a systematic sample. Organized and taken together, however, practitioner experiences can inform external validity by challenging the developers and researchers to consider a wider range of contexts. Researchers have developed a variety of ways to adapt interventions in light of such challenges. Conclusions: In systematic programs of inquiry, as opposed to individual studies, the problems of context can be better addressed. Evaluators have advocated an interaction of theory and practice for many years, but the process can be made more systematic and useful. Systematic interaction can set priorities for assessment of external validity by examining the prevalence and importance of context features and treatment variations. Practitioner interaction with researchers and developers can assist in sharpening program theory, reducing uncertainty about treatment variations that are consistent or inconsistent with the theory, inductively ruling out the ones that are harmful or irrelevant, and helping set priorities for more rigorous study of context and treatment variation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0193841x15625289

Cites

83 of 83 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leviton, L. C., & Trujillo, M. D.
Affiliations
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (US)
Corresponding author
Leviton, Laura C.
Venue
Evaluation Review
Published
2016-01-18
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
436-471
ISSN
  • 0145-4692 (ISSN-L)
  • 0193-841X
  • 1552-3926
OpenAlex
W2343651394
Cited by
35
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
FWCI
8.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evaluation Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
generalizability, program theory, practitioner expertise, local adaptation, context effects, treatment variation, evidence-based interventions, theory-practice interaction, intervention development, systematic inquiry
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Models, Theoretical, Policy Making, Reproducibility of Results, Evidence-Based Practice

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