Talk:Ecological validity

Bollocks Cite

Pls show me the page number, where this is said, otherwise, this is not a verfiable cite. Westentaschenadorno (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 2

I will look when I return to my office next week. Are you suggesting that the statement isn't true? Just because an experiment's procedure doesn't mimic the real world doesn't mean it's findings aren't scientifically valid. A experiment studying consumer purchasing behavior might be conducted on paper in a university laboratory (being very unrealistic and leaving it with very little ecological validity), but if that experiment's findings generalize to actual consumer purchasing decisions (i.e., it has external validity), and if the study was conducted properly without confounds or flaws, the study would be completely valid, despite having no ecological validity. The point of the statement in the article is to say that ecological validity, while nice, isn't a prerequisite to a valid study.

I'll try to find additional cites, but I'm sure you could generate many examples of studies that lack ecological validity, but still have scientifically valid results (like the example listed above). Even the existence of one possibility of such a study would make the statement in the article true on its face. -Nick^talk 16:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you show up less frequently at your office than I do. Let me know, when you have news for me. Westentaschenadorno (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the definition of validity, it more or less directly contradicts the statement on this page: "Unlike internal and external validity, ecological validity is not necessary to the overall validity of a study." vs "Validity is the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and likely corresponds accurately to the real world. Effervecent (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)