Internal validity of true experimental designs is typically described as?

Internal validity of true experimental designs is typically described as?

• A. Poor
• B. Moderate
• C. Good
• D. Very good

Answer: (D)

Internal validity in true experimental designs is built on random assignment, a control group, and manipulation of the independent variable. Random assignment helps ensure that participant characteristics and potential confounds are distributed evenly across groups, so differences in outcomes are more likely due to the intervention itself rather than preexisting differences. The control group provides a baseline to compare against, while standardized procedures limit measurement and procedural biases. Together, these features create a strong basis for causal inferences, so internal validity is described as very good. Of course, issues like dropout or noncompliance can threaten validity if not addressed, but they are less likely to undermine it compared with nonrandomized designs.

Internal validity in true experimental designs is built on random assignment, a control group, and manipulation of the independent variable. Random assignment helps ensure that participant characteristics and potential confounds are distributed evenly across groups, so differences in outcomes are more likely due to the intervention itself rather than preexisting differences. The control group provides a baseline to compare against, while standardized procedures limit measurement and procedural biases. Together, these features create a strong basis for causal inferences, so internal validity is described as very good. Of course, issues like dropout or noncompliance can threaten validity if not addressed, but they are less likely to undermine it compared with nonrandomized designs.