For ages, Marijuana has been subject to religious, medical and recreational use across the globe. In the public arena, the common use of Cannabis for recreational purpose borne out of its euphoric effect. In the medical field, cannabis has proven effective in its curative effects on a medical condition. This makes marijuana a prescription in the healthcare services. As a result, there are numerous studies on the therapeutic importance that area associated with medical marijuana. The world growing studies of the development of marijuana-based medication have elicited discussion among the patients, policymakers, and prescribers (Pacula et al., 2015).
There are growing concerns on the controlled test trials that are used on generalizing communal setting on the effects of marijuana. It has been established that incidences of exclusion criterion used in the clinical research are unduly restrictive to provide additional safety for patients and internal validity on the use of medical marijuana. The papers seek to look at the categories of the severity of errors on the internal validity, issues associated in with internal validity in the study of clinical marijuana. The paper further looks into delves into external validity issues the study.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Internal Validity
This is the estimated truth on the reference that involved a study on cause-effect relationships. As such, internal validity is integral in the determination of the cause-effect relations of a research study (Coen, Manion & Morrison, 2013). It is not relatively of significance in descriptive and observable studies. For studies that seek to look at the efficacy of cannabis on clinical therapy, internal validity is a primary aspect that needs consideration, in such cases, it is prudent to determine the effect of cannabis on clinical therapeutic practices in the determination of variables such as improved efficiency and reduction of adverse symptoms.
In the experimental studies that involve internal validity, one of the prevalent restrictive aspect in the study lies in its relevance to the specific study questions. It is often mistaken with zero generalizability while in essence, internal validity is the evidence from the study (Cannabis) and the observable caused (Clinical therapeutic treatment outcomes ). Internal validity does not show what if whatever treatment you accorded Cannabis was desirable as per your objectives or if the observable outcomes are what you envisaged. Such concerns are known as construct validity.
Consider a study that determines the effect of marijuana as a clinical pain reliever, the patient is randomly assembled and given doses of cannabis-laced drugs, and other are given normal paracetamols. The participant is not given prior knowledge of the content of their does and time is given to look at their response time and rate of effectiveness. One of the main threats to the internality is the prior knowledge that researcher has on the experimental conditions of his/her subjects.
External Validity
Most often, generalization is related to generalization as such; external validity determines the extent to which conclusive findings are made in the account for other people, places and times (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011). In a scientific study such as the determination of cannabis efficacy in clinical therapy, the best approach accorded must be in the sampling method that identifies the population size that would support generalization. Through fair sampling of the population, it gives a representative result.
The major issue and threat to external validity is the fact that wrong explanation may use in the generalization process. For example, a study in the determination of efficacy of medicinal marijuana in 50-year-old women could be used to be as conclusive findings in effect it has on 19-24 years old youths. Regardless of space, time and the population for the study. Much of the results from externally validated studies are often disputable and are not applicable in the medical fraternity. They are further deemed inconclusive. There are three identified ways in which studies based on external validity may be wrong. They include Place, Population and Time.
Treatment of errors that come from external validity lies in the sampling method used in the study. For a conclusive study, it is advisable that the sampling method should be simple, random as it assures an all-around participation in the study. Additionally, there must be a description of the circumstances under which the subject was picked for the study.
In summary, all research papers are in one way or the other faced with limitations that might undermine the credibility of the findings. From the text, it is notable that identification of errors in external validity may be difficult due to its generality of findings. Additionally, internal validity is affected by research-based errors on the variable. It could be owed to observable mishaps or lack of concentration. External validity, on the other hand, needs concise sample criteria that puts to focus the question of participants, subjects, and time. As such, random simple sampling eliminates all the seen and unseen errors that surround external validity. However, from the discussion, it is easier to correct internal validity errors as opposed to errors of external validity.
References
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education . Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. The Sage handbook of qualitative research , 4 , 97-128.
Pacula, R. L., Powell, D., Heaton, P., & Sevigny, E. L. (2015). Assessing the effects of medical marijuana laws on marijuana use: the devil is in the details. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 34 (1), 7-31.
