What is true about the validity of the study investigating a behavioral intervention?

In the context of evaluating a study investigating a behavioral intervention, a conclusion stating that external validity is strong while internal validity is not highlights important aspects of research design and applicability.

External validity refers to the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to or have relevance in settings outside of the study conditions. A strong external validity means that the findings can be applied to a larger population beyond the specific sample used in the research. This could happen if the study includes a diverse sample that closely represents the target population or if the study settings mimic real-world environments where the intervention might be applied.

On the other hand, internal validity relates to the rigor of the experimental design and the degree to which the study can establish cause-and-effect relationships. If internal validity is not strong, this typically means that there could be confounding variables or other issues in the design that prevent the researchers from confidently attributing changes in behavior solely to the intervention being tested. This scenario could arise if, for instance, the study does not adequately control for other influences on the behavior or if randomization was not properly implemented.

Therefore, stating that the external validity is strong while the internal validity is weak accurately reflects a situation where the findings may be applicable to varied real-life contexts, but