{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01659919028340081, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.624664879356568, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interaction of Theory and Practice to Assess External Validity

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.