be needed, given the resources and personnel available in those settings? For decision makers, the generalizability of evidence is what they might refer to as “relevance”: Is the evidence, they ask, relevant to our population and context? Answering this question requires comparing the generalizability of the studies providing the evidence and the context (setting, population, and circumstances) in which the evidence would be applied.
Glasgow and others have called for criteria with which to judge the generalizability of studies in reporting evidence, similar to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting criteria for RCTs and the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) quality rating scales for nonrandomized trials (Glasgow et al., 2006a). Box 6-1 details four dimensions of generalizability (using the term “external validity”) in the reporting of evidence in most efficacy trials and many effectiveness trials and the specific indicators or questions that warrant consideration in judging the quality of the research (Green and Glasgow, 2006).
The most widely acknowledged approach for evaluating evidence—one that underlies much of what is considered evidence of causation in the health sciences—is the classic nine criteria or “considerations” of Bradford Hill (Hill, 1965): strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. All but one of these criteria emphasize the level of causality, largely because the phenomena under study were organisms whose biology was relatively uniform within species, so the generalizability of causal relationships could be assumed with relative certainty.
The rating scheme of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination (Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, 1979) was adopted in the late 1980s by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (which systematically reviews evidence for effectiveness and develops recommendations for clinical preventive services) (USPSTF, 1989, 1996). These criteria establish a hierarchy for the quality of studies that places professional judgment and cross-sectional observation at the bottom and RCTs at the top. As described by Green and Glasgow (2006), these criteria also concern themselves almost exclusively with the level of certainty. “The greater weight given to evidence based on multiple studies than a single study was the main … [concession] to external validity (or generalizability), … [but] even that was justified more on grounds of replicating the results in similar populations and settings than of representing different populations, settings, and circumstances for the interventions and outcomes” (Green and Glasgow, 2006, p. 128). The Cochrane Collaboration has followed this line of evidence evaluation in its systematic reviews, as has the evidence-based medicine movement (Sackett et al., 1996) more generally in its almost exclusive favoring of RCTs (see Chapter 5). As the Cochrane