跪求英文翻译,谢谢啦Authors of MICE related research would be well-ser

跪求英文翻译,谢谢啦
Authors of MICE related research would be well-served to consider
the validity of their work. Two key aspects of validity are internal
validity and external validity. Internal validity asks whether the relationships
observed in a study are real, rather than artifacts of the
methodology, random error, etc. External validity asks to whom the
results of a study apply. Paradoxically, actions taken to increase the
internal validity of a study may compromise its external validity, and
visa versa. For example, in a correlational study, using a homogeneous
sample helps to control variation from other variables not emphasized
in the study. Eliminating competing explanations for observed results
strengthens claims that observed correlations represent real relationships
among the variables rather than simply being the consequence of
unobserved variables. But this validity comes at a price: the price of
making the results difficult to generalize to some broader population
of interest. Similar problems may arise from attempts to improve a
study’s external validity. A consequence of this relationship between
internal validity and external validity is the recognition that a single
study is unlikely to answer all questions about a problem. Often a
series of studies is necessary, perhaps first establishing internal validity
(What are the relationships among the variables of interest in some
specific samples?) and then developing external validity (To which
broader groups can these results be generalized?).
请不要将翻译软件翻的东西直接粘贴来，谢谢了