Testing is a threat to internal validity that occurs when repeated measurement influences participants’ performance, independent of any treatment effect.
Understanding Testing as a Threat to Internal Validity
In social science research, testing refers to the effect that taking a test more than once can have on participants. When individuals are exposed to the same or similar tests before and after a treatment or intervention, their performance may improve—not because of the intervention, but simply because they have taken the test before. This kind of change can create a misleading picture of the treatment’s effectiveness.
Testing becomes a threat to internal validity when it introduces a confounding factor into an experiment. If the pretest (or any earlier measurement) affects how participants respond on the posttest, then researchers can no longer say with confidence that changes were caused by the treatment alone. Instead, the change might partly—or entirely—be due to practice effects, increased familiarity with the test, or test-taking strategies learned during the first round.
This threat commonly appears in educational research, psychological assessments, training evaluations, and any study that uses pretest-posttest designs. Researchers must understand and address testing effects to ensure that their conclusions are valid.
How Testing Influences Internal Validity
Practice Effects
When participants take the same test more than once, they often perform better the second time simply because they remember the format, questions, or types of answers that are expected. These practice effects are especially strong when:
- The test is identical or very similar across administrations
- The time between tests is short
- The task relies on memory, attention, or cognitive skills
Practice effects can artificially boost posttest scores, giving the false impression that the treatment had a positive effect. In this way, testing threatens internal validity by confounding test familiarity with treatment effectiveness.
Sensitization to the Study Topic
Sometimes, just being exposed to the pretest can change how participants think about the topic. For example, if a survey asks about attitudes toward climate change, participants might begin to reflect more on environmental issues—even before any intervention. This pretest primes them to think differently, potentially altering their posttest responses for reasons unrelated to the treatment.
This kind of sensitization can change behavior or attitudes simply through exposure to the measurement, not through any actual experimental manipulation.
Demand Characteristics
Participants may also guess the purpose of the study after taking a pretest. They might then try to act in ways that either confirm or resist what they believe the researcher expects. These demand characteristics can distort results, particularly in psychological or behavioral studies, and reduce the ability to link changes to the intervention.
Fatigue and Boredom
If the same test is repeated too often or is long and tedious, participants may become bored or tired. This can affect performance in later measurements. For instance, a student might do well on a pretest when they are fresh but perform poorly on a posttest due to fatigue, even if learning actually occurred. In this case, testing introduces variation unrelated to the treatment.
Common Research Designs Where Testing Threats Arise
Pretest-Posttest Designs
This is the classic setup where testing threats can cause problems. The researcher measures participants before an intervention (pretest), applies the treatment, and measures them again (posttest). Without controls, any improvement could result from testing. But if only the treatment group improves, the treatment may be effective.
Longitudinal Studies
In longitudinal studies, where data are collected over time, testing effects can accumulate. Each repeated measurement has the potential to influence the next, making it harder to isolate true changes over time.
Training or Educational Evaluations
In studies evaluating the impact of a workshop, lesson plan, or training session, pretesting can shape what participants pay attention to during the intervention. This changes their learning trajectory in ways not caused directly by the content of the training.
Examples of Testing Threats
Education Research Example
A school district tests students’ reading comprehension at the start of the year, provides a reading program, and then tests them again at the end. Scores improve, but did the program work—or did students simply get better at taking the test?
The pretest may have taught them the kinds of questions to expect or made them more comfortable with the format. Without a control group that did not receive the reading program, we can’t be sure.
Psychology Research Example
In a study on anxiety reduction, participants are asked to complete a self-report anxiety questionnaire before and after a mindfulness workshop. If the questionnaire was emotionally triggering or prompted self-reflection, participants might report lower anxiety later just because they were more aware of their feelings—not necessarily because the mindfulness training helped.
Criminal Justice Research Example
A group of probation officers receives diversity training. Researchers use the Implicit Association Test (IAT) before and after the training to measure bias. The IAT is known to be sensitive to repeated exposure. If officers score lower on bias in the posttest, it may be due to familiarity with the IAT’s structure, not genuine change in attitudes.
How to Reduce the Testing Threat to Internal Validity
Researchers have developed several strategies to reduce the impact of testing as a threat. These strategies help preserve internal validity and ensure that observed changes reflect actual effects of the treatment.
Use Control Groups
Including a control group that does not receive the treatment but still takes the pretest and posttest allows researchers to compare both groups. If both improve equally, the improvement likely results from testing.
Use Alternative Forms of the Test
Instead of using the same test at pretest and posttest, researchers can use equivalent versions that measure the same skills or concepts with different items. This reduces the chance that participants will simply remember answers.
Increase the Time Between Tests
Allowing more time between pretest and posttest can reduce practice effects. However, this strategy must balance the risk of history effects—other changes in the environment or participants’ lives that could also influence outcomes.
Limit Pretesting
In some cases, researchers can eliminate the pretest altogether and use posttest-only designs. While this limits comparisons, it also removes the possibility of testing threats. This is especially useful when random assignment ensures that groups are equivalent at the start.
Counterbalancing and Randomization
In more complex designs, researchers can rotate the order of tests or randomly assign participants to different testing conditions. This spreads any testing effects across groups, reducing the threat to internal validity.
Related Concepts in Internal Validity
Understanding testing threats also means knowing how they differ from or interact with other threats:
- Instrumentation refers to changes in the measurement tool itself, not changes caused by repeated use.
- Maturation involves natural changes in participants over time, not changes due to repeated testing.
- History effects come from external events that happen during the study, rather than from the testing itself.
- Regression to the mean occurs when participants with extreme scores tend to score closer to average upon retesting.
Testing threats may occur alongside these other threats, especially in long-term or complex studies.
Conclusion
Testing is a subtle but serious threat to internal validity in social science research. When participants take the same or similar tests more than once, their later scores may reflect practice, familiarity, or emotional reactions to the test itself—rather than the true impact of an intervention. This can lead researchers to overestimate or underestimate the effectiveness of a treatment.
To protect internal validity, researchers must carefully design their studies to minimize or control for testing effects. Whether by using control groups, varying test formats, or eliminating pretests, these strategies help ensure that conclusions about cause and effect are trustworthy.
Glossary Return to Doc's Research Glossary
Last Modified: 03/29/2025