ADHD glossary · Family perspectives
Generalizability: does this result address our situation?
The National Academies describes generalizability as the extent to which results apply in populations or settings beyond those originally studied. [1]
General education and practical perspectives. Editorial standards.
When we read something about ADHD, we can ask two different questions: “What did the researchers find here?” and “What supports using that finding in the situation I am thinking about?” The second question needs more than recognizing a familiar keyword.
Compare settings without guessing an outcome
Imagine a fictional report about adults using numbered storage boxes during a supervised workshop. A family wonders whether the same arrangement belongs in a child's bedroom.
The proposed use differs in age, place, supervision and task. That list does not establish that the arrangement will fail. It also does not establish that it will help. It shows where the family's question extends beyond the invented report.
An adult participant may value easy access during a short activity. A child may want a place to keep an unfinished construction private. A sibling may need a shared walkway. These are different questions about use, not reasons to assume that one workshop result settles everybody's needs.
A side-by-side context note
On a scrap of paper, make two columns: “In the report” and “In the situation we mean.” Add these rows:
- People and ages included.
- Activity or problem being studied.
- Place and available support.
- Time period and follow-up.
- Outcome actually measured.
- Important details not available.
You can fill one row and stop. “Not stated” belongs in the first column when the report does not supply the information. Do not infer the ages of participants from a stock photograph or assume that a country label tells you how every session was conducted.
A larger number is not the whole answer
Suppose the workshop report lists many participants but all took part in the same type of supervised session. The participant count does not itself answer the bedroom question. Likewise, repeating the original workshop would still leave the changed setting to be considered.
This is why our related pages separate sample size, replication and generalizability. They are connected questions, not interchangeable stamps of quality. The context note is not a scoring system that approves or rejects a paper after a fixed number of differences.
Leave the unanswered question intact
A partner can summarize the boundary without dismissing a relative's curiosity: “That report describes a different activity. What information would address the setting we mean?” An educator can help locate details about the original task without promising that its results transfer to an individual student.
This page does not determine whether research applies clinically, translate adult findings into child advice or certify international suitability. Its useful output is a precise question about people, conditions and outcomes that still need to be matched.
Source
[1] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science — Summary. National Academies Press. Book published in 2019; exact day not verified. Accessed September 6, 2026. Summary definitions of replicability, reproducibility and generalizability; relevant uncertainty discussion. Supports the adjacent attributed claim. All illustrative scenes, numbers and optional note formats are original inventions, not source findings.
Related guides
Sources and what they support
These sources support the specific statements identified below. Our practical exercises are suggestions to consider, not evidence of a treatment effect.
-
Reproducibility and Replicability in Science — Summary — National Academies Press
Source type: institutional.
Accessed .
Source check, September 6, 2026: Scoped source check. Passage: Summary definitions of replicability, reproducibility and generalizability; relevant uncertainty discussion. Limits: Definition of applicability beyond studied contexts only; no transfer of findings across ages, diagnoses or countries.
DOI: 10.17226/25303.
Supports: The National Academies describes generalizability as the extent to which results apply in populations or settings beyond those originally studied.
Correction check: The identified original passage, surrounding context and available bibliographic material were inspected on September 6, 2026. No notice changing the adopted definition was found in that material. This is not a complete publisher-history, Crossmark, correction-database or retraction clearance.
Updates and corrections
Published .
Found a factual error or something unclear? Use the contact route on our Trust page. Read our research method for the evidence approach.