David Kent’s “Just-As-Good Medicine”


The article by David Kent (2010) “Just-as-good Medicine” published in American Scientist provides a scope of features concerning the methodology used in the research. The thing is that the whole work by David Kent represents itself in accordance with internal and external validity. This means that dependent and independent variables are shaped in the research with the support of credible sources and studies of contemporary researchers as well. The methodology props up against several factors. All of them make the work pretty viable in the context of the sharpness of facts and other measurements apparent in it. The article represents a scope of data gathered to identify the role of medicine in the US along with pitfalls that are obvious currently. The appendix to the main title reads: “Less expensive, lower-quality innovations abound in every economic sector—except medicine” (Kent, 2010, p. 1). Thus, the work concerns a specific area of knowledge regarding the way of financial and governmental programs of cost-effectiveness. It is vital to make the internal and external validity of the research out.

Internal validity

In accordance with the internal validity of the research done by David Kent, it is necessary to figure out the historical variable, first of all. In this respect, this independent variable does not jeopardize the research. The work is maintained in terms of cross-related data gathered for the last five years. It makes it viable and respectful in comparison to similar studies. Moreover, the bibliographies are collected reaching the amplitude of years in which economical as well as healthcare changes were seen in the United States. Objectivities and subjects outlined in the research do not contradict the historic flow of events at the beginning of the 20th century. The issues of healthcare reforms and the economic effectiveness of lowering costs are at a focus in the article. This is why the author does not make any constraints to fix the historical development and increase of the problem.

As the study provides a scope of data stating the reasons for cost-effectiveness and bargain hunting, there is a ground to insist on maturation of the research. In this case one should make emphasis on the up-to-dated character of supporting studies used by David Kent. This dependent variable makes the internal validity of the research based on the adequate information. Furthermore, ratio scales provided in the study makes it possible to analyze current situation in healthcare along with predicted and upcoming threads.

The research provides a broad survey on the process of testing and pretesting. In this respect studies of O’Brien et al (2002) promotes the review of 20 studies on the “ratio of individuals’ WTA to WTP” (Kent, 2010, p. 1). In the paragraph called “Bargain Hunting” a researcher describes “cost-saving interventions” on the example of the interval scale for cost-effectiveness (Kent, 2010). It makes the whole work applied to concrete experiments and results of previous studies.

The instrumentation is applicable in the study in order to show measurements concerning economical reality, people and concretely healthcare system. This provides an idea a on the usefulness of the research. Moreover, the distribution of scores in the work makes no difference in mutual relation between studies used to support the research. It is meant that there is no overlapping or controversy in combining the results achieved by other researchers previously. Thus, there are no points on statistical regression. The subjects outlined in the research and its general outlook on people using healthcare insurance do not contradict further grouping of them. In other words, the research presents no biases throughout its flow. The selection of subjects follows the way of rational approach, for it measures peoples’ worries about inefficiency of healthcare initiatives across the country (Leedy & Omrod, 2005).

External validity

The influence of the results achieved in the study is felt due to “century-long” controversies in the state power of the US on reforming healthcare. In this respect there is a point to state on interaction between the studies used for bibliographies in the research by Kent. Thereupon, an observer may face no biases as per the selection of authors and their work on experimenting as well. Kent’s study is quite descriptive; hence, an author intentionally omitted similarity in statements between studies used to support the survey.

Pretesting is included in the study to make more glimpses at the flow of the research itself. Generalizing the results, a researcher provides particular treatment. This unintentional variable serves to make up the impacts of the issue weighty for contemporary population. The setting of the research is made on the basis of independent outlook on the situation. This is why the subjects illustrated in it represent no threads to its external validity. Further still, multiple interventions are briefly described in the part of the study related to its treatment, namely “Lowering Health Costs: Buy Less Stuff” (Kent, 2010, p. 1). Here one can run across the views of the researcher on further reliability of surveys and methods provided in the study in order to influence the situation.


Kent , D. (2010). “Just-as-good Medicine: Less expensive, lower-quality innovations abound in every economic sector—except medicine.” American Scientist. Web.

Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.