If you wanted to evaluate the reliability of a critical thinking assessment, you might create a large set of items that all pertain to critical thinking and then randomly split the questions up into two sets, which would represent the parallel forms.
Inter-rater reliability might be employed when different judges are evaluating the degree to which art portfolios meet certain standards. Inter-rater reliability is especially useful when judgments can be considered relatively subjective.
Thus, the use of this type of reliability would probably be more likely when evaluating artwork as opposed to math problems. Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure. Why is it necessary? While reliability is necessary, it alone is not sufficient. For a test to be reliable, it also needs to be valid. For example, if your scale is off by 5 lbs, it reads your weight every day with an excess of 5lbs.
The scale is reliable because it consistently reports the same weight every day, but it is not valid because it adds 5lbs to your true weight. It is not a valid measure of your weight. If a measure of art appreciation is created all of the items should be related to the different components and types of art. Researchers chose which type of instrument, or instruments, to use based on the research question. Examples are listed below:. Example usability problems include:.
Validity and reliability concerns discussed below will help alleviate usability issues. For now, we can identify five usability considerations:. It is best to use an existing instrument, one that has been developed and tested numerous times, such as can be found in the Mental Measurements Yearbook. We will turn to why next. Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure and performs as it is designed to perform. As a process, validation involves collecting and analyzing data to assess the accuracy of an instrument.
There are numerous statistical tests and measures to assess the validity of quantitative instruments, which generally involves pilot testing. The remainder of this discussion focuses on external validity and content validity. External validity is the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized from a sample to a population. Establishing eternal validity for an instrument, then, follows directly from sampling.
Recall that a sample should be an accurate representation of a population, because the total population may not be available. An instrument that is externally valid helps obtain population generalizability, or the degree to which a sample represents the population. Content validity refers to the appropriateness of the content of an instrument. In other words, do the measures questions, observation logs, etc. This is particularly important with achievement tests. Consider that a test developer wants to maximize the validity of a unit test for 7th grade mathematics.
Your measure is both reliable and valid I bet you never thought of Robin Hood in those terms before. Another way we can think about the relationship between reliability and validity is shown in the figure below. Here, we set up a 2x2 table. The columns of the table indicate whether you are trying to measure the same or different concepts.
The rows show whether you are using the same or different methods of measurement. Imagine that we have two concepts we would like to measure, student verbal and math ability. Furthermore, imagine that we can measure each of these in two ways. Second, we can ask the student's classroom teacher to give us a rating of the student's ability based on their own classroom observation. The first cell on the upper left shows the comparison of the verbal written test score with the verbal written test score.
But how can we compare the same measure with itself? We could do this by estimating the reliability of the written test through a test-retest correlation, parallel forms, or an internal consistency measure See Types of Reliability. What we are estimating in this cell is the reliability of the measure.
The cell on the lower left shows a comparison of the verbal written measure with the verbal teacher observation rating. Because we are trying to measure the same concept, we are looking at convergent validity See Measurement Validity Types.
Reliability is a necessary ingredient for determining the overall validity of a scientific experiment and enhancing the strength of the results. Debate between social and pure scientists, concerning reliability, is robust and ongoing.
Internal validity - the instruments or procedures used in the research measured what they were supposed to measure. Example: As part of a stress experiment, people are shown photos of war atrocities. Example: As part of a stress experiment, people are shown photos of war atrocities.
Internal consistency reliability is a measure of reliability used to evaluate the degree to which different test items that probe the same construct produce similar results. Average inter-item correlation is a subtype of internal consistency reliability. Therefore, reliability, validity and triangulation, if they are relevant research concepts, particularly from a qualitative point of view, have to be redefined in order to reflect the multiple ways of establishing truth.
Reliability and validity seem to be synonymous, but they do not mean the same thing. They are actually different things, different terms when they are explained in a technical manner. These terms are often used on scholastic outputs such as thesis studies, term papers, research papers, and the likes. On one end is the situation where the concepts and methods of measurement are the same (reliability) and on the other is the situation where concepts and methods of measurement are different (very discriminant validity).