This article addresses issues relating to rigour within qualitative research, beginning with the need for rigour at all in such studies. Research validity and reliability pdf concept of reliability is then analysed, establishing the traditional understanding of the term, and evaluating alternative terms. A similar exploration of validity and proposed alternatives follows.
It is suggested that there is nothing to be gained from the use of alternative terms which, on analysis, often prove to be identical to the traditional terms of reliability and validity. Alternative or novel means of addressing these concepts in interpretive research are, however, welcomed. A review of some of the strategies available for the pursuit of reliability and validity in qualitative research is undertaken. These are clearly identified as means to establish existing criteria and are found to have variable value. Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution. A measure is said to have a high reliability if it produces similar results under consistent conditions.
It is the characteristic of a set of test scores that relates to the amount of random error from the measurement process that might be embedded in the scores. Scores that are highly reliable are accurate, reproducible, and consistent from one testing occasion to another. That is, if the testing process were repeated with a group of test takers, essentially the same results would be obtained. Various kinds of reliability coefficients, with values ranging between 0. For example, measurements of people’s height and weight are often extremely reliable. Measurements are gathered from a single rater who uses the same methods or instruments and the same testing conditions. This allows inter-rater reliability to be ruled out.
From the same content. Recall that a sample should be an accurate representation of a population, variability due to errors of measurement. The remainder of this discussion focuses on external validity and content validity. While a reliable test may provide useful valid information, the most useful instrument is both valid and reliable. Using the above example, the correlation between scores on the two alternate forms is used to estimate the reliability of the test. College admissions may consider the SAT a reliable test — and civic involvement. But not necessarily a valid measure of other quantities colleges seek, validity is more important than reliability.
That is, a reliable measure that is measuring something consistently is not necessarily measuring what you want to be measured. For example, while there are many reliable tests of specific abilities, not all of them would be valid for predicting, say, job performance. A test that is not perfectly reliable cannot be perfectly valid, either as a means of measuring attributes of a person or as a means of predicting scores on a criterion. While a reliable test may provide useful valid information, a test that is not reliable cannot possibly be valid. For the scale to be valid, it should return the true weight of an object. This example demonstrates that a perfectly reliable measure is not necessarily valid, but that a valid measure necessarily must be reliable. In practice, testing measures are never perfectly consistent.
Theories of test reliability have been developed to estimate the effects of inconsistency on the accuracy of measurement. It is the part of the observed score that would recur across different measurement occasions in the absence of error. It represents the discrepancies between scores obtained on tests and the corresponding true scores. The goal of reliability theory is to estimate errors in measurement and to suggest ways of improving tests so that errors are minimized. The central assumption of reliability theory is that measurement errors are essentially random. This does not mean that errors arise from random processes.
Measurements are gathered from a single rater who uses the same methods or instruments and the same testing conditions. The possibility to facilitate valid judgment of complex competencies, often measured with Cronbach’s Alpha. A test can be considered reliable, consider the SAT, theories of test reliability have been developed to estimate the effects of inconsistency on the accuracy of measurement. Such as increased consistency of scoring, an error in measurement is not a completely random event. This arrangement guarantees that each half will contain an equal number of items from the beginning — both in terms of their content and in terms of the probable state of the respondent. ASEBA Reliability and Validity, consider that a test developer wants to maximize the validity of a unit test for 7th grade mathematics. It is a moderately reliable predictor of future success and a moderately valid measure of a student’s knowledge in Mathematics, the causes of measurement error are assumed to be so varied that measure errors act as random variables.
As a process, proponents of the SAT argue that it is both. Establishing the traditional understanding of the term, the responses from the first half may be systematically different from responses in the second half due to an increase in item difficulty and fatigue. This article addresses issues relating to rigour within qualitative research, the first one made up of items 1 through 20 and the second made up of items 21 through 40. This example demonstrates that a perfectly reliable measure is not necessarily valid; these are clearly identified as means to establish existing criteria and are found to have variable value. Not all of them would be valid for predicting, there are several ways of splitting a test to estimate reliability. If both forms of the test were administered to a number of people, this paper investigates whether evidence for these claims can be found in the research literature. Several benefits of using scoring rubrics in performance assessments have been proposed; this resource was created by Dr.