#1
i'm writing a paper for my class and one of the questions wants me to explain the difference between validity and reliability. I understand the reliability portion but the definition i have in my notes for validity is "the measuring of what one really wants to study"; that's the definition the instructor had in his notes and i don't really understand this much. any help?
my hovercraft is full of eels
#3
Quote by lzrdsixsix6
i'm writing a paper for my class and one of the questions wants me to explain the difference between validity and reliability. I understand the reliability portion but the definition i have in my notes for validity is "the measuring of what one really wants to study"; that's the definition the instructor had in his notes and i don't really understand this much. any help?


what is the definition of reliability in your notes now?
The content of this signature is pretty much irrelevant
#4
This is not a valid thread so the answers you will receive are not reliable.
Quote by Chrisiphone
Oh wow this is a guitar forum!
Quote by JacobTheMe

Karvid is sexy

Quote by KAS1981
Why is it that some folks quote praise from other members in their sig lines?
Its lame.
#5
Quote by rock.freak667
what is the definition of reliability in your notes now?

simply "consistency in results" which makes sense...if a result keeps coming up the same no matter how much you test then its reliable..
my hovercraft is full of eels
#7
validity is how well the experiment measures what it says it's going to measure.

reliability is if the experiment is repeated with the same results several times.
"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

e-married to zgr0826
#8
Really really basically validity refers to whether or not what you think toy are testing is what you are actually testing. Take IQ as an example. It is supposed to test intelligence, and based on it's own definition of intelligence it is valid. However based on other definitions (eg. How quick someone learns something, which is an aspect of intelligence ignored by conventional IQ) it is invalid.
If you are going into University and they have an entrance exam to assess how well you will do in university and see if you are eligible for entry. If this exam is valid then the pupils who do best in it should also be the ones who do best in University. If this is not the case then the test is clearly not assessing the correct things and is invalid.
As for reliability. This refers to whether or not the test gets the same results over and over again when replicated. Taking my IQ example, if I take an IQ test this Monday and then take another one next Monday I should get roughly the same (awesome) result both times. If I get massively different scores each time I take it and nothing about me has changed then something is wrong with the test.
I hope that helps.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#9
i get it now guys. thanks very much for the help.
my hovercraft is full of eels