A. Measurement B. Samples and also Sampling C. Hypothesis Testing D. The Chi-Square Test E. The T-Test F. ANOVA G. Multiple Regression

For eincredibly dimension of interemainder and also certain question or collection of questions, tright here are a vast variety of ways to make concerns. Although the guiding principle must be the particular functions of the research study, tright here are better and also worse concerns for any type of certain operationalization. How to evaluate the measures?

Two of the primary criteria of testimonial in any type of measurement or observation are:

Whether we are measuring what we intend to meacertain.Whether the exact same measurement procedure returns the exact same results.

You are watching: A reliable measurement generates consistent results.

These 2 ideas are validity and relicapability.Relicapacity is concerned with inquiries of stability and also consistency - does the exact same measurement tool yield steady and also consistent results once repetitive over time. Think around measurement processes in various other contexts - in building and construction or woodfunctioning, a tape meacertain is a very reputable measuring instrument.

Say you have actually a piece of hardwood that is 2 1/2 feet long. You measure it once through the tape meacertain - you gain a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. Measure it again and also you acquire 2 1/2 feet. Meacertain it repeatedly and also you consistently obtain a measurement of 2 1/2 feet. The tape meacertain returns reputable outcomes.

Validity refers to the extent we are measuring what we hope to measure (and what we think we are measuring). To continue through the instance of measuring the item of timber, a tape measure that has been produced with exact spacing for inches, feet, and so on. must yield valid outcomes too. Measuring this piece of timber with a "good" tape meacertain must produce a correct measurement of the wood"s size.

To apply these principles to social research, we want to use measurement devices that are both trustworthy and also valid. We want inquiries that yield regular responses as soon as asked multiple times - this is relicapability. Similarly, we want questions that obtain precise responses from respondents - this is validity.


Reliability describes a problem wright here a measurement process yields continuous scores (provided an unchanged measured phenomenon) over repeat dimensions. Perhaps the most straightforward method to assess reliability is to ensure that they accomplish the adhering to three criteria of relicapacity. Measures that are high in relicapability should exhilittle bit all three.

Test-Retest Reliability

When a researcher administers the same measurement tool multiple times - asks the very same question, adheres to the very same study steps, and so on - does he/she obtain continual outcomes, assuming that there has actually been no adjust in whatever he/she is measuring? This is really the easiest approach for assessing relicapability - when a researcher asks the exact same perboy the exact same question twice ("What"s your name?"), does he/she gain back the exact same results both times. If so, the meacertain has test-retest reliability. Measurement of the piece of lumber talked about earlier has high test-retest relicapability.

Inter-Item Reliability

This is a measurement that uses to cases where multiple items are used to meacertain a solitary idea. In such situations, answers to a collection of inquiries designed to measure some single concept (e.g., altruism) need to be linked through each various other.

Interobserver Reliability

Interobserver relicapability concerns the extent to which different interviewers or observers making use of the exact same meacertain get indistinguishable results. If different observers or interviewers usage the exact same instrument to score the same thing, their scores need to enhance. For example, the interobserver relicapacity of an observational assessment of parent-child interactivity is often evaluated by reflecting 2 observers a videotape of a parent and child at play. These observers are asked to use an assessment tool to score the interactions between parent and also kid on the tape. If the instrument has high interobserver reliability, the scores of the two observers have to enhance.


To reiterate, validity describes the degree we are measuring what we hope to meacertain (and what we think we are measuring). How to assess the validity of a collection of measurements? A valid meacertain need to meet 4 criteria.

Face Validity

This criterion is an assessment of whether a measure shows up, on the challenge of it, to meacertain the idea it is intended to meacertain. This is a really minimum assessment - if a meacertain cannot accomplish this criterion, then the various other criteria are inconsequential. We can think about observational procedures of habits that would certainly have confront validity. For instance, striking out at another person would have face validity for an indicator of aggression. Similarly, offering assistance to a stranger would meet the criterion of challenge validity for helping. However, asking world around their favorite movie to meacertain racial prejudice has little face validity.

Content Validity

Content validity pertains to the level to which a meacertain adequately represents all facets of a idea. Consider a series of questions that serve as indicators of depression (don"t feel like eating, shed interemainder in points commonly appreciated, and so on.). If tright here were various other kinds of common behaviors that mark a perkid as depressed that were not included in the index, then the index would have low content validity since it did not adequately recurrent all facets of the idea.

Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion-related validity uses to instruments than have been arisen for usefulness as indicator of particular trait or behavior, either currently or in the future. For instance, think around the driving test as a social measurement that has actually pretty great predictive validity. That is to say, an individual"s performance on a driving test correlates well through his/her driving capacity.

Construct Validity

But for a many kind of points we desire to meacertain, tright here is not necessarily a pertinent criterion easily accessible. In this situation, rotate to construct validity, which concerns the extent to which a measure is concerned various other measures as mentioned by concept or previous research. Does a meacertain stack up via other variables the method we intend it to? A good instance of this develop of validity comes from beforehand self-esteem studies - self-esteem refers to a person"s feeling of self-worth or self-respect. Clinical observations in psychology had presented that human being who had low self-esteem regularly had depression. As such, to develop the construct validity of the self-esteem measure, the researchers proved that those through greater scores on the self-esteem measure had lower depression scores, while those via low self-esteem had better prices of depression.

Validity and also Relicapacity Compared

So what is the partnership in between validity and reliability? The two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand also.

At best, we have actually a measure that has actually both high validity and high relicapacity. It returns constant outcomes in repeated application and it accurately mirrors what we hope to represent.

See more: The Reality Is You Will Grieve Forever, The Reality Is That You Will Grieve Forever

It is feasible to have a measure that has high reliability but low validity - one that is continuous in gaining negative indevelopment or constant in lacking the note. *It is likewise feasible to have one that has low reliability and low validity - inregular and not on targain.

Finally, it is not possible to have a measure that has low reliability and also high validity - you can"t really obtain at what you desire or what you"re interested in if your measure fluctuates wildly.