Validity and Reliability

Please see the attachment.

Validity and Reliability
For each of the tests of reliability and validity listed on the matrix, prepare a 50-100-word description of test's application and under what conditions these types of reliability would be used as well as when it would be inappropriate. Then, prepare a 50-100-word description of each test's strengths and a 50-100-word description of each test's weaknesses.

Test - Internal Consistency

Application
Strength
Weakness

Test - Split-half

Application
Strength
Weakness

Test - Test / Retest
Application
Strength
Weakness

Test - Parallel and Alternate Forms
Application
Strength
Weakness

Test - Face Validity

Application
Strength
Weakness

Test - Content Validity

Application
Strength
Weakness

Test - Criterion Related
Application
Strength
Weakness

Test - Construct

Application
Strength
Weakness

Thank you very much!

© SolutionLibrary Inc. solutionlibary.com 9836dcf9d7 https://solutionlibrary.com/psychology/abnormal-psychology/validity-and-reliability-7edm

Solution Preview

... by how much time elapses between the two measurement occasions. The shorter the time gap, the higher the correlation; the longer the time gap, the lower the correlation. This is because the two observations are related over time -- the closer in time we get the more similar the factors that contribute to error. Since this correlation is the test-retest estimate of reliability, you can obtain considerably different estimates depending on the interval.(1) http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.php

Strength: To estimate test-retest reliability you could have a single rater code the same videos on two different occasions. You might use the test-retest approach when you only have a single rater and don't want to train any others. . In general, the test-retest and inter-rater reliability estimates will be lower in value than the parallel forms and internal consistency ones because they involve measuring at different times or with different raters.

Weakness: In research, the main problem with this approach is that you don't have any information about reliability until you collect the posttest and, if the reliability estimate is low, you're pretty much sunk. Having only one rater might challenge reliability. Therefore, in some studies it is reasonable to do both inter-rater and test-retest to establish inter-rater reliability you could take a sample of videos and have two raters code them independently-- to help establish the reliability of the raters or observers. Also, you need to have multiple items designed to measure the same construct, which could be a weakness for some constructs. (http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.php)

4. Test: Parallel and Alternate Forms Reliability

Application: In parallel forms reliability you first have to create two parallel forms. One way to accomplish this is to create a large set of questions that address the same construct and then randomly divide the questions into two sets. You administer both instruments to the same sample of people. The correlation between the two parallel forms is the estimate of reliability. One major problem with this approach is that you have to be able to generate lots of items that reflect the same construct. This is often no easy feat. Furthermore, this approach makes the assumption that the randomly divided halves are parallel or equivalent. Even by chance this will sometimes not be the case. The parallel forms approach is very similar to the split-half reliability described below. The major difference is that parallel forms are constructed so that the two forms can be used independent of each other and considered equivalent measures. For instance, we might be concerned about a testing threat to internal validity. If we use Form A for the pretest and Form B for the posttest, we minimize that problem. it would even be better if we randomly assign individuals to receive Form A or B on the pretest and then switch them on the posttest. With split-half reliability we have an instrument that we wish to use as a single measurement instrument and only develop randomly split halves for purposes of estimating reliability.(1) http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.php

Strength: The parallel forms estimator is typically only used in situations where you intend to use the two forms as alternate measures of the same thing.

Weakness: Both the parallel forms and all of the internal consistency estimators have one major constraint -- you have to have multiple items designed to measure the same construct. This is relatively easy to achieve in certain contexts like achievement testing (it's easy, for instance, to construct lots of similar addition problems for a math test), but for more complex or subjective constructs this can be a real challenge. If you do have lots of items, Cronbach's Alpha tends to be the most frequently used estimate of internal consistency. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.php

VALIDITY

1. Test: Face Validity

Application: Face validity is concerned with how a measure or procedure appears to measure a certain criteria. Does it seem like a reasonable way to gain the information the researchers are attempting to obtain? Does it seem well designed? Does it seem as though it will work reliably? ...