Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
eassy of reliability
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: eassy of reliability
Reliability Reliability is the extent to which scores obtained from similar or parallel instruments, by different observers or raters, or at different times yield the same or similar results (Streiner, 2003c). Importantly, reliability applies to the scores obtained from an instrument rather than the instrument itself. This is one of the most commonly made measurement mistakes in psychology. One way to establish reliability is to create alternate forms of an instrument. To create alternate forms, we take one instrument and compile another similar instrument that measures the same construct. If they yield the same or similar results, then the instruments are said to be equivalent or parallel forms.
There are several types of reliability.
…show more content…
The degree of agreement between the scores of raters is the interrater reliability of that instrument. Instruments of this nature include semistructured interviews, observational coding systems, behavior checklists, or performance tests.
The most common type of reliability is the internal consistency of an instrument, often indicated by coefficient alpha or Cronbach’s alpha. Internal consistency refers to the similarity or consistency of scores for the items or elements within an instrument. This is an alternative to creating alternate forms. In essence, the items within an instrument are split in half to create two halves, an alternate form within the instrument itself. To have high internal consistency, it is best to have homogeneous items, items that are likely to be highly correlated due to their similarity.
It is important to note that high reliability of scores does not guarantee that those scores are a valid representation of the construct they are intended to measure. Reliability does not guarantee validity; however, it does determine how valid scores obtained from an instrument can be. The upper limit of the validity coefficient can be determined by taking the square root of the reliability
…show more content…
For example, if we administer a measure of depression to a sample of participants all diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, the reliability of those scores does not apply if we administer this instrument to the population at large. For the reliability coefficient to be relevant to a certain population, the population needs to be similar to the sample that was used to assess the reliability initially.
How reliable scores should be depends largely on what the instrument is being used for and to which population it will be administered. Reliability is typically lower for research purposes as compared to clinical use. Researchers can afford a ballpark estimate of reliability because of the abstract nature of their work while scores from assessments used in a clinical setting have a direct effect on the life of an individual. Reliability can also be too high, such as in when items on an instrument are overly redundant or are too
This article supports the argument that speech-language pathologists should not use AE scores in reporting results of norm-referenced testing. Age-equivalent scores are the age at which a given raw score is average The authors give many limitations of AE test scores. The first limitation is that AE scores do not take into consideration the range of normal performance whose scores fall into the average range. Age-equivalent scores instead represent the age that the raw score is average. The article goes on to say that the lack of consideration for a normal performance range can result in these scores giving a false standard of performance (Maloney & Larrivee 2007). Another limitation the article discusses is that AE scores promote typological thinking. Age-equivalent scores compare clients to the average of their age group, when in reality, there is no average. Another limitation is the lack of info provided about the examinee’s performance. One cannot assume that because two people have the same score that they responded the same way. This only means that they answered the
...h the inventory is very easy to use and is self explanatory, it’s seems important to evaluate when and why the test is being used with the client and how the results are going to benefit the client. Because the assessment is a self-report assessment, it’s so crucial to help the client understand how important an honest evaluation of their symptoms is to an accurate score.
As previously mentioned, norm-referenced tests are used as a comparison in order to evaluate the client’s scores. However, the authors discuss that norm referenced tests are not truly reliable as comparisons are based on estimates and no two similar individuals will perform in an identical matter on a given task. This leads to the question of how much of a difference should there be between a client and similar individuals in their age group before the differences are indicative of an underlying problem? The use of reliability may assist clinicians in determining this issue. The authors describe that depending on how high or low the tests reliability is, is an indication of whether there is little difference or inconsistencies between the client’s ideal score, also known as their true score, and their observed score.
However, both characteristics of reliability and validity are important and can be used in many studies, such as the self-rating and other- ratings of daily behavior. Reliability refers to the internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, test-retest, and standardized scoring. In other words reliability means that study scores have to be constant with repeatability of the findings. Validity also refers to convergent validity, discriminant validity, and predictive validity. Validity refers to the reliability or credibility of the research. If the findings in a study, reliability and validity are valid they must be reliable.
the relationship between an assessment and the construct (“personal psychological characteristic that cannot be observed directly but which is assumed to exist”) it purports to measure; and the interpretations of the test scores based on the assessment- the so-called validity argument.
In recent years, many organizations particularly in a high risk industry have experienced significant losses. For this reason, they have been more considered the importance of the concept 'High Reliability Organization' (HROs). Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) as cited in Takagi and Nakanishi (2006), claim that a comprehending of the HRO concept can lead to clearly understand a technical system within an organization. This leads to minimize any failures from unexpected circumstances. To be more precise, it can be said that the HRO principle assists the organization to determine the risk factors that may negatively affect a company performance in an early stage of a project life cycle. Similarly, Laporte and Consolini (1991) as cited in Aase and Tjensvoll (n.d.) state that any high risk organizations who has applied the HROs principles tend to have an outstanding safety records.
The YMQI has two main approaches to rating items: the frequency approach and the evidence approach. Some items use both approaches. The frequency approach is looking for mistakes (problems that may occur in each session), significant mistakes (serious problems that may occur in each session) or how much the therapist corrected (such as total number of trials, reinforers given within 2-3 seconds after the correct response or use of the variety of prompts in different way, and so on.).
Reliability looks at the consistency of a test measure and the extent to which it eliminates extraneous variables in the results. Reliability is influenced by factors such as subjective judgments in scoring test items and the nature of the trait being measured. In contrast, validity refers to “the extent to which meaningful and appropriate inferences can be made from the instrument” (p. 33). Validity assesses whether or not the test scores measured what it claimed to measure and differs based on the purpose and target
...eptive. It depends on how it is used, collected and analyzed. Therefore, readers should understand what reliable statistics are. Yet, statistics are very important for researchers, scientists, students, employers and individuals to make decisions as well as to authenticate any claims or scientific theories.
For example, people may not really want to take part in the questionnaire so they may write answers down which are not true just to get it over and done with. This will then be classed as unreliable data.
Personal competence and self awareness were the highest for me in comparison to the other scores. My self awareness is above average. With the career I intend to hold in the future as a healthcare administrator facing many conflicted situations, I will need to make sure I am managing my reactions to situations and people correctly. My overall score for social competence was a surprise to me in one category of social awareness. I was on 1 point off from being in the category of this is something that needs work. I honestly do not agree with the score. I have always been known to have a good sense of how others are feeling. I can tell that something is eating at someone or their mood is off. I am curious to know if only one or many questions I answered on this assessment put me in this category. Relationship management is a huge area of work for me. When it comes to handling conflict, emotions get the best of me in certain situations. This being the second to lowest on the chart is just realization. Working to build and strengthen these skills will help with my future career which will involve working with groups of people as a leader in the healthcare
There are two classes of factors that jeopardize the validity of research findings they are internal and external. Internal validity is the extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure. External validity on the other hand, is the extent to which the results of a research study can be generalized to other groups, times, and settings (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008).
Validity scales are also found in a study by Caldwell- Andrews, Baer, and Berry. Validity scores measured in self- reports can be more bias than those of a correlation between observer and self- reports.
The scores for precision are only 1 point apart, yet fall into different categories. A good example is that she loves to know the complete situation. In this case, it was when I didn’t reply to her on online chat when it said I was online when I really wasn’t. I had to answer every question, and I needed to be very
One weakness associated with the Rorschach is the association of cost and training of those who administer the test (Del Giudice, 2008). The Rorschach has been considered a very controversial measure and many psychologists consider the use of it risky (Del Giudice, 2008). It is also criticized by its lacking face validity; the measure is an inkblot test that does not show those who take the assessment what the assessor is actually looking for (Del Giudice, 2008). Thus, use of the Rorschach could be considered worrisome. Some authors consider some of the areas the Rorschach attempts to measure as problematic in terms of reliability (Wood, Lilienfeld, Nezworski, & Garb, 2001). In comparison to the reliability of a well-known cognitive test (the WAIS) the reliability for the Rorschach is markedly lower (Wood, Lilienfeld, Nezworski, & Garb, 2001). Though, there were findings related to the Rorschach and its findings related to personality functioning, there has been more recent research showing that the previous findings are not able to be replicated (Wood, Lilienfeld, Nezworski, & Garb, 2001). Other findings provide that the Rorschach may not be as related to anxiety and depression as it claims to be (Wood, Lilienfeld, Nezworski, & Garb, 2001). Another finding suggests that the Rorschach simply equates its findings to underlying constructs that may not necessarily be related