Scribd
Upload
102 views

Reliability Validity

This document discusses the importance of reliability and validity in psychological measurement. It defines reliability as the consistency or repeatability of a measure and validity as the extent to which a measure accurately reflects the construct it is intended to measure. Several types of reliability are described including test-retest, inter-rater, and internal consistency reliability. Methods for estimating each type are provided. The document also discusses different aspects of validity like face validity, construct validity including convergent and discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity including concurrent and predictive validity. Examples are given throughout to illustrate key concepts.

Uploaded by

hafiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views

Reliability Validity

This document discusses the importance of reliability and validity in psychological measurement. It defines reliability as the consistency or repeatability of a measure and validity as the extent to which a measure accurately reflects the construct it is intended to measure. Several types of reliability are described including test-retest, inter-rater, and internal consistency reliability. Methods for estimating each type are provided. The document also discusses different aspects of validity like face validity, construct validity including convergent and discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity including concurrent and predictive validity. Examples are given throughout to illustrate key concepts.

Uploaded by

hafiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

Reliability and validity

Why do we need Reliability & Validity?


(Measurement Error)

A participants score on a particular measure consists of 2


components:
Observed score = True score + Measurement Error
True Score = score that the participant would have
obtained if measurement was perfecti.e., we were able
to measure without error
Measurement Error = the component of the observed
score that is the result of factors that distort the score from
its true value

Factors that Influence


Measurement Error
Transient states of the participants:
(transient mood, health, fatigue-level, etc.)
Stable attributes of the participants:
(individual differences in intelligence,
personality, motivation, etc.)
Situational factors of the research setting:
(room temperature, lighting, crowding, etc.)

Characteristics of
Measures and
Manipulations
Precision and clarity of operational
definitions
Training of observers
Number of independent observations
on which a score is based (more is
better?)
Measures that induce fatigue or fear

Actual Mistakes
Equipment malfunction
Errors in recording behaviors by observers
Confusing response formats for self-reports
Data entry errors

Measurement error undermines the reliability


(repeatability) of the measures we use

Reliability
The reliability of a measure is an
inverse function of measurement error:
The more error, the less reliable the
measure
Reliable measures provide consistent
measurement from occasion to
occasion

Estimating Reliability
Total Variance
in a set of scores

Variance due
to true scores

Variance due
to error

Reliability

True-score
Variance

Total
Variance

Reliability can range from 0 to 1.0


When a reliability coefficient equals 0, the scores reflect
nothing but measurement error
Rule of Thumb: measures with reliability coefficients of
70% or greater have acceptable reliability

Different Methods for


Assessing Reliability

Test-Retest Reliability
Inter-rater Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability

Test-Retest Reliability
Test-retest reliability refers to the
consistency of participants responses
over time (usually a few weeks, why?)
Assumes the characteristic being
measured is stable over timenot
expected to change between test and
retest

Inter-rater Reliability
If a measurement involves behavioral
ratings by an observer/rater, we would
expect consistency among raters for a
reliable measure
Best to use at least 2 independent
raters, blind to the ratings of other
observers
Precise operational definitions and welltrained observers improve inter-rater
reliability

Internal Consistency
Reliability
Relevant for measures that consist of more
than 1 item (e.g., total scores on scales, or
when several behavioral observations are
used to obtain a single score)
Internal consistency refers to inter-item
reliability, and assesses the degree of
consistency among the items in a scale, or
the different observations used to derive a
score
Want to be sure that all the items (or
observations) are measuring the same
construct

Estimates of Internal
Consistency
Item-total score consistency
Split-half reliability: randomly divide items
into 2 subsets and examine the consistency
in total scores across the 2 subsets (any
drawbacks?)
Cronbachs Alpha: conceptually, it is the
average consistency across all possible splithalf reliabilities
Cronbachs Alpha can be directly computed
from data

Estimating the Validity of a


Measure
A good measure must not only be reliable, but
also valid
A valid measure measures what it is intended
to measure
Validity is not a property of a measure, but an
indication of the extent to which an
assessment measures a particular construct
in a particular contextthus a measure may
be valid for one purpose but not another
A measure cannot be valid unless it is
reliable, but a reliable measure may not be
valid

Estimating Validity
Like reliability, validity is not absolute
Validity is the degree to which variability
(individual differences) in participants
scores on a particular measure, reflect
individual differences in the
characteristic or construct we want to
measure
Three types of measurement validity:
Face Validity
Construct Validity

Face Validity
Face validity refers to the extent to which a
measure appears to measure what it is
supposed to measure
Not statisticalinvolves the judgment of the
researcher (and the participants)
A measure has face validityif people think it
does
Just because a measure has face validity
does not ensure that it is a valid measure
(and measures lacking face validity can be
valid)

Construct Validity
Most scientific investigations involve
hypothetical constructsentities that
cannot be directly observed but are
inferred from empirical evidence (e.g.,
intelligence)
Construct validity is assessed by
studying the relationships between the
measure of a construct and scores on
measures of other constructs
We assess construct validity by seeing
whether a particular measure relates as
it should to other measures

Self-Esteem Example
Scores on a measure of self-esteem
should be positively related to
measures of confidence and optimism
But, negatively related to measures of
insecurity and anxiety

Convergent and
Discriminant Validity
To have construct validity, a measure
should both:
Correlate with other measures that it
should be related to (convergent
validity)
And, not correlate with measures that it
should not correlate with (discriminant
validity)

Criterion-Related Validity
Refers to the extent to which a measure
distinguishes participants on the basis of a
particular behavioral criterion
The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is valid to the
extent that it distinguishes between students that
do well in college versus those that do not
A valid measure of marital conflict should
correlate with behavioral observations (e.g.,
number of fights)
A valid measure of depressive symptoms should
distinguish between subjects in treatment for
depression and those who are not in treatment

Two Types of CriterionRelated Validity


Concurrent validity
measure and criterion are assessed at the
same time
Predictive validity
elapsed time between the administration
of the measure to be validated and the
criterion is a relatively long period
(e.g., months or years)
Predictive validity refers to a measures ability
to distinguish participants on a relevant
behavioral criterion at some point in the future

SAT Example
High school seniors who score high on
the the SAT are better prepared for
college than low scorers (concurrent
validity)
Probably of greater interest to college
admissions administrators, SAT scores
predict academic performance four
years later (predictive validity)

Thank you.

You might also like