1

Validity and reliability

Validity and reliability

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Tutor

Date
 2
Validity and reliability

Validity and reliability are two very important impressions in the dominion of psychological

testing. Validity states that the appropriateness and accuracy of the extrapolations haggard from

the test results whereas reliability refers to the stability and consistency of a test's measurements.

In order to acquire proof of test validity and reliability, different resembling approaches are used

by test creators and users. In addition to major reliability and validity, this essay will go into

reliability coefficients, different reliability estimates, and various reliability estimation

techniques.

Reliability refers to how well a test consistently measures what it intends to measure, making

sure there is reproducible results. In other words, reliability is a very fundamental characteristic

of testing and measurement, representing the consistency and dependability of the attained

outcomes (Watson, et al,.2009). There is a reflection of degree of consistency in test scores which

is caused by the reliability coefficient, ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating more

excellent reliability. There is a minimization of measurement errors and instilling confidence in

the tests accuracy is caused by a coefficient which is closer to 1 suggests more responsible and

reliable test results. Informed decisions-making and making valid conclusions through consistent

and trustworthy measurements are enabled with high reliability that is essential in psychology,

education, and market research.

Dissimilar estimates can be used to gather evidence of the test reliability by the test developers

and users. One of the mostly used estimate is the test-retest reliability which contains the

controlling of the same test to a group of contestants on two discrete occasions and manipulating

the relationship amongst the scores attained at both times. Consistent results are suggested to be

produced over time by a higher correlation coefficient. However, there is another reliability
 3
Validity and reliability

estimate which is known as parallel-form reliability. Administering both forms to a group of

participants, and calculating the correlation between the scores obtained on each form are the

two equivalent forms of tests that are involved in this approach. A high correlation designates

that the two forms yield consistent results, signifying that the test is reliable. In addition, using

split-half reliability the test developers and users can assess reliability. This technique

encompasses splitting the test into two halves and associating the scores obtained on each half.

The tests internal consistency is reflected by the correlation between the scores from the two

halves. Alternative internal consistency estimate is Cronbach's alpha, which calculates the

average correlation among all possible item combinations in the test. A higher alpha coefficient

indicates greater internal consistency. In order to collect evidence for test reliability, a test

developer who has developed a new psychological test could administer the test to a sample of

participants, wait for a specific period, and then re-administer the same test to the same

participants (Angulo-Brunet, et al 2017). The developer can determine the test's test-retest

reliability by calculating the correlation between the scores obtained at both time points.

Validity is a crucial aspect of testing and assessment, as it pertains to the accuracy and

appropriateness of the inferences and predictions drawn from test results. It goes beyond mere

reliability and delves into whether a test genuinely measures what it claims to measure. In other

words, validity ensures that the test captures the specific construct or concept it aims to assess,

providing meaningful and relevant interpretations of individuals' performance. To establish

validity, a rigorous validation process is employed, which involves accumulating evidence from

various sources and methodologies. This evidence may include content validity, which examines

the alignment between the test content and the construct being measured; criterion validity,
 4
Validity and reliability

which evaluates the correlation between test scores and external criteria; and construct validity,

which assesses the underlying theoretical framework of the test. Through systematic validation,

practitioners can have confidence that the test is indeed measuring what it intends to measure,

enabling them to make accurate and reliable inferences and predictions based on test scores.

By examining whether the test appears to measure what it intends to measures the test developers

and users can gather evidence for a test's face validity. This can be consummated by having

expert’s analysis the test items and determining whether the items are applicable and

representative of the measured construct. Content validity involves ensuring that the method of

measurement corresponds to the desired construct. As a developer if you want to create a

depression questionnaire, you need to know: Is the construct of depression actually being

measured by the questionnaire? Or is it actually assessing the respondent's state of mind, self-

esteem, or another construct? You must ensure that your indicators and measurements are

meticulously developed based on pertinent existing knowledge in order to achieve construct

validity. Only pertinent questions that measure well-known depression indicators must be

included in the questionnaire.

Construct validity assesses the degree to which a test measures the theoretical construct it claims

to measure. This type of validity can be evaluated through various methods. One approach is

convergent validity, which involves examining the correlation between the test scores and scores

from other tests or measures that assess the same or similar constructs. A high correlation would

indicate support for the construct validity of the test ( Rosenthal, et al,.2003). Criterion-related

validity examines the extent to which a test is related to an external criterion or outcome. There

are two subtypes of criterion-related validity: concurrent validity and predictive validity.
 5
Validity and reliability

Concurrent validity involves comparing the test scores with those on an established criterion

measure that simultaneously assesses the same construct. Predictive validity, on the other hand,

involves using test scores to predict future performance or behavior. By comparing the test

scores with actual outcomes, test developers can gather evidence for the criterion-related validity

of the test. To gather evidence of content validity, a test developer who has just developed a new

psychological test could invite a panel of experts in the field to evaluate the test items and

provide feedback on their relevance, representativeness, and comprehensiveness. The experts'

opinions and feedback would help establish the content validity of the test.

To end with, reliability and validity are vital considerations in psychological testing. Validity

ensures accurate and appropriate inferences from test scores whereas, reliability makes sure that

consistent and stable measurements. Test developers and users can gather evidence for reliability

using estimates like test-retest reliability, parallel-forms reliability, split-half reliability, and also

internal consistency reliability. Validity can be evaluated through face validity, content validity,

construct validity, and criterion-related validity. Employing these methods allows for developing

and utilizing reliable and valid tests, ensuring accurate and meaningful interpretations of test

scores.
 6
Validity and reliability

References

Bannigan, K., & Watson, R. (2009). Reliability and validity in a nutshell. Journal of clinical

nursing, 18(23), 3237-3243.

Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to

estimate internal consistency reliability. Annals of psychology, 33(3), 755-782.

Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: two simple

measures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(3), 608.