What is reliability in psychology?

Original post by sophie27891

Hello

Okay so reliability is the idea that if you were to repeat your experiment then you would achieve similar results.

When I did my A Level in Psychology I found http://www.holah.co.uk/page/validity/ this helpful :smile:

It's got internal and external explained for you there :smile:

Hope this helps!
S

Ideally, you are aiming to replicate your results exactly, not just similarly. It shows that your methods are free from error and that other researchers are more likely to trust the findings.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

If it's an experiment then it's whether controls are put in place which only manipulate the variable you wish to chance and control all extraneous (other) variables. This type of experiment is usually in a laboratory setting. It means you should be able to replicate your experiment to get similar findings and establish cause and effect :smile:

Reply 5

Original post by saraw26

If it's an experiment then it's whether controls are put in place which only manipulate the variable you wish to chance and control all extraneous (other) variables. This type of experiment is usually in a laboratory setting. It means you should be able to replicate your experiment to get similar findings and establish cause and effect :smile:

Controls are always put in place, this has nothing to do with reliability. Reliability just describes your ability to obtain consistent results.

Reply 6

Original post by Dillio

Controls are always put in place, this has nothing to do with reliability. Reliability just describes your ability to obtain consistent results.

Yes, but to obtain consistent results you need to control these extraneous variables. Hence why a lab setting generally gives you more reliable results.

It's one of the first things you learn in psychology...

Reply 7

You mean one of the first things you learn at A-Level Psychology? Are you saying that you are worse at controlling for confounding variables in a non-laboratory setting?

Your experiment will always be as reliable as it can be so long as your methods are genuine and carefully applied, regardless of the setting.

Reply 8

Yes, at A level Psychology.

Well if it is in a field or natural setting, there are unexpected extraneous/confounding variables which can affect reliability of the results. For example if they are testing how well a student does in a test after listening to music; in a field or natural setting there could be interruptions and other variables which then affect the reliability of the results. Therefore to obtain more reliable results, more controls are needed and hence the use of a lab setting.

I think your definition is the general one for all reliability in all subjects. Whereas mine is applied to experiments and studies - as that is what is mainly what they ask you in Psychology.

Reply 9

Original post by saraw26

Yes, at A level Psychology.

Well if it is in a field or natural setting, there are unexpected extraneous/confounding variables which can affect reliability of the results.

You can have unexpected confounding variables in any setting, even a lab setting.

For example if they are testing how well a student does in a test after listening to music; in a field or natural setting there could be interruptions and other variables which then affect the reliability of the results.

No, it would affect the validity of the results, not the reliability. If all the participants were interrupted during the test, then it would still be reliable. Also, interruptions can take place in a lab setting as well; imaging two people having a noisy conversation next to the lab, for instance.

Therefore to obtain more reliable results, more controls are needed and hence the use of a lab setting.

You are implying that a laboratory setting is the only place in which reliable results can be obtained. I think you are getting validity and reliability confused. Remember, results can be highly reliable, but still invalid, but the other way round can not be said.

I think your definition is the general one for all reliability in all subjects. Whereas mine is applied to experiments and studies - as that is what is mainly what they ask you in Psychology.

You can have unexpected confounding variables in any setting, even a lab setting.

Reply 10

Original post by Dillio

You can have unexpected confounding variables in any setting, even a lab setting.

Yes I know that. What I'm saying is that GENERALLY a lab setting is more reliable :P

Reply 11

Original post by saraw26

Yes, but to obtain consistent results you need to control these extraneous variables. Hence why a lab setting generally gives you more reliable results.

It's one of the first things you learn in psychology...

To try and clear up the apparent confusion

Reply 12

Original post by saraw26

Yes I know that. What I'm saying is that GENERALLY a lab setting is more reliable :P

No, what you are saying is that generally, a lab setting is more valid than a field setting.

Reply 13