Validity and reliability. Experiment for anatomy and physiology help

Watch
futurenurse99
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I am doing a write up for an experiment. I'm stuck. What is this different between validity and reliability? Thankyou in advance!
0
reply
Charles97
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
im a bit confused... validity is the quality of being factually correct while reliability is a measure of consistency.
0
reply
Julieplec
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Validity is when you measure what you set out measure
Reliability is being able to replicate a study to find consistent results


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
rileystringer1
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Charles97)
im a bit confused... validity is the quality of being factually correct while reliability is a measure of consistency.
(Original post by Julieplec)
Validity is when you measure what you set out measure
Reliability is being able to replicate a study to find consistent results


Posted from TSR Mobile
True about validity. The closer your results are to the 'true value', the more valid they are

Reliability refers to both replicability of a study, and consistency (in itself, not just the ability to test for it)

So if you get two wrong results but they're the same, they're reliable. If they are right, they are also valid
0
reply
Julieplec
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by rileystringer1)
True about validity. The closer your results are to the 'true value', the more valid they are

Reliability refers to both replicability of a study, and consistency (in itself, not just the ability to test for it)

So if you get two wrong results but they're the same, they're reliable. If they are right, they are also valid
Didn't I say that? Haha


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
rileystringer1
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Julieplec)
Didn't I say that? Haha


Posted from TSR Mobile
Thing is, in psychology we're taught to write "can test for reliability so reliable".. but imo from a bio perspective that makes no sense, yes a study being replicable means you can test for reliability, but being able to test for reliability doesn't then automatically make a study reliable

It's reliable if its results are consistent with those of other studies

Don't you agree ?
0
reply
Julieplec
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by rileystringer1)
Thing is, in psychology we're taught to write "can test for reliability so reliable".. but imo from a bio perspective that makes no sense, yes a study being replicable means you can test for reliability, but being able to test for reliability doesn't then automatically make a study reliable

It's reliable if its results are consistent with those of other studies

Don't you agree ?
Well I also do biology, chemistry and geography alongside psychology and I believe the definition of reliable applies to all 3 subjects if a study is being conducted


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
rileystringer1
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Julieplec)
Well I also do biology, chemistry and geography alongside psychology and I believe the definition of reliable applies to all 3 subjects if a study is being conducted


Posted from TSR Mobile
Free Dictionary: "Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials"

AQA A-Level Biology definitions (from their website) says both: The results of an investigation may be considered reliable if they canbe repeated. If other scientists get the same results, then the resultsof the initial investigation are more likely to be reliable

I'm not arguing, I know that if you wrote what you said in an exam you'd probably get the mark, I'm just saying that in my opinion (look at the definition I posted from AQA) the part underlined is 100% unarguably true, but the part in bold just doesn't make sense in isolation. If you were trying to find out what caused people to commit crime and you conducted a study and found brain differences between criminals and "non-criminals", you wouldn't think "I used a brain scanning technique so it can be replicated, therefore I feel I can rely on these results alone because I know that other researchers can test it for reliability"

It just baffles me honestly !!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (25)
69.44%
I don't have everything I need (11)
30.56%

Watched Threads

View All