Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am doing a write up for an experiment. I'm stuck. What is this different between validity and reliability? Thankyou in advance!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    im a bit confused... validity is the quality of being factually correct while reliability is a measure of consistency.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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 !!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 12, 2016
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.