Back
to top
Validity and reliability. Experiment for anatomy and physiology help
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
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
Report
#2
im a bit confused... validity is the quality of being factually correct while reliability is a measure of consistency.
0
reply
Report
#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
Reliability is being able to replicate a study to find consistent results
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Charles97)
im a bit confused... validity is the quality of being factually correct while reliability is a measure of consistency.
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
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
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
Report
#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
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
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#6
It's reliable if its results are consistent with those of other studies
Don't you agree ?
0
reply
Report
#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 ?
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 ?
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#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
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
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
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Have your say on 2021 assessmentOfqual and DfE want students' thoughts
- Who has received uni offers?
- Starting my new job - AMA!
- Win a year of Headspace
- Private candidates support thread