Scientific Reliability and Validity Scientific reliability can be defined as the degree to which a measurement produces consistency. As understood by Branson (2014) a measurement that is found to be stable in the same setting and with the same sample size can be considered reliable. Thus, further meaning that any device that gives the same repeated results under the same conditions is reliable. Such an example is often demonstrated by the weighing scale, which sometimes lack validity but still produce steady results when an individual repeatedly weigh themselves on the same scale. However, there were four types of reliability discussed in this week’s module. There’s was test-retest, closely related parallel form, inter-rater reliability …show more content…
For instance, a tool measuring what it’s expected to measure by producing accurate results. To further elaborate validity implicates truth, which I would further say is the best approximation of a given proposition, inference, or conclusion. For instance, when I discussed the scale above I explained how the scale may be reliable, but lack honesty. So, such a tool could be compared to the dart board example which demonstrated reliability, but no validity.
Can an Evaluation Tool be Unreliable but still be Considered Valid? As understood an evaluation tool cannot be unreliable but still considered valid. For a tool to be valid there must be some form of reliability, meaning that the measure is accurate and yield the same results each time. I do not see how I would be able to use a tool that is not reliable but consider it to be scientifically valid. For instance, if I was using the Beck Depression scale (and we will pretend that the scale itself was not reliable)- I could not report back to my client valid results. As further pointed out by the pod-cast validity helps researcher to better understand concepts and tools, and as well determine what population each can be applied to. Henceforth, not ever tool or concepts can be applied to every