Face Fluidity

Face validity, from my understanding, is testing validity based on how the results are going to measure without actually conducting the test. In other words, face validity is based on what is supposed to be than what is actual. According to the website Explorable.com, face validity is a basic measure and the subject, who usually is not an expert, has input about the test (Shuttleworth, 2009, para. 5). Content validity, on the other hand, is similar to face validity but differs in the way the results are taken. Content validity arrives at its results based on statistics from the participants of the testing (Shuttleworth, 2009, para. 6). Content validity may also eliminate items that are unbiased based on our textbook (Hagan, 2014, p. 247).
If the test-retest comes back with negative results then it can be said the test has faulty variables. I feel it is essential to retest data to get a definite answer. It is easy to get a false positive, which is why it is vital to always get a medical test that shows potential issues retested and this also applies to research plans.
I believe the validity I would use for my research plan would be construct validity. Construct validity is defined in our textbook by determining accuracy by establishing if the instrument measures what it is intended to measure. This is the type of validity my research plan needs because it will tell me if the method I am using to determine if DNA used in exonerated cases were beneficial or not. This validity is vital for testing evidence. In addition, I believe test-retest method is the best way to prove reliability to my research plan. It would be important for me to determine reliability by retesting methods that were already done and reanalyzing data that was taken. My research plan is essential to bring to light how many people are wrongfully convicted and therefore, my tests need to be accurate to show data on this