Reliability and Validity

Reliability and Validity Researchers tend to be peculiar with how they conduct their study and which study method they choose to implement on their subjects. When various tools are examined for measure in behavioral research, researchers tend to prefer high validity and reliability (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2008). To understand this concept, one must comprehend the meaning and the difference between reliability and validity and how this applies to human services research. Without the full knowledge and comprehension of these two important criteria in determining how well measurements and particular research designs complete their functions, it will prove to be exceptionally challenging to display how the measurement completes its function or how stable it is. Validity basically displays how well the measure or design does what it is designed and intended to do (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2008). Validity is one of the most important criteria to determine how well measurements and particular research designs complete their functions (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2008). Alongside validity is reliability within the criteria requirements and importance. Reliability implies stability or consistency (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2008). Dependability may be implied. To state this plainly, if the type of measurement wishing to be applied is deemed unreliable, it is most likely because it is not valid. However, what should also be considered is that it is plausible for a measure to be reliable but not necessarily valid (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2008). Several types of reliability exist. Of the few, one of them is called Alternate-form reliability, which is defined as the amount of relatedness of altered forms of the test (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2008). Another type of reliability is called Internal-consistency reliability. The meaning of this form is defined as the overall extent of significance of all items in an assessment or all raters in a judgment research (also known to be called reliability of