Validity, reliability & practicality

67,098 views
66,106 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
10 Comments
122 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
67,098
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
161
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
10
Likes
122
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Validity, reliability & practicality

  1. 1. VALIDITY, RELIABILITY & PRACTICALITY<br />Prof. Jonathan Magdalena<br />
  2. 2. QUALITIES OF MEASUREMENT DEVICES<br />Validity<br />Does it measure what it is supposed to measure?<br />Reliability<br />How representative is the measurement?<br />Objectivity<br />Do independent scorers agree?<br />Practicality<br />Is it easy to construct, administer, score and interpret?<br />
  3. 3. VALIDITY<br />Validity refers to whether or not a test measures what it intends to measure. <br />A test with high validity has items closely linked to the test’s intended focus. A test with poor validity does not measure the content and competencies it ought to. <br />
  4. 4. VALIDITY - Kinds of Validity<br />“Content”: related to objectives and their sampling.<br />“Construct”: referring to the theory underlying the target.<br />“Criterion”: related to concrete criteria in the real world. It can be concurrent or predictive.<br />“Concurrent”: correlating high with another measure already validated. <br />“Predictive”: Capable of anticipating some later measure. <br />“Face”: related to the test overall appearance.<br />
  5. 5. 1. CONTENT VALIDITY<br />Content validity refers to the connections between the test items and the subject-related tasks. The test should evaluate only the content related to the field of study in a manner sufficiently representative, relevant, and comprehensible. <br />
  6. 6. 2. CONSTRUCT VALIDITY<br />It implies using the construct (concepts, ideas, notions) in accordance to the state of the art in the field. Construct validity seeks agreement between updated subject-matter theories and the specific measuring components of the test. <br />For example, a test of intelligence nowadays must include measures of multiple intelligences, rather than just logical-mathematical and linguistic ability measures. <br />
  7. 7. 3. CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY<br />Also referred to as instrumental validity, it is used to demonstrate the accuracy of a measure or procedure by comparing it with another process or method which has been demonstrated to be valid. <br />For example, imagine a hands-on driving test has been proved to be an accurate test of driving skills. A written test can be validated by using a criterion related strategy in which the hands-on driving test is compared to it. <br />
  8. 8. 4. CONCURRENT VALIDITY<br />Concurrent validity uses statistical methods of correlation to other measures. <br />Examinees who are known to be either masters or non-masters on the content measured are identified before the test is administered. Once the tests have been scored, the relationship between the examinees’ status as either masters or non-masters and their performance (i.e., pass or fail) is estimated based on the test. <br />
  9. 9. 5. PREDICTIVE VALIDITY<br />Predictive validity estimates the relationship of test scores to an examinee's future performance as a master or non-master. Predictive validity considers the question, "How well does the test predict examinees' future status as masters or non-masters?" <br />For this type of validity, the correlation that is computed is based on the test results and the examinee’s later performance. This type of validity is especially useful for test purposes such as selection or admissions.<br />
  10. 10. 6. FACE VALIDITY<br />Face validity is determined by a review of the items and not through the use of statistical analyses. Unlike content validity, face validity is not investigated through formal procedures. Instead, anyone who looks over the test, including examinees, may develop an informal opinion as to whether or not the test is measuring what it is supposed to measure. <br />
  11. 11. QUALITIES OF MEASUREMENT DEVICES<br />Validity<br />Does it measure what it is supposed to measure?<br />Reliability<br />How representative is the measurement?<br />Objectivity<br />Do independent scorers agree?<br />Practicality<br />Is it easy to construct, administer, score and interpret?<br />
  12. 12. RELIABILITY<br />Reliability is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure shows the same result on repeated trials. <br />For researchers, four key types of reliability are: <br />
  13. 13. RELIABILITY<br />“Equivalency”: related to the co-occurrence of two items.<br />“Stability”: related to time consistency.<br />“Internal”: related to the instruments.<br />“Interrater”: related to the examiners’ criterion.<br />
  14. 14. 1. EQUIVALENCY RELIABILITY <br />Equivalency reliability is the extent to which two items measure identical concepts at an identical level of difficulty. Equivalency reliability is determined by relating two sets of test scores to one another to highlight the degree of relationship or association. <br />
  15. 15. 2. STABILITY RELIABILITY <br />Stability reliability (sometimes called test, re-test reliability) is the agreement of measuring instruments over time. To determine stability, a measure or test is repeated on the same subjects at a future date. Results are compared and correlated with the initial test to give a measure of stability. Instruments with a high stability reliability are thermometers, compasses, measuring cups, etc.<br />
  16. 16. 3. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY <br />Internal consistency is the extent to which tests or procedures assess the same characteristic, skill or quality. It is a measure of the precision between the measuring instruments used in a study. This type of reliability often helps researchers interpret data and predict the value of scores and the limits of the relationship among variables. <br />
  17. 17. 4. INTERRATER RELIABILITY <br />Interraterreliability is the extent to which two or more individuals (coders or raters) agree. <br />For example, when two or more teachers use a rating scale with which they are rating the students’ oral responses in an interview (1 being most negative, 5 being most positive). If one researcher gives a "1" to a student response, while another researcher gives a "5," obviously the interrater reliability would be inconsistent. <br />
  18. 18. SOURCES OF ERROR<br />Examinee (is a human being)<br />Examiner (is a human being)<br />Examination (is designed by and for human beings)<br />
  19. 19. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALIDITY & RELIABILITY<br />Validity and reliability are closely related.<br />A test cannot be considered valid unless the measurements resulting from it are reliable.<br />Likewise, results from a test can be reliable and not necessarily valid. <br />
  20. 20. BACKWASH EFFECT<br />Backwash (also known as washback) effect is related to the potentially positive and negative effects of test design and content on the form and content of English language training courseware.<br />
  21. 21. THANKS <br />

×