The document discusses the concepts of validity and reliability in quantitative research, detailing their types, essential components, and methods for evaluation. Validity addresses whether a measuring instrument accurately captures what it intends to measure, while reliability focuses on the consistency of the measurement over time. It outlines various types of validity such as face, content, criterion, and construct validity, as well as reliability methods including test/retest, alternate forms, split-half, and interrater reliability.

1. S. No Topic Presenter
1.
Module - I
Validity
a. Introduction
b. Essential parts of Validity
c. Types of validity in quantitative research
d. Issues/Threats related to validity in quantitative research
Rashu Sharma
(0150420)
2.
Module - II
Reliability
a. Introduction
b. Types of reliability in quantitative research
❖ External Consistency Procedure
❖ Internal Consistency Procedure
c. Factors affecting the reliability
d. Issues/Threats related to the reliability in quantitative research
Sourabh Sharma
(0250420)

2. Module - I
Validity
a. Introduction
b. Essential parts of Validity
c. Types of validity in quantitative research
d. Issues/Threats related to validity in quantitative research

3. Validity:
(Introduction)
• A measure of the truthfulness of a measuring instrument. It indicates
whether the instrument measures what it claims to measure.
• refers to the degree to which the results are truthful or genuine.
• According to Kerlinger, “ the commonest definition of the validity is
epitomized by the question: Are we measuring what we think we are
measuring? ’’

4. Validity
(Essential parts of validity)
• In research, validity has two essential parts:
• a) internal (credibility), and
• b) external (transferability).
• Internal validity indicates whether the results of the study are legitimate because of the way the
groups were selected, data were recorded or analyses were performed. It refers to whether a
study can be replicated [Willis, 2007].
• To assure it, the researcher can describe appropriate strategies, such as triangulation, prolonged
contact, member checks, saturation, reflexivity, and peer review.

5. Validity
(Essential parts of validity)
• External validity shows whether the results given by the study are transferable to
other groups of interest [Last, 2001]
• A researcher can increase external validity by:
• i) achieving representation of the population through strategies, such as,
random selection,
• ii) using heterogeneous groups,
• iii) using non-reactive measures, and
• iv) using precise description to allow for study replication or replicate study
across different populations, settings, etc.

6. Validity
(Types of validity in quantitative research)
• Face Validity
• Content validity;
• Criterion Validity
• Concurrent and predictive validity;
• Construct validity.

7. Validity
(Face validity)
• The extent to which a measuring instrument appears valid on its surface.
• The judgement that an instrument is measuring what it is supposed to is primarily
based upon the logical link between the questions and the objectives of the study.
• Each question or item on the research instrument must have a logical link with an
objective.
• Establishment of this link is called face validity.
• Hence, one of the main advantages of this type of validity is that it is easy to
apply.
• For example, does the test selected by the school board to measure student
achievement “appear” to be an actual measure of achievement?

8. Validity
(Content validity)
• The extent to which a measuring instrument covers a representative sample of the
domain of behaviors to be measured.
• A systematic examination of the test content to determine whether it covers a
representative sample of the domain of behaviors to be measured assesses content
validity.
• In other words, a test with content validity has items that satisfactorily assess the
content being examined.
• To determine whether a test has content validity, you should consult experts in the
area being tested.

9. Validity
(Criterion Validity)
• The extent to which a measuring instrument accurately predicts behavior or ability in a given area
establishes criterion validity.
• Two types of criterion validity may be used,
• depending on whether the test is used to estimate present performance (concurrent validity) or
• to predict future performance (predictive validity).
• The SAT and GRE are examples of tests that have predictive validity because performance on the
tests correlates with later performance in college and graduate school, respectively.
• The tests can be used with some degree of accuracy to “predict” future behavior.
• A test used to determine whether or not someone qualifies as a pilot is a measure of concurrent
validity.
• We are estimating the person’s ability at the present time, not attempting to predict future
outcomes. Thus, concurrent validation is used for diagnosis of existing status rather than
prediction of future outcomes.

10. Validity
(Construct Validity)
• Construct validity is considered by many to be the most important type of
validity.
• The construct validity of a test assesses the extent to which a measuring
instrument accurately measures a theoretical construct or trait that it is designed
to measure.
• Some examples of theoretical constructs or traits are verbal fluency, neuroticism,
depression, anxiety, intelligence, and scholastic aptitude.
• One means of establishing construct validity is by correlating performance on the
test with performance on a test for which construct validity has already been
determined.

11. Review

12. Validity
(Threats/ issues to internal validity in quantitative research)

13. Validity
(Threats/ issues to external validity in quantitative research)

14. Module - II
Reliability
a. Introduction
b. Types of reliability in quantitative research
❖ External Consistency Procedure
❖ Internal Consistency Procedure
c. Factors affecting the reliability
d. Issues/Threats related to the reliability in quantitative research

15. Reliability
(Introduction)
• Reliability refers to the consistency or stability of a
measuring instrument. In other words, we want a measure
to measure exactly the same way each time it is used. This
means that individuals should receive a similar score each
time they use the measuring instrument.

16. Reliability
(Types)
• Test/Retest Reliability,
• Alternate-forms Reliability,
• Split-half Reliability, and
• Interrater Reliability.

17. Reliability
External
consistency
procedures
Test/ Retest Alternate
forms
Internal
consistency
Procedures
Split half
technique
Reliability
(External & Internal consistency procedures)

18. Reliability
(Test-Retest)
• Test/retest reliability: A reliability coefficient determined by assessing the degree
of relationship between scores on the same test administered on two different
occasions.
• One of the most often used and obvious ways of establishing reliability is to repeat
the same test on a second occasion-test/retest reliability.
• The obtained correlation coefficient is between the two scores of each individual
on the same test administered on two different occasions. If the test is reliable, we
expect the two scores for each individual to be similar, and thus the resulting
correlation coefficient will be high (close to 1.00).
• This measure of reliability assesses the stability of a test over time.

19. • Naturally, some error will be present in each measurement (for example, an
individual may not feel well at one testing or may have problems during the
testing session such as a broken pencil). Thus, it is unusual for the correlation
coefficient to be 1.00, but we expect it to be .80 or higher.
• Issues:
• A problem related to test/retest measures is that on many tests, there will be
practice effects—some people will get better at the second testing, which lowers
the observed correlation.
• A second problem may occur if the interval between test times is short:
Individuals may remember how they answered previously, both correctly and
incorrectly.
• Absence: People remaining absent for re-tests
Reliability
(Test-Retest)

20. Reliability
(Alternate forms)
• Alternate-Forms Reliability. One means of controlling for test/retest problems is to use
alternate-forms reliability—using alternate forms of the testing instrument and
correlating the performance of individuals on the two different forms.
• In this case, the tests taken at times 1 and 2 are different but equivalent or parallel (hence,
the terms equivalent-forms reliability and parallel-forms reliability are also used). Alternate
forms reliability establishes the stability of the test over time and also the equivalency of
the items from one test to another.
• ISSUES:-
• One problem with alternate-forms reliability is making sure that the tests are truly
parallel. To help ensure equivalency, the tests should have the same number of items, the
items should be of the same difficulty level, and instructions, time limits, examples, and
format should all be equal—often difficult if not impossible to accomplish.
• Second, if the tests are truly equivalent, there is the potential for practice effects, although
not to the same extent as when exactly the same test is administered twice.

21. • Split-Half Reliability. A third means of establishing reliability is by splitting the items on the test
into equivalent halves and correlating scores on one half of the items with scores on the other half.
• This split-half reliability gives a measure of the equivalence of the content of the test but not of its
stability over time as test/retest and alternate-forms reliability do.
• ISSUES
• The biggest problem with split-half reliability is determining how to divide the items so that the
two halves are, in fact, equivalent.
• For example, it would not be advisable to correlate scores on multiple-choice questions with scores
on short-answer or essay questions. What is typically recommended is to correlate scores on even-
numbered items with scores on odd-numbered items. Thus, if the items at the beginning of the test
are easier or harder than those at the end of the test, the half scores are still equivalent.
Reliability
(Split Half )

22. • Interrater Reliability. Finally, to measure the reliability of observers rather than tests, you can use
interrater reliability.
• Interrater reliability is a measure of consistency that assesses the agreement of observations made
by two or more raters or judges.
• Let’s say that you are observing play behavior in children. Rather than simply making observations
on your own, it’s advisable to have several independent observers collect data. The observers all
watch the children playing but independently count the number and types of play behaviors they
observe.
• After the data are collected, interrater reliability needs to be established by examining the
percentage of agreement between the raters. If the raters’ data are reliable, then the percentage of
agreement should be high. If the raters are not paying close attention to what they are doing, or if
the measuring scale devised for the various play behaviors is unclear, the percentage of agreement
among observers will not be high.
• Thus, if your observers agree 45 times out of a possible 50, the interrater reliability is 90%—fairly
high. However, if they agree only 20 times out of 50, then the interrater reliability is low (40%).
Reliability
(Inter-rater)

23. Review

24. • The wording of questions – A slight ambiguity in the wording of questions or statements can affect the
reliability of a research instrument as respondents may interpret the questions differently at different times,
resulting in different responses.
• The physical setting – In the case of an instrument being used in an interview, any change in the physical
setting at the time of the repeat interview may affect the responses given by a respondent, which may affect
reliability.
• The respondent’s mood – A change in a respondent’s mood when responding to questions or writing answers
in a questionnaire can change and may affect the reliability of that instrument.
• The interviewer’s mood – As the mood of a respondent could change from one interview to another so could
the mood, motivation and interaction of the interviewer, which could affect the responses given by
respondents thereby affecting the reliability of the research instrument.
• The nature of interaction – In an interview situation, the interaction between the interviewer and the
interviewee can affect responses significantly. During the repeat interview the responses given may be
different due to a change in interaction, which could affect reliability.
• The regression effect of an instrument – When a research instrument is used to measure attitudes towards
an issue, some respondents, after having expressed their opinion, may feel that they have been either too
negative or too positive towards the issue. The second time they may express their opinion differently, thereby
affecting reliability.
Reliability
(Factors affecting the reliability of the test)

25. THANK YOU
EVERYONE