The sample size of the research was limited to students aged 17-19 from one college, which is not wholly representative of the target audience aged 14-19. To be fully valid, feedback would need to be gathered from a more diverse audience from different countries and ages. While bias is possible due to personal relationships with some feedback sources, the extremely negative YouTube comments received suggest they were not influenced by personal affection. For the feedback to be considered reliable, a repeated feedback process would need to produce consistent results over time from different participants.

1. A U D I E N C E F E E D B A C K
Validity of the Research

2. Sample Size
A sample size needs to be excessively large in order to
be a wide representation of my demographic. Whilst
my research gathered some wider comments from
YouTube, most of the feedback was limited to a small
audience of students from Oldham Sixth Form College.
This is in no way 100% representative of a wide
audience, as all were aged 17-19, however my target
audience was 14-19. I would need to gather feedback
from a much wider audience for it to be wholly valid –
those from other countries, of different ages, from
different countries, etc.

3. Bias
Bias means that someone may give more positive
comments because of a personal relationship, and it’s
easy for feedback to suffer from this. The class
feedback did not wholly suffer from this, as not all
participants were close to our group – however, the
YouTube feedback came from friends of mine. I do not
believed it suffered from bias, though – if you see the
comments, they are extremely negative, and clearly
have not been influenced by personal affection.

4. Reliability
Feedback needs to be proven reliable, and this needs to
be done through repetition. Repeating a set feedback
process should produce similar results, and if so, this
proves it reliable. The data gathered over a period of
time, from different participants, should be consistent
with each other – then the data is reliable.