0
A valid measure accurately captures what it intends to assess, meaning it reflects the true construct or phenomenon. Because a valid measure consistently produces accurate results, it inherently exhibits reliability, as reliability refers to the consistency and stability of measurements over time. However, not all reliable measures are valid, as they may yield consistent results without accurately measuring the intended construct. Thus, while all valid measures are reliable, the reverse is not necessarily true.
What else can I help you with?
How can be something reliable but not valid?
Something can be reliable but not valid when it consistently produces the same results or measurements, yet does not accurately measure what it is intended to measure. For example, a clock that is stuck at 3 PM will reliably show that time, but it is not valid for determining the current time. In essence, reliability refers to consistency, while validity pertains to accuracy and relevance. Thus, a reliable tool can yield consistent results that are nonetheless incorrect or irrelevant.
Is a biased sample always valid?
a biased sample is valid determin
A test that measures exactly what it is designed to measure is referred to as?
valid.
How many meters are in a cc?
There is no valid conversion - meter is a measure of distance while cc (cubic centimeter) is a measure of volume.
How do you calculate 1 hectare 0.01 kilometers?
No. A hectare is a measure of are, a kilometre is a measure of distance. Conversion from one to the other is not valid.
Is a reliable test necessarily valid?
In my view reliable test is always valid.
Why is it possible to have a reliable measure that is not valid but impossible to have a valid measure that is not reliable?
A reliable measure is consistent and yields consistent results, so it may not be measuring the intended construct accurately (lack validity). On the other hand, a valid measure accurately assesses the intended construct, but it must be consistent and produce stable results (reliable) to ensure that the measurements are dependable and trustworthy.
A test may be reliable but not necessarily validIs it possible for a test to be valid but not reliable?
A test may be reliable but not valid. A test may not be valid but not reliable. For example, if I use a yard stick that is mislabeled to measure the distance from tee to hole in golf on different length holes, the results will be neither reliable nor valid. If you use the same stick to measure football fields that are the same length the result will reliable (repeatable, consistent) but not valid (wrong numbers of yards). There is no test that is unreliable (repeatable, consistent) and valid (measures what we are looking for).
How can an instrument be reliable but not valid?
An instrument can be reliable but not valid when it consistently produces the same results under the same conditions, indicating stability and precision, but does not measure what it is intended to measure. For example, a scale that consistently weighs a person's mass the same way might be reliable, but if it is incorrectly calibrated and always adds five pounds, it is not valid for assessing true weight. Thus, while the results are dependable, they do not accurately reflect the intended construct.
What is the difference between slection crieteria and validity and reliability?
Social and Medical sciences uses these statistical concepts. ideally, we have to measure the same way each time, but intrasubject, interobserver and intraobserver variance occur, so we have to anticipate and evaluate them. In short, it is the repeatability of a measurement, by you, myself and everybody person or instrument. Validity is how much the mean measure that we got is near of the true answer or value. So, an instrument can be reliable but not valid, valid but not reliable, both valid and reliable, nor valid neither reliable. I suggest that you imagine a target: you can aim and 1) always get the center (both valid and reliable) 2) always get the same distant point (reliable but not valid) 3) err much around the true center (valid but not reliable - the mean and median of your arrow's shot will get the center) 4) err much around the another center, false one (nor valid neither reliable) I did not understood exactly what selection criteria have to do with the rest of question, so, left in blank ;-)
What is the difference between a valid test and a reliable test?
Reliable indicates that each time the experiment is conducted, the same results are obtained (accuracy). Valid indicates the experiment (or test) has controlled variables and used an appropriate method/model.
Is validity is a prerequisite of reliability?
No, validity is not a prerequisite of reliability. Reliability refers to the consistency or stability of a measure, while validity refers to the accuracy of the measure in assessing what it is intended to assess. A measure can be reliable but not valid, meaning it consistently measures something but not necessarily what it is intended to measure.
Is valid test always valid Why Give example?
A valid test is not always a reliable test. Validity refers to whether a test measures what it claims to measure, while reliability refers to the consistency of test results over time. For example, a test designed to measure mathematical ability may be valid if it accurately assesses math skills, but if the test yields vastly different scores when taken multiple times by the same individual, it lacks reliability. Thus, a test can be valid in content but still unreliable in execution.
How can be something reliable but not valid?
Something can be reliable but not valid when it consistently produces the same results or measurements, yet does not accurately measure what it is intended to measure. For example, a clock that is stuck at 3 PM will reliably show that time, but it is not valid for determining the current time. In essence, reliability refers to consistency, while validity pertains to accuracy and relevance. Thus, a reliable tool can yield consistent results that are nonetheless incorrect or irrelevant.
Is it possible for an operational definition to be valid but not reliable?
Is it possible for an operational definition to be valid but not reliable
Give an example of how a test may be reliable but not valid?
A bathroom scale that consistently shows your weight as 10 pounds less than your actual weight, but always produces the same result when you step on it multiple times, can be considered reliable (consistent) but not valid (accurate).
Can a experiment be reliable and not valid?
Yes, an experiment can be reliable but not valid. Reliability refers to the consistency of the results when the experiment is repeated under the same conditions, while validity assesses whether the experiment measures what it is intended to measure. For instance, a poorly designed experiment may produce consistent results (reliable) but may not accurately reflect the true relationship between the variables being studied (not valid). This highlights the importance of both concepts in research design.
