Introduction to Validity and Reliability

The main purpose of any tool is to obtain data which is reliable and valid so the researcher can
read the prevalent situation accurately and arrive at some conclusions to offer some suggestions.
However, no tool is perfectly reliable or valid. So, it should be accompanied by a statement of its
reliability and validity. Here, in this chapter, the estimation of reliability and validity of the
inventory constructed are discussed along with its norms in detail. For the statistical consultant
working with social science researchers the estimation of reliability and validity is a task
frequently encountered. Measurement issues differ in the social sciences in that they are related
to the quantification of abstract, intangible and unobservable constructs. In many instances,
then, the meaning of quantities is only inferred.
Meaning of Validity
Validity
Test validity referees to the degree to which the tool actually measures what it claims to measure.
Validity can be defined as the accuracy with which the scale measure what it claims to measure.
Validity and purpose are like two sides of a coin. Any measuring instrument which fulfils the
purpose for which it is developed can be called a valid measuring instrument. It is also the extent
to which the inferences and conclusions made on the basis of scores earned on measuring are
appropriate and meaningful.
According to H. E. Garrett (1965) “The validity of a test or any measuring instrument depends
upon the fidelity with which it measures what it proposes to measure.”
According to Freeman (1960)7 "An index of validity shows the degree to which a test measures
what it purpose to measure when compared with accepted criteria"
According to Anastasi (2007) “The validity of a test concerns with what the test measures and
how well it does so.”
The first essential quality that any valid test should possess is Reliability. Reliability of any test
can be estimated by repetition of measurements but validity of a test can be estimated by
comparing the performance with some standard criterion. The Validation of a test score is the
most important step in the process of standarization of any tool. Therefore, every constructor has
to establish the validity of the tool to ensure its acceptability.
Types of Validity

1
All procedures for determining test validity are concerned with relationship between
performance on a test and other independently observable facts about the behaviour
characterstics under consideration.
According to Anastasi (1970)9 "The APA Technical Recommendations have classified these
procedures under four categories, designated as content, predictive, concurrent and construct
validity. Out of these four categories of validity the two namely content and construct or concept
validity are described under the heading of rational validity, by many authors. Similarly
concurrent, predictive and congruent validity are described under the heading of empirical or
statistical validity. In these methods the validity is estimated by means of statistical techniques."
Procedures for determining validity are primarily concerned with the performance on test and
other observable characteristics under consideration. We can divide the types of validity into
logical and empirical.
Criterion-Oriented or Predictive Validity
It is used when researchers are expecting a future performance based on the scores obtained
currently by the measure, correlate the scores obtained with the performance. The later
performance is called the criterion and the current score is the prediction. This is an empirical
check on the value of the test a criterion-oriented or predictive validation.
Concurrent Validity
This types refers to as the degree to which the scores on a test are related to the scores on
another, already established, test administered at the same time, or to some other valid criterion
available at the same time. Example, a new simple test is to be used in place of an old
cumbersome one, which is considered useful; measurements are obtained on both at the same
time. Logically, predictive and concurrent validation are the same, the term concurrent
validation is used to indicate that no time elapsed between measures.
Construct Validity
Construct validity is the degree to which a test measures an intended hypothetical construct.
Many times psychologists assess/measure abstract attributes or constructs. The process of
validating the interpretations about that construct as indicated by the test score is construct
validation. This can be done experimentally, e.g., if we want to validate a measure of anxiety.

2
Content Validity
When we want to find out if the entire content of the behavior/construct/area is represented in the
test we compare the test task with the content of the behavior. This is a logical method, not an
empirical one. Example, if we want to test knowledge on American Geography it is not fair to
have most questions limited to the geography of New England.
Face Validity
Basically face validity refers to the degree to which a test appears to measure what it purports to
measure.
Meaning of Reliability
Reliability of a test pertains to reliable measurement which means that the measurement is
accurate and free from any sort of error. Reliability is one of the most essential characteristic of a
test. If a test gives same result on different occasions, it is said to be reliable. So Reliability
means consistency of the test result, internal consistency and consistency of results over a period
of time.
According to Anastasi and Ubrina (1982) “Reliability referes to the consistency of scores
obtained by the same persons when they are re-examined with the same test on different
occasions, or with different sets of equivalent items, or under other variable examining
conditions.”
Reliability is defined mathematically as the ratio of the variation of the true score and the
variation of the observed score. Or, equivalently, one minus the ratio of the variation of the error
score and the variation of the observed score.
Types of Reliability
There are four general types of reliability.
Inter-rater or Inter-observer Reliability; Measures the degree to which different observers
give consistent estimates of the same persons.
Test - Re-test Reliability; Measures the consistency of measurement on two separate occasions.
Parallel-Forms Reliability; Measures the consistency of results of two parallel forms of same
test constructed in the same way.
Internal consistency Reliability; Measures the consistency of results across items within a test.

3
Relationship between reliability and validity
If data are valid, they must be reliable. If people receive very different scores on a test every time
they take it, the test is not likely to predict anything. However, if a test is reliable, that does not
mean that it is valid. For example, we can measure strength of grip very reliably, but that does
not make it a valid measure of intelligence or even of mechanical ability. Reliability is a
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for validity.
Approaches of ensure the Validity and Reliability is the Study

Approaches of Ensuring the Validity in the Study

Triangulation of Data it is the act of examining evidence of information from different methods
sources of data
Presenting negative or discrepant information that runs contrary to the information in the
findings
Time: Spending prolonged time in the field in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the
problem under study.
Member Checking : This is when the final report or specific descriptions from a research work
is taken back to the participants in order to determine if the participant feel that the results are
accurate.
Comprehensive narration – This is the use of a rich, thick description to convey findings
Bias Clarification – This is when the researcher clarifies the bias he/she brings to the study
External auditor – Using an external auditor to review the entire project. This individual is not
familiar with the research problem and can be objective in the assessment of the research work.
(Creswell, 2014)
Approaches of Ensure the Reliability in the Study
Cross-check codes developed by different researchers by comparing results that are
independently derived (Creswell, 2014)
Document procedures and steps taken in the research work (Yin 2009, cited in Creswell,
2014,).
Check transcripts for errors and obvious mistakes (Creswell, 2014, p.204).
When using codes, check to see that there is consistency in code definition (Creswell, 2014)

4
In team research, there should be coordinated communication through regular documented
meetings and analysis sharing (Creswell, 2014)
Conclusion
Qualitative research seeks to understand, as completely as possible, the phenomena under study.
Ethnographic research has qualitative goals of complete understanding, but interacts with
research subjects, in their own setting, to come to that understanding. There are a variety of
methods qualitative researchers’ uses: they collect data through observation, interviews, and
records investigation. However, while many in the hard sciences view qualitative research as
“easy,” or not rigorous enough, qualitative researchers do in fact strive for reliability and validity
in their findings. It is concluded that the claim of validity rests on data collection and analysis
techniques and instrument, the researcher in qualitative paradigm. In this paper we have tried to
explain the concept of validity and reliability in qualitative paradigm in association with
quantitative paradigm so that the reader can easily grasps the concepts. A more meticulous
approach is need to ensure the so far called validity of the qualitative research, any combination
of the suggested strategies can serve the purpose still the selection of the combinations need care
and attention.

5
References
Babour, R. S. (1998). Mixing qualitative methods: Quality assurance or qualitative quagmire?
Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 352-361.

Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (2006). Research in Education. (10th ed.) New York: Pearson
Education Inc.

Clont, J. G. (1992). The concept of reliability as it pertains to data from qualitative studies. Paper
Presented at the annual meeting of the South West Educational Research Association. Houston,
TX.

Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39(3), 124-131.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches. (2nd Ed.). London, Sage Publications.

Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health
research, 12(2), 279-289.