0
Why is it possible to have a reliable measure that is not valid but impossible to have a valid measure that is not reliable?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
A test can be reliable and not valid. A test cannot be valid and not reliable.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoWhen you get a reliable result/s, this immediately makes the result more valid. In psychology terms, it either improves the internal/external validity =)
hope it helps!
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is an IQ Test a valid measure of intelligence?
No. But it's good for bragging rights.
A psychological tests is said to be valid if it?
ANY test is vaid if it's measuring what it is supposed to measure
Why is validity harder to establish and evaluate than reliability?
Validity is harder to prove because data can be valid within a specific range. Data that is reliable can be proved by using the information successfully.
What is objective measurement?
1- unbiased measurement/analysis, in that you measure what is there and not impacted by your beliefs or philosophy of something...that is for subjective measurement/analysis. ==================== 2- It is like the diffrent between the self-report questionnaire and pedometer. the questionnaire may become impacted by your beliefs because it is up to you how to answer the questions, maybe right and maybe wrong or maybe mixed. But the objective measurement, there is no way to be impacted by your beliefs, for example the pedometer will measure your steps exactly and there is no control from you on the pedometer. therefore objective measurement are more accurate and better than the other measurement. REMEMBER that objective measurement tools must be valid and reliable.
What makes a valid experiment?
To make an experiment valid you have to make sure that the experiments results answer the question that you first started from.
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
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).
Is a reliable test necessarily valid?
In my view reliable test is always valid.
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 has the author Katrina Ann Wearn written?
Katrina Ann Wearn has written: 'The appropriateness of customer satisfaction as a valid and reliable measure of public sector quality'
Can a test be reliable and yet not valid?
A test may be reliable yet not valid, The results can end up being reliable, in other words certain to have yielded properly based on input. But the results may not be trustworthy.
If nothing is impossible then is it possible for something to be impossible?
The question has words which have what I would call (for want of knowledge of a better description) reflective meanings; The words 'nothing' and 'impossible' cannot stand on their own and owe their existence (valid or otherwise) to the words 'thing' and 'possible'. If it were true (as it must, in my opinion be) that all things are possible, it follows that nothing is impossible - but there is no validity in the examination of the validity of the statement 'nothing is impossible' - it simply follows from 'everything is possible'. There is no room to (validly) proceed. Says who? Says I! So are you God? Not yet! (remember I said everything is possible) - Have a good day!
Explain how you can make a reliable and a valid investigation?
there is no possible way unless, you stick a fork in your arm and sing im a little tea pot or post man pat.
Sampling techniques can provide statistically reliable and valid survey results except?
Sampling techniques can provide statistically reliable and valid survey results except haphazard sampling.
What does valid research measure?
A valid research measure is based on the concept of conclusion and measurement with the real world. The validity measures what it claims to measure.
When was the first baby shower held?
This question is impossible to answer since there is no possible valid information regarding it unless you have general knowledge of being at the first baby shower.
How do you convert grams to kilometers?
You do not. A gram is a measure of mass, whereas a kilometre is a measure of distance. The two measure different things and, according to the basic principles of dimensional analysis, conversion from one to the other is not valid.
