In my view reliable test is always valid.
There is no such valid test, so I would definitely question it.
No
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).
Yes, it would be a valid test.
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.
No
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.
Yes sure. It is valid. It will shows the how fast you are thinking.
Urine for a drug test should be between 90-100 degrees Fahrenheit to be considered valid.
LSAT, MCAT, so on
Urine temperature for a drug test to be considered valid should be around 90-100 degrees Fahrenheit.