I think that with reliability we mean that the plans tha you propose are based on some spesific and realistic elements. With validity I think that we mean that these elements are true and modern.
I think that with reliability we mean that the plans tha you propose are based on some spesific and realistic elements. With validity I think that we mean that these elements are true and modern.
"valid" is used when something is proved to be true... "reliable" is based on past preference and known for the correctness or truthfullness of the person, place, or thing
Sampling techniques can provide statistically reliable and valid survey results except haphazard sampling.
RELIABILITY:- It is the ability to do a specified work/task in a specified time to maintain its functions in routine circumstances.UNRELIABILITY:-It doesn't have an ability to do a specific task/work in a specified time.
wht is the difference between status & role
What is the difference between hereditary and evironmental defects
The only difference is between a prediction made by a man and a prediction of God
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.
A test can be reliable and not valid. A test cannot be valid and not reliable.
In my view reliable test is always valid.
Is it possible for an operational definition to be valid but not reliable
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 ;-)
a valid trust is true and an enforcebale trust can be enforced
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).
A valid deductive argument will have a valid premise and conclusion and a fallacy may be true, it all matters on how you came to the conclusion.
The difference between genuine and original is very simple. Genuine is something that is real while original is the first of something.
a accurate result would be true as possible but a reliable result would be one that is compared
Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the true value, while reliability refers to how consistent results are when the same measurement is repeated multiple times. In other words, accuracy measures correctness, while reliability measures consistency.
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.