0
Whether or not an encyclopedia is reliable and valid depends on the encyclopedia. In the English Language, the Britannica is considered the most reliable general encyclopedia. It uses experts in the field to write its articles. Specialized encyclopedias are frequently valid for the same reason. Frequently, the publisher can be trusted to be accurate. It is possible to check a publisher for the quality of his non fiction.
On WikiAnswers a number of the answers have been nonsense. They can not be trusted.
Wikipedia has become better over the years. Qualified editors are checking articles and suggested changes for accuracy. Still, its quality and information is not at the point where it is used as an expert witness in court.
The quality of an encyclopedia depends on the specialty of the writers of the various writers.
What else can I help you with?
What is the final step necessary before scientists can consider their research reliable and valid?
they have to get entouch with the federal food assoc.
Is a reliable test necessarily valid?
In my view reliable test is always valid.
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).
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.
Did nick Jonas try to hang himself?
No one knows but if I were him I would consider it a valid option
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).
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.
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.
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 ;-)
Why valid measure is always reliable?
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 does a reliable experiment mean?
A reliable experiment is one that can be proven or has been worked out several times giving valid or dependable results.
