PSYC 2030 Chapter Notes - Chapter 4: Criterion Validity, Vise, Intelligence Quotient
This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 1 pages of the document.
Chapter 4: Reliability and Validity
In general, a measure of behaviour is said to be reliable if its results are repeatable when
the behaviours are re-measured – reliability is essential because without it there is no way
of determining what a score on a particular measure means, for example, in reaction time
you’re trying to determine how fast someone is, but if the reaction times vary wildly,
there is no way to answer that question, it should remain consistent over time.
A behavioural measure’s reliability is a direct function of the amount of measurement
error present – if there is a great deal of error, reliability is low, and vise versa.
A behavioural measure is said to be valid if it measures what it has been designed to
measure, for example, a test of intelligence should measure intelligence and not
Content validity is concerned with whether or not the actual content of the items on a
test “makes sense” in terms of the construct being measured.
Face validity is not actually a “valid” form of validity at all – it is concerned with
whether the measure seems to be valid to those who are taking it, and it is important only
in the sense that we want those taking our tests and filling out our surveys to take the task
Criterion validity is concerned with whether the measure (a) can accurately forecast
some future behaviour or (b) is meaningfully related to some other measure of behaviour
– for example, for an IQ test to be useful it should (a) do a reasonably good job of
predicting how well a child will do in school and (b) produce results similar to those
produced by other known measures of intelligent behaviour – the criterion variables for
the previous example would be (a) future grades in school and (b) scores on an already
established test for intelligence.
Construct validity concerns whether a test adequately measures some construct, and it
connects directly with the operational definition – for example, aggression is a construct
that in a particular study might be operationally defined as the number of shocks that
subjects believe they are delivering to another subject – it relates to whether a particular
measurement truly measures the construct.
You're Reading a Preview
Unlock to view full version