Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report medical-site.info PDF. Research made simple. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Free Concepts such as reliability, validity and generalisability typically associated with quantitative Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Fundamental concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability as applicable to qualitative research are then addressed with an update on the current views.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
PDF | Validity and reliability are key aspects of all research. Meticulous attention to these two aspects can make the difference between good research and poor. PDF | Both qualitative and quantitative paradigms try to find the same result; the truth. Qualitative studies are tools used in understanding and describing the. PDF | This article discusses the problems of validity and reliability in qualitative research within education and relates this discussion to Africa. A main concern is .
Essentially it is concerned with whether we would obtain the same results if we could observe the same thing twice. But we can't actually measure the same thing twice -- by definition if we are measuring twice, we are measuring two different things. In order to estimate reliability, quantitative researchers construct various hypothetical notions e.
The idea of dependability, on the other hand, emphasizes the need for the researcher to account for the ever-changing context within which research occurs. The research is responsible for describing the changes that occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the study.
Confirmability Qualitative research tends to assume that each researcher brings a unique perspective to the study. Confirmability refers to the degree to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others. There are a number of strategies for enhancing confirmability.
The researcher can document the procedures for checking and rechecking the data throughout the study. Another researcher can take a "devil's advocate" role with respect to the results, and this process can be documented.
The researcher can actively search for and describe and negative instances that contradict prior observations. And, after he study, one can conduct a data audit that examines the data collection and analysis procedures and makes judgements about the potential for bias or distortion. There has been considerable debate among methodologists about the value and legitimacy of this alternative set of standards for judging qualitative research.
On the one hand, many quantitative researchers see the alternative criteria as just a relabeling of the very successful quantitative criteria in order to accrue greater legitimacy for qualitative research. They suggest that a correct reading of the quantitative criteria would show that they are not limited to quantitative research alone and can be applied equally well to qualitative data.
They argue that the alternative criteria represent a different philosophical perspective that is subjectivist rather than realist in nature. They claim that research inherently assumes that there is some reality that is being observed and can be observed with greater or less accuracy or validity.
Are the directions clear? How easy is it to score? Do equivalent forms exist? Have any problems been reported by others who used it? It is best to use an existing instrument, one that has been developed and tested numerous times, such as can be found in the Mental Measurements Yearbook. We will turn to why next. Part II: Validity Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure and performs as it is designed to perform.
As a process, validation involves collecting and analyzing data to assess the accuracy of an instrument. There are numerous statistical tests and measures to assess the validity of quantitative instruments, which generally involves pilot testing. The remainder of this discussion focuses on external validity and content validity.
External validity is the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized from a sample to a population. Establishing eternal validity for an instrument, then, follows directly from sampling.
Recall that a sample should be an accurate representation of a population, because the total population may not be available. An instrument that is externally valid helps obtain population generalizability, or the degree to which a sample represents the population.
Content validity refers to the appropriateness of the content of an instrument. In other words, do the measures questions, observation logs, etc. This is particularly important with achievement tests. Consider that a test developer wants to maximize the validity of a unit test for 7th grade mathematics.