Each method comes at the problem of figuring out the source of error in the test somewhat differently. For instance, let's say you had observations that were being rated by two raters.
The major difference is that parallel forms are constructed so that the two forms can be used independent of each other and considered equivalent measures. Test-retest reliability evaluates reliability across time. Some clever mathematician Cronbach, I presume.
Both the parallel forms and all of the internal consistency estimators have one major constraint -- you have to have multiple items designed to measure the same construct.
In the example it is.
One way to accomplish this is to create a large set of questions that address the same construct and then randomly divide the questions into two sets. How long will it take to administer. Scales which measured weight differently each time would be of little use. Manual for the beck depression inventory The Psychological Corporation.
Test-Retest Reliability Used to assess the consistency of a measure from one time to another. The split-half method is a quick and easy way to establish reliability. It can be used to calibrate people, for example those being used as observers in an experiment.
Administering one form of the test to a group of individuals At some later time, administering an alternate form of the same test to the same group of people Correlating scores on form A with scores on form B The correlation between scores on the two alternate forms is used to estimate the reliability of the test.
The other major way to estimate inter-rater reliability is appropriate when the measure is a continuous one. One way to accomplish this is to create a large set of questions that address the same construct and then randomly divide the questions into two sets.
Although this was not an estimate of reliability, it probably went a long way toward improving the reliability between raters. In these designs you always have a control group that is measured on two occasions pretest and posttest.
Test-Retest Reliability We estimate test-retest reliability when we administer the same test to the same sample on two different occasions.
On the other hand, in some studies it is reasonable to do both to help establish the reliability of the raters or observers.
You probably should establish inter-rater reliability outside of the context of the measurement in your study. There are a wide variety of internal consistency measures that can be used. Since reliability estimates are often used in statistical analyses of quasi-experimental designs e.
If the stakeholders do not believe the measure is an accurate assessment of the ability, they may become disengaged with the task. The amount of time allowed between measures is critical. Different questions that test the same construct should give consistent results. Establishing validity and reliability in qualitative research can be less precise, though participant/member checks, peer evaluation (another researcher checks the researcher’s inferences based on the instrument (Denzin & Lincoln, ), and multiple methods (keyword: triangulation), are convincingly used.
Some qualitative researchers reject. Test-Retest Reliability Used to assess the consistency of a measure from one time to another.
Parallel-Forms Reliability Used to assess the consistency of the results of two tests constructed in the same way from the same content domain. Internal Consistency Reliability Used to assess the consistency of results across items within a test. In simple terms, research reliability is the degree to which research method produces stable and consistent results.
A specific measure is considered to be reliable if its application on the same object of measurement number of times produces the same results.
Types of Reliability At Research Methods Knowledge Base, they review four different types of reliability. However, inter-rater reliability is not generally a part of survey research, as this refers to the ability of two human raters/observers to correctly provide a quantitate score for a given phenomenon.
Because of this, there a variety of different types of reliability that each have multiple ways to estimate reliability for that type.
In the end, it's important to integrate the idea of reliability with the other major criteria for the quality of measurement -- validity -- and develop an understanding of the relationships between reliability. 'Reliability' of any research is the degree to which it gives an accurate score across a range of measurement.
It can thus be viewed as .Types of reliability in research methods