Validity and Reliability (1 Viewer)

[googled]

Can anyone explain to me the difference between validity and reliability please?

I'm a little confused between them. Is it possible that an unreliable experiment be valid? How so?

Thanks so much people,
Take Care

 

[googled]

NB: validity and reliability in chemistry

 

[Ankita]

wow....good question!

i know there is a difference i just can't figure out what.
I think....validity is when u produce desired results in an experiment
reliability..is if u get that same result when u repeat the experiment...OH
its the same as accurate and precise... i think (sum1 correct me if im wrong)
accurate is when u average ur results u get an "accurate" or a more correct answer and precise is when u repeat the experiment and get results that are similar or same but not accurate.... or right as such
so an experiment can be precise but not accurate or it can be both...
sry...bit confusing, but hope that helps!

 

[googled]

...bit confusing, but hope that helps!

It does a little, thanks heaps for taking the time. Eeek, this stuff is like learning variables

 

[pLuvia]

From Wikipedia

Validity
Reliability

 

[Riviet]

When considering the validity of your procedure, ask yourself: "Am I doing what I said I would be doing?" If your answer is yes, then your method is valid.

Reliability is dependent on how consistent your results are, disregarding the accuracy. It is possible to have inaccurate results that are reliable.

 

[shinji]

Validity : is what your doing going towards the aim of the experiment. Are you testing what your testing.

Reliability : how reliable the results your collect are. Repetition increases the reliability of the results collected. <-- that is always useful to remember. always comes in exams. "How can you improve the reliability from the results obtained".

 

[*Maggz*]

Reliability is how consistent your data is when repeated
Validity is when your variables are properly controlled and actually tests hypothesis.

Also, your experiment cannot be valid unless it is reliable.

 

[googled]

So can an experiment have low reliability but still be valid due to the process used? If you have tested what you said you would test, but you haven't repeated it, is it still valid?

 

[Riviet]

So can an experiment have low reliability but still be valid due to the process used? If you have tested what you said you would test, but you haven't repeated it, is it still valid?

Yes and yes in my opinion, because repeating an experiment affects reliability and the accuracy to an extent. However, repeating an experiment or measurement shouldn't affect the validity unless you change your method, then it would lose validity because you're doing something different.

 

[m0ofin]

Oh dear (lol, I know this is very irrelevant to you) but for some twisted reason I though this was Economics ahaha.

 

[marchetta]

Reliability is used to describe whether or not the results of research would be the same if repeated.
Validity is used to describe whether or not the results of the research have been obtained correctly.

 

[~shinigami~]

Damn, I wished I read this thread earlier. My Physics assessment had a question about Validity and Reliability. I just BS'd it though about repeating the experiment etc

 

[~::UAI::~]

reliabilty- repetition of experiment and well control of variables
Vaildity - using the most accurate measurement and well control of variable
so a experiment can be
reliable and not vaild
vaild and not reliable
BUt you'll always aim to achieve those 2 ..