During the data collection process

During the data collection process, it is important for measuring devices and tests that are used to be reliable and valid. For the same reasons that you shouldn’t use algebra tests to assess verbal knowledge, it is not a good idea to use a measuring device that doesn’t truly measure what it claims during your research. The purpose, after all, of research is to either support or negate the theory in question. If the research and/or data collection processes are unreliable, then the analyzation of the collected data will be incorrect. The concepts of Reliability and Validity differ. Validity is useful to extrapolate correct information from research and scores. Basically, it means that validity shows how effective a test measures it’s supposed measurements. Producing consistent -and consistently stable- results refers to Reliability. Reliability can be defined as the degree of which an instrument produces consistent results. A survey is a common term for Instrument. Validity is required as well, if a test is going to be considered reliable. In many variables that are either difficult to measure, or in some way artificial, the idea of validity is much more complex. The list of additional constructs covers practically any and all human emotions, such as anger, motivation, and depression. If a construct is difficult to define, the measuring the construct will be even more difficult.
Construct validity is a term that is used to describe the test that measures the accuracy of a construct. There are many types of construct validity that are important to consider. Concurrent validity, predictive validity, and content validity will be discussed below. Cornball and Meehl (1995) invented Construct validity. Construct validity is the amount that a test describes a certain theoretical trait or construct. This type of validity bleeds trough slightly into some of the different aspects of Validity. Not included in construct validity, however, is the question, in its simplest and most factual form, of whether or not a test measures an attribute. The complex question it asks instead, involves the consistency of test score interpretations with a nomological network, including theoretical and observational terms (Cronbach ; Meehl, 1995) To prove construct validity, first it should be shown that the subject being measured actually exists. As an example, a test of intelligence would depend on a model or theory of intelligence. Showing that a construct has the ability to explain a network of research findings, with the ability to predict further relationships encompasses construct validity. When it comes to evidence that a researcher has demonstrating a test’s construct validity, the more the merrier. There exists, however, no single method by which to determine the construct validity of a test. Because of that, different approaches and methods get combined together to ultimately show the overall construct validity of a test. Fear analysis and methods of correlation can be used as an example.
Concurrent Validity. This refers to the ability of a measurement device to vary closely with a construct of the same measurement, or vary inversely with the measurement of an opposing construct. It helps to show that a test is valid when compared to a test that is already found to be valid. Using intelligence test again as an example, an older, proven test should have a high positive correlation with any new test that is being considered, as this shows concurrent validity. An obvious problem with that is that any concerns that have been raised against the old test, will affect the new test as well. For an example, many people believe that the Wechsler scales, for example, are a poor measure of intelligence. This is the degree of accuracy by which a test is able to predict criterion that will happen in the future. As an example, “children who score high on a new intelligence test stand a higher chance of getting college degrees several years down the road” could be a new prediction on the basis of that new test, however the predictive validity only exists if the prediction comes true.
Content Validity. This form of validity deals mainly with how well a test includes and represents all of a particular constructs content. “1+1=__” is a good basic addition question, but does it represent all of the aspects of mathematics? It could be used on a test of intelligence, but how well does it speak for off aspects of intelligence? Simply put, “no” is the obvious answer to the question. A proper intelligence test would not only include various math questions, it would also cover analytical reasoning, verbal language, and all other forms of the construct we consider intelligence. Expert opinion is the only real way to determine content validity.
Predictive Validity. A screening test for any certain future behavior can only be considered valid if have has predictive validity. Committees in charge of screening for colleges use to SAT as a major prediction for college grades. Business school uses the GMAT, while Law Schools predict possible student’s performance with the LSAT. The biggest concern for many predictive measures, including the above-mentioned ones, is predictive validity simply because without it, they would be worthless. As mentioned above, this is the degree of accuracy to which a test can predict which criterion is likely to happen in the future.
Clinical psychologists have a large number of jobs that they must do help people inflicted with all kinds of issues. During the clinical interview, which is most often the first meeting with a client, the psychologist will ask a variety of questions to help determine what kinds of issues the client is facing. Also, the psychologist will use this meeting as an opportunity to decide on the best mode of treatment. Possibly the biggest role for a psychologist is to perform clinical assessments as a way of figuring out whether a patient is dealing with a behavioral or psychological disorder. Family history, employment, social life, previous experience with treatments, as well as financial situations and other factors that effect health and well-being are all information that a psychologist gathers. With this information, the psychologist uses the assessment to build an in-depth portrait of the client’s life. This helps with narrowing down and verifying the diagnosis as well as what course the patient’s treatment should take. Nondirective Interview; During this kind of interview, the psychologist’s questions do not have a prearranged guideline or narrative. Also called unstructured, the interviews simply don’t have a set format. This inherent lack of structure lets the psychologist ask any questions that they think of during the course of the interview. One of the largest differences that separate a structured from a non-structured interviews session is the lack of prepared questions. This is also used by people interviewing for a job opening. The hiring authority might ask an open-ended question, then use the applicant’s answer as a spring board to ask additional, slightly more narrowed down, questions. One of the most common beginning questions is “Tell me/us about yourself”. This tends to help foster a more inviting atmosphere for the applicant, which in turn helps the interviewer get a more realistic answer. A Non-directive Interview gives greater control of the direction of the interview to the interviewer, as well. This is useful to any interviewers who wish to assess a candidate’s on-the-spot leadership, or their assertiveness. All that being said, not having a lot of structure may not have a beneficial effect for the interviewer if the applicant doesn’t wish to communicate openly, or is unable to guide the interview with their answers. Another thing that the interviewer must keep in mind is that it will be harder to verify that all important topics get covered during the interview. Additionally, another concern is that different applicants may get different questions, which will make it harder to verify that the best candidate has been chosen. Not to mention that different questions for different applicants might lead to accusations of discrimination. Nondirective Interviews aren’t as easy to defend during hiring practice lawsuits as Directed Interviews are, according to small-business resource HR unlimited. The avoidance of the why question is usually based on the theory that patients and potential employees puts them on the defensive. The “why” questions make people feel that they need to explain themselves and they begin to feel uncomfortable. All questions can be posed in such a way that “why” is never brought up. `Why questions require an in-depth answer, the person has to come up with a reason.
The clinical instrument that is given on an individual basis to assess the cognitive ability of children age ranged from 6 years up to 16 years and 11 months is called the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). This test entails subtests with composite scoring that represent functioning intelligence in specific cognitive domains. Also, it shows a composite score that represents general intellectual ability. The test usually takes about two hours to complete, sometimes a little less. Scoring the results and formulating a report is the job of a licensed psychologist and can . School teachers will sometimes suggest a student take the WISC if he/she notices an inconsistency with the student’s work or if they struggle to understand the school grade appropriate schoolwork. The WISC test shows a child’s potential, ability, as well as their learning ability. The WISC test can be used as a comprehensive psychological assessment for education. Many times, psychologists will use an achievement-based test, an example of which being the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Second Edition (WIAT-II), along with the WISC to completely observe a student’s personal learning profile. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is an IQ test that is used to measure cognitive ability and intelligence in older adolescents and adults. Presently, the WAIS is in it’s fourth iteration. It was released by Pearson in 2008, and today is possibly the most widely used IQ tests in the world. Due to the fact that they gathered tasks that were originally created for nonclinical reasons and used them as a “clinical test battery”, the Wechsler–Bellevue tests have been considered pioneering since the 1930’s. Instead of the age scale, they included a non-verbal performance scale, and used the point scale.
The major benefits are that it is useful in identifying learning disabilities, identifies learning and reading issues, helps to understanding an individual’s specific learning profile. When it identifies of gifted children, the WAIS assists Schools in making suitable accommodations and helps to create plans that are tailored to the individual student’s learning methods. It also has the ability to help find learning processes, which encompasses weaknesses as well as strengths along with the effect they will have on a student’s performance.
Generally, the issue with taking IQ tests is that it does not give a full picture of the taker’s IQ. The Standford-Binet Intelligence Scales and the Wechsler Test, both of which are commonly as a way to score IQ, use a scale of roughly 70 to 165, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine. However, the results are sometimes inconclusive. The scale used by an IQ test is created by grading the answers to the test questions and then coming up with a numerical representation of the student or individual’s intelligence. The downside is that one number is not able to represent a person’s complete intelligence, or “Unfortunately, that one number cannot possibly detail the breadth of someone’s intelligence”, as the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders puts it. It is simply not an accurate to assign a number to a person, regardless of age, and have that one number represent the general intelligence and knowledge of academic subjects. More so, low IQ test scores have the ability to stunt a child’s ambitions simply because of the one low score that they make get stuck with. The opposite of that it true as well; a person who score high on an IQ test does not inherently have access to a better caliber of life. Simply put, IQ tests have been found to be a poor tool to use to foreshadow a person’s social, economic, or vocational success.