Difference From Validity
Reliability does not imply validity. That is, a reliable measure that is measuring something consistently, may not be measuring what you want to be measuring. For example, while there are many reliable tests of specific abilities, not all of them would be valid for predicting, say, job performance. In terms of accuracy and precision, reliability is analogous to precision, while validity is analogous to accuracy.
While reliability does not imply validity, a lack of reliability does place a limit on the overall validity of a test. A test that is not perfectly reliable cannot be perfectly valid, either as a means of measuring attributes of a person or as a means of predicting scores on a criterion. While a reliable test may provide useful valid information, a test that is not reliable cannot possibly be valid.
An example often used to illustrate the difference between reliability and validity in the experimental sciences involves a common bathroom scale. If someone who is 200 pounds steps on a scale 10 times and gets readings of 15, 250, 95, 140, etc., the scale is not reliable. If the scale consistently reads "150", then it is reliable, but not valid. If it reads "200" each time, then the measurement is both reliable and valid.
Read more about this topic: Reliability (psychometrics)
Famous quotes containing the words difference and/or validity:
“In everyone there sleeps
A sense of life lived according to love.
To some it means the difference they could make
By loving others, but across most it sweeps
As all they might have done had they been loved.
That nothing cures.”
—Philip Larkin (1922–1986)
“The hardiest skeptic who has seen a horse broken, a pointer trained, or has visited a menagerie or the exhibition of the Industrious Fleas, will not deny the validity of education. “A boy,” says Plato, “is the most vicious of all beasts;” and in the same spirit the old English poet Gascoigne says, “A boy is better unborn than untaught.””
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)