The reliability of an instrument contributes to the level of usability for empirical research (Whiston, 2009). Further, it refers to the replicability andstability of a measurement and whether it will result in the same assessment in the same individuals when repeated (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). When determining the reliability of an assessment, a reliability coefficient of at least .80 indicates a trustworthy level of reliability (Trochim, 2006).
When multiple people are given assessments of some kind or are the subjects of some test, then similar people under the same circumstances should lead to scores that are similar or duplicates ("Types Of Reliability", 2011). This is the idea of inter-rater reliability. Another mode of reliability is the administration of the same test among different participants and expecting the same or similar results ("Types Of Reliability", 2011). This is known as Test-retest reliability. This method of measurement might be used to make determinations about the effectiveness of a school exam or personality test ("Types Of Reliability", 2011). Surveys and other methods of research present the appropriate avenues for data collection.
Reliability describes the consistency of a measurement method within a study. (Burns & Grove, 2011) In critiquing the reliability of the Brunner et al. (2012) article, the study was completed at a large urban hospital using three critical care units and two acute care units. The two skin care products were randomly assigned to the participants. The sample size goal in each group was to be 100 participants. Results of the study included that only 64 participants were enrolled. The article written by Brunner et al. (2012) was not reliable for measurement methods. The study is not described in great detail, does not have evidence of accuracy, and has a lack of participants.
The theory of reliability states that it is impossible to calculate the reliability of a study in an exact way. Instead, reliability is estimated and this creates an imperfection in research. There are four major types of reliability. The first is inter-rater or inter-observer reliability. This means the reliability that is used to assess the degree to which the different people who are observing or rating the items being studied give estimates that are consistent regarding the same phenomenon. A good example is the popular example of a glass half empty and one that is half full. This is to mean that people who are in essence similar in every nature may have different ideas or views of the same phenomenon. This kind of reliability is estimated by using a pilot study which is used to establish the expected reliability in the main study(Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2012).
There is no specific section discussing reliability and validity in this study. Although there was no specific section or heading, throughout this study, the authors did consult with the advisory committee at multiple points and the authors do lists that as a limitation that this study is not generalizable. Main findings were also discussed and verified with the community advisory committee for accuracy of
The Fugl-Myer assessment had a good inter-rater reliability. Its ICCs ranged from .93 to 1.000. The test-retest reliability with an interval of two weeks, the ICCs were .834 to .972 which was also good.
9. The researchers stated that no significant relationship could be described between Hamstring strength indices 60°/s and functional stability. Given the data in Table 5, explain why not.
| Based on explicit knowledge and this can be easy and fast to capture and analyse.Results can be generalised to larger populationsCan be repeated – therefore good test re-test reliability and validityStatistical analyses and interpretation are
At the time of testing Jack, a male, was three years, three months, and thirteen days old. For the auditory comprehension portion of the assessment, he had a raw score of 42 and a standard score of 108. Based on the confidence interval, we are 95% confident that his true standard score falls between 99 and 115. These scores indicated a 70% percentile rank. Based on the standard score, we are 95% confident that his true percentile rank does fall between 47 and 84. His age equivalent for the auditory comprehension section was 3 years and 7 months. For the expressive communication portions of the assessment, he had a raw score of 40 and a standard score of 104. We are 95% confident that his true score falls between 97 and 111. His percentile rank for that section was 61%. Based on the standard score, we are 95% confident that his true percentile rank falls between 42 and 77. His age equivalent for the expressive communication section was 3 years and 6 months. The standard score total, which combined his auditory comprehension standard score with his expressive communication standard score was 212. His total raw score was 82. His overall standard score was 106. We are 95% confident that his true score falls between 99 and 112. His total percentile rank was 66%. Based on the total standard score, we are 95% confident that his true percentile rank falls between 47 to 79. His
The instrument used is questionnaire and chi-square is used to test the relationship between the variables, which has proven that there is a
Cohen’s Kappa states: where Pr(a) is the observed agreement among raters, and Pr(e) is the conjectural likelihood of chance agreement, using the observed data to calculate the probabilities of the raters hypothetically choosing each category. With this calculation, if the raters are in complete agreement then