A minimum of 100 words each and References Response (#1 – 6) KEEP RESPONSE WITH ANSWER EACH ANSWER NEED TO HAVE A SCHOLARY SOURCE with a Hyperlink
Make sure the Responses includes the Following: (a) an understanding of the weekly content as supported by a scholarly resource, (b) the provision of a probing question. (c) stay on topic
1. Test-retest is when data is gathered at two separate times and the data is consistent (Myers, & Hansen, (2012). inter-rater reliability is the rate of reliability that an observer has. Content validity is the level with which the data gathered reflects that content (Myers, & Hansen, (2012). Predictive validity is the rate that a behavior or action can be predicted accurately (Myers, & Hansen, (2012). Construct validity is a functioning definition that serves the structure being manipulated or measured (Myers, & Hansen, (2012).. Internal validity is verifying that observed changes in an experiment were caused by an independent variable. External validity is when the findings of an experiment are applicable to other areas that were not included in testing (Myers, & Hansen, (2012).
2. Construct validity is considered the most important aspect of validity. This validity is concerned with the transition from theory to research application which makes it different from the other forms of validity (Myers & Hansen, 2012). When I think about the test-retest it shows consistency. Since test-retest reliability is considered reliable, when the test is taken more than once, the results should be about the same even if conducted in different people. This is what happens with reliable measures (Myers & Hansen, 2012). With construct validity, a researcher wants to make sure the measuring device measures the construct that is going to be tested (Myers & Hansen, 2012).
3. Nice response to the DQ! All of these designs have there own framework that incorporate a difference setting that seems to be inferior to its perspective and dependent of the next or opposite. How are you able to decipher the their context? And can a test really become reliable without validation or can it just be valid without reliability? Per our e-book Internal and external validity are the most important concept in experimentation (Myers & Hansen, 2012), because they both determine validation, which is proper to produce a study. I say this because the difference between internal validity and external validity is; internal validity refers to the structure (how organized, shaped and formed of true data is) of a study and its variables; while external validity relates to how universal (how worldwide, widespread, general, or common the results are (Myers, & Hansen, 2012). And to my discernment, each of these designs that we are studying have its pros and cons and they each have role in how a study must be conducted to structure a proper study. Just my break-down of how they seem to work. What is your stance of the perspective?
4. Test-retest reliability is when the scores between individuals ae taken at two or more different times and they are consistent. Interrater reliability is the extent of agreement that different observers or raters have. Content validity is the level in which the content of a measure will reflect the content of what is being measured. Predictive validity is when an actual behavior or performance is predicted. The degree of this measure is done using an instrument that yields the information. Construct validity is an operational definition that accurately represents the construct that is intended to manipulate or measure. Internal validity is being certain that changes in behavior that are observed across treatment conditions in an experiment were caused by the variable which was independent. External validity is when an experiment’s findings apply to people and settings that were not directly tested (Myers & Hansen, 2012).
A test can be reliable without being valid. A test cannot be valid unless it is reliable. An assessment of the test can provide the researcher with consistent results which will make it reliable, but unless it is measuring what you are supposed to measure, it is not valid. Reliable procedures have outcomes that are dependable and consistent (Myers & Hansen, 2012).
5. Hope all is well. Experimental research is when a scientist can control the indicator variable and subjects to distinguish a circumstances and logical results relationship. This ordinarily requires the examination to be directed in a lab, with one gathering being set in an experimental group, or the ones being controlled, while the other is put in a placebo group, or dormant condition or non-controlled gathering. A research facility based trial gives an abnormal state of control and unwavering quality.
6. Experimental research occurs when a researcher controls the predictor variable together with the subject so as to recognize a cause-effect relationship. The predictor variable is the section of the experiment which usually changed to see whether it has an effect on the variable which is dependent thus the researcher is able to have a definite conclusion. Predictor variables are used in a model to predict a response or dependent variable (Peter & Andrew, 2017). While in non-experimental research, the researcher does not have the ability to control the predictor variable thus relies on observations and interactions to make his own conclusion on the cause-effect relationship, this means that the researcher cannot be certain with the conclusion he comes up with concerning the cause and effect relationship.
Non experimental research often takes place in real life situations that is why the researcher is unable to control or manipulate all the dependent variable unlike in experimental research which does not usually take place in real life occurrences. Non experimental research tends to be more flexible than experimental research because it allows for a wider range of topics to be studied since there is no need of dependent variables to be controlled.
Causality basically means the cause and effect relationship between the predictor variable and the dependent variable. Experiments have a role in assessing causality although non experimental research poses a challenge in determining the causality of variables since the researcher only depends on observation and interactions and cannot alter the predictor variable to get the definite effect between the variables thus the researcher cannot be sure with the results. Experimental research do a better role of assessing causality than non-experimental research since the researcher is able to manipulate the real predictor variable and determines whether the predictor has an effect on the dependent variable or not.