Evaluation Of Technical Quality Is Due
Evaluation Of Technical Quality Is Due
Your second course assignment, Evaluation of Technical Quality, is due at the end of Unit 5. This assignment includes searching peer-reviewed journal articles for research on your selected test's psychometrics, which includes evidence of reliability. For this discussion, describe one journal article's findings on reliability. In your post, synthesize the following data and information and interpret it yourself based on the information you are learning about reliability in this course. The specific type of reliability, the associated source of error it addresses, and the author's overall interpretation of the results. You are not required to report the reliability coefficient (statistic) reported in the journal article. Be sure to include any difficulties you may be experiencing with searching for information in the peer-reviewed journal articles.
Paper For Above instruction
The assessment of reliability in psychological and educational testing is fundamental to ensuring that the results obtained are consistent and dependable across different contexts and administrations. Reliability refers to the degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and consistent results, and understanding its different types and sources of error is critical for interpreting test outcomes accurately. In this paper, I will discuss a peer-reviewed journal article that investigates the reliability of a specific psychological test, highlighting the type of reliability examined, the associated sources of error, and the researcher's interpretation of their findings. Additionally, I will reflect on the challenges faced during the search for relevant scholarly articles, which is an essential skill for conducting evidence-based research and validation studies.
Introduction
Reliability is a cornerstone concept in psychometric evaluation, ensuring that measurements are not random or inconsistent but rather reflect true scores with minimal error. Psychometric properties, such as reliability, help practitioners determine the test's usefulness for screening, diagnosis, or evaluation purposes. Different types of reliability include test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, parallel-forms reliability, and internal consistency reliability, each addressing specific sources of measurement error. Understanding these categories enables researchers and practitioners to select appropriate tools and properly interpret the data derived from assessments.
Type of Reliability and Source of Error
The journal article reviewed in this discussion focuses on internal consistency reliability, which examines the extent to which items within a test are correlated, indicating that they measure the same underlying construct. This form of reliability addresses error due to inconsistent or poorly related test items, which can produce unreliable results. The source of error in internal consistency often stems from poorly constructed items, ambiguous wording, or items that tap into different constructs rather than a single domain. By evaluating the internal consistency coefficient, such as Cronbach's alpha, researchers can assess how cohesively the items function collectively, and make adjustments to improve the test’s reliability.
Author's Interpretation of the Results
In the peer-reviewed article, the authors interpret their findings as supportive of the test's high internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha approaching 0.90, indicating excellent reliability. They emphasize that the test demonstrates stability across different items and is suitable for research and clinical applications. The authors also discuss potential limitations, such as the homogeneity of their sample and the need for further validation across diverse populations. They conclude that, despite these considerations, the test exhibits robust internal consistency, reinforcing its credibility as a reliable measurement tool.
Difficulties Encountered in Searching for Journal Articles
Searching for peer-reviewed journal articles posed several challenges. First, filtering relevant studies required careful selection of keywords related to the specific test and reliability types, which sometimes returned an overwhelming volume of results. Navigating database interfaces and applying appropriate filters, such as publication date and peer-review status, was time-consuming. Additionally, access to full-text articles was limited by subscription barriers, necessitating institutional access or alternative search strategies. These difficulties highlight the importance of developing effective search skills and familiarizing oneself with database functionalities to efficiently gather high-quality evidence.
Conclusion
The evaluation of reliability through peer-reviewed research provides essential evidence for the psychometric soundness of assessment tools. Understanding the specific type of reliability and its associated errors allows practitioners to interpret results with greater confidence. Although searching for scholarly articles can be challenging, developing proficient search strategies is vital for evidence-based practice. Overall, the journal article reviewed demonstrates that carefully examining reliability enhances the credibility and usability of psychological tests in research and clinical settings.
References
- Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Psychology. Psychological Reports, 122(s3), 645–661.
- Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications.
- Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage Publications.
- Kline, P. (2013). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. Routledge.
- DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications.
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
- Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (2012). Handbook of Self and Identity. Guilford Publications.
- Deets, S. A., & Miller, R. P. (2014). Reliability and Validity in Assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(4), 557–572.
- Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill.
- Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353.