Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Generalizability theory, or G theory, is a statistical framework for conceptualizing, investigating, and designing reliable observations. It is used to determine the reliability (i.e., reproducibility) of measurements under specific conditions. It is particularly useful for assessing the reliability of performance assessments.
For example, the proportion of false positives increases to a value between 55.2% and 57.6% when calculated with the estimates of an average power between 34.1% and 36.4% for psychology studies, as provided by Stanley and colleagues in their analysis of 200 meta-analyses in the field. [15]
Research in psychology experiments attempted in universities is often criticized for being conducted in artificial situations and that it cannot be generalized to real life. [ 21 ] [ 22 ] To solve this problem, social psychologists attempt to increase the generalizability of their results by making their studies as realistic as possible.
Any psychology that is sufficiently narrow to accommodate this level of multiple realizability required to account for neural plasticity will almost certainly not be general enough to capture the generalizations needed to explain human psychology. Some reductionists [2] reply that this is not empirically plausible. Research and experimentation ...
Inter-method reliability assesses the degree to which test scores are consistent when there is a variation in the methods or instruments used. This allows inter-rater reliability to be ruled out. This allows inter-rater reliability to be ruled out.
Reliability is supposed to say something about the general quality of the test scores in question. The general idea is that, the higher reliability is, the better. Classical test theory does not say how high reliability is supposed to be. Too high a value for , say over .9, indicates redundancy of items.
Another example highlighting the differences between these terms is from an experiment that studied pointing [7] —a trait originally attributed uniquely to humans—in captive chimpanzees. This study certainly had external validity because when testing if captive chimps will gesture towards food by pointing, the results were reproduced in ...
This is not the same as reliability, which is the extent to which a measurement gives results that are very consistent. Within validity, the measurement does not always have to be similar, as it does in reliability. However, just because a measure is reliable, it is not necessarily valid. E.g. a scale that is 5 pounds off is reliable but not valid.