what makes a research article valid

Frequently Asked Questions

What is reliability and validity in research.

Reliability in research refers to the consistency and stability of measurements or findings. Validity relates to the accuracy and truthfulness of results, measuring what the study intends to. Both are crucial for trustworthy and credible research outcomes.

What is validity?

Validity in research refers to the extent to which a study accurately measures what it intends to measure. It ensures that the results are truly representative of the phenomena under investigation. Without validity, research findings may be irrelevant, misleading, or incorrect, limiting their applicability and credibility.

What is reliability?

Reliability in research refers to the consistency and stability of measurements over time. If a study is reliable, repeating the experiment or test under the same conditions should produce similar results. Without reliability, findings become unpredictable and lack dependability, potentially undermining the study’s credibility and generalisability.

What is reliability in psychology?

In psychology, reliability refers to the consistency of a measurement tool or test. A reliable psychological assessment produces stable and consistent results across different times, situations, or raters. It ensures that an instrument’s scores are not due to random error, making the findings dependable and reproducible in similar conditions.

What is test retest reliability?

Test-retest reliability assesses the consistency of measurements taken by a test over time. It involves administering the same test to the same participants at two different points in time and comparing the results. A high correlation between the scores indicates that the test produces stable and consistent results over time.

How to improve reliability of an experiment?

• Standardise procedures and instructions.
• Use consistent and precise measurement tools.
• Train observers or raters to reduce subjective judgments.
• Increase sample size to reduce random errors.
• Conduct pilot studies to refine methods.
• Repeat measurements or use multiple methods.
• Address potential sources of variability.

What is the difference between reliability and validity?

Reliability refers to the consistency and repeatability of measurements, ensuring results are stable over time. Validity indicates how well an instrument measures what it’s intended to measure, ensuring accuracy and relevance. While a test can be reliable without being valid, a valid test must inherently be reliable. Both are essential for credible research.

Are interviews reliable and valid?

Interviews can be both reliable and valid, but they are susceptible to biases. The reliability and validity depend on the design, structure, and execution of the interview. Structured interviews with standardised questions improve reliability. Validity is enhanced when questions accurately capture the intended construct and when interviewer biases are minimised.

Are IQ tests valid and reliable?

IQ tests are generally considered reliable, producing consistent scores over time. Their validity, however, is a subject of debate. While they effectively measure certain cognitive skills, whether they capture the entirety of “intelligence” or predict success in all life areas is contested. Cultural bias and over-reliance on tests are also concerns.

Are questionnaires reliable and valid?

Questionnaires can be both reliable and valid if well-designed. Reliability is achieved when they produce consistent results over time or across similar populations. Validity is ensured when questions accurately measure the intended construct. However, factors like poorly phrased questions, respondent bias, and lack of standardisation can compromise their reliability and validity.

You May Also Like

In historical research, a researcher collects and analyse the data, and explain the events that occurred in the past to test the truthfulness of observations.

This article provides the key advantages of primary research over secondary research so you can make an informed decision.

Inductive and deductive reasoning takes into account assumptions and incidents. Here is all you need to know about inductive vs deductive reasoning.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Privacy Policy

Home » Validity – Types, Examples and Guide

Validity – Types, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Validity is a fundamental concept in research, referring to the extent to which a test, measurement, or study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. Ensuring validity is crucial as it determines the trustworthiness and credibility of the research findings.

Research Validity

Research validity pertains to the accuracy and truthfulness of the research. It examines whether the research truly measures what it claims to measure. Without validity, research results can be misleading or erroneous, leading to incorrect conclusions and potentially flawed applications.

How to Ensure Validity in Research

Ensuring validity in research involves several strategies:

• Clear Operational Definitions : Define variables clearly and precisely.
• Use of Reliable Instruments : Employ measurement tools that have been tested for reliability.
• Pilot Testing : Conduct preliminary studies to refine the research design and instruments.
• Triangulation : Use multiple methods or sources to cross-verify results.
• Control Variables : Control extraneous variables that might influence the outcomes.

Types of Validity

Validity is categorized into several types, each addressing different aspects of measurement accuracy.

Internal Validity

Internal validity refers to the degree to which the results of a study can be attributed to the treatments or interventions rather than other factors. It is about ensuring that the study is free from confounding variables that could affect the outcome.

External Validity

External validity concerns the extent to which the research findings can be generalized to other settings, populations, or times. High external validity means the results are applicable beyond the specific context of the study.

Construct Validity

Construct validity evaluates whether a test or instrument measures the theoretical construct it is intended to measure. It involves ensuring that the test is truly assessing the concept it claims to represent.

Content Validity

Content validity examines whether a test covers the entire range of the concept being measured. It ensures that the test items represent all facets of the concept.

Criterion Validity

Criterion validity assesses how well one measure predicts an outcome based on another measure. It is divided into two types:

• Predictive Validity : How well a test predicts future performance.
• Concurrent Validity : How well a test correlates with a currently existing measure.

Face Validity

Face validity refers to the extent to which a test appears to measure what it is supposed to measure, based on superficial inspection. While it is the least scientific measure of validity, it is important for ensuring that stakeholders believe in the test’s relevance.

Importance of Validity

Validity is crucial because it directly affects the credibility of research findings. Valid results ensure that conclusions drawn from research are accurate and can be trusted. This, in turn, influences the decisions and policies based on the research.

Examples of Validity

• Internal Validity : A randomized controlled trial (RCT) where the random assignment of participants helps eliminate biases.
• External Validity : A study on educational interventions that can be applied to different schools across various regions.
• Construct Validity : A psychological test that accurately measures depression levels.
• Content Validity : An exam that covers all topics taught in a course.
• Criterion Validity : A job performance test that predicts future job success.

Where to Write About Validity in A Thesis

In a thesis, the methodology section should include discussions about validity. Here, you explain how you ensured the validity of your research instruments and design. Additionally, you may discuss validity in the results section, interpreting how the validity of your measurements affects your findings.

Applications of Validity

Validity has wide applications across various fields:

• Education : Ensuring assessments accurately measure student learning.
• Psychology : Developing tests that correctly diagnose mental health conditions.
• Market Research : Creating surveys that accurately capture consumer preferences.

Limitations of Validity

While ensuring validity is essential, it has its limitations:

• Complexity : Achieving high validity can be complex and resource-intensive.
• Context-Specific : Some validity types may not be universally applicable across all contexts.
• Subjectivity : Certain types of validity, like face validity, involve subjective judgments.

By understanding and addressing these aspects of validity, researchers can enhance the quality and impact of their studies, leading to more reliable and actionable results.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Internal Validity – Threats, Examples and Guide

Reliability Vs Validity

Inter-Rater Reliability – Methods, Examples and...

Criterion Validity – Methods, Examples and...

Content Validity – Measurement and Examples

Split-Half Reliability – Methods, Examples and...

Validity in research: a guide to measuring the right things

Last updated

27 February 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Validity is necessary for all types of studies ranging from market validation of a business or product idea to the effectiveness of medical trials and procedures. So, how can you determine whether your research is valid? This guide can help you understand what validity is, the types of validity in research, and the factors that affect research validity.

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• What is validity?

In the most basic sense, validity is the quality of being based on truth or reason. Valid research strives to eliminate the effects of unrelated information and the circumstances under which evidence is collected. 

Validity in research is the ability to conduct an accurate study with the right tools and conditions to yield acceptable and reliable data that can be reproduced. Researchers rely on carefully calibrated tools for precise measurements. However, collecting accurate information can be more of a challenge.

Studies must be conducted in environments that don't sway the results to achieve and maintain validity. They can be compromised by asking the wrong questions or relying on limited data. 

Why is validity important in research?

Research is used to improve life for humans. Every product and discovery, from innovative medical breakthroughs to advanced new products, depends on accurate research to be dependable. Without it, the results couldn't be trusted, and products would likely fail. Businesses would lose money, and patients couldn't rely on medical treatments. 

While wasting money on a lousy product is a concern, lack of validity paints a much grimmer picture in the medical field or producing automobiles and airplanes, for example. Whether you're launching an exciting new product or conducting scientific research, validity can determine success and failure.

• What is reliability?

Reliability is the ability of a method to yield consistency. If the same result can be consistently achieved by using the same method to measure something, the measurement method is said to be reliable. For example, a thermometer that shows the same temperatures each time in a controlled environment is reliable.

While high reliability is a part of measuring validity, it's only part of the puzzle. If the reliable thermometer hasn't been properly calibrated and reliably measures temperatures two degrees too high, it doesn't provide a valid (accurate) measure of temperature. 

Similarly, if a researcher uses a thermometer to measure weight, the results won't be accurate because it's the wrong tool for the job. 

• How are reliability and validity assessed?

While measuring reliability is a part of measuring validity, there are distinct ways to assess both measurements for accuracy. 

How is reliability measured?

These measures of consistency and stability help assess reliability, including:

Consistency and stability of the same measure when repeated multiple times and conditions

Consistency and stability of the measure across different test subjects

Consistency and stability of results from different parts of a test designed to measure the same thing

How is validity measured?

Since validity refers to how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure, it can be difficult to assess the accuracy. Validity can be estimated by comparing research results to other relevant data or theories.

The adherence of a measure to existing knowledge of how the concept is measured

The ability to cover all aspects of the concept being measured

The relation of the result in comparison with other valid measures of the same concept

• What are the types of validity in a research design?

Research validity is broadly gathered into two groups: internal and external. Yet, this grouping doesn't clearly define the different types of validity. Research validity can be divided into seven distinct groups.

Face validity : A test that appears valid simply because of the appropriateness or relativity of the testing method, included information, or tools used.

Content validity : The determination that the measure used in research covers the full domain of the content.

Construct validity : The assessment of the suitability of the measurement tool to measure the activity being studied.

Internal validity : The assessment of how your research environment affects measurement results. This is where other factors can’t explain the extent of an observed cause-and-effect response.

External validity : The extent to which the study will be accurate beyond the sample and the level to which it can be generalized in other settings, populations, and measures.

Statistical conclusion validity: The determination of whether a relationship exists between procedures and outcomes (appropriate sampling and measuring procedures along with appropriate statistical tests).

Criterion-related validity : A measurement of the quality of your testing methods against a criterion measure (like a “gold standard” test) that is measured at the same time.

• Examples of validity

Like different types of research and the various ways to measure validity, examples of validity can vary widely. These include:

A questionnaire may be considered valid because each question addresses specific and relevant aspects of the study subject.

In a brand assessment study, researchers can use comparison testing to verify the results of an initial study. For example, the results from a focus group response about brand perception are considered more valid when the results match that of a questionnaire answered by current and potential customers.

A test to measure a class of students' understanding of the English language contains reading, writing, listening, and speaking components to cover the full scope of how language is used.

• Factors that affect research validity

Certain factors can affect research validity in both positive and negative ways. By understanding the factors that improve validity and those that threaten it, you can enhance the validity of your study. These include:

Random selection of participants vs. the selection of participants that are representative of your study criteria

Blinding with interventions the participants are unaware of (like the use of placebos)

Manipulating the experiment by inserting a variable that will change the results

Randomly assigning participants to treatment and control groups to avoid bias

Following specific procedures during the study to avoid unintended effects

Conducting a study in the field instead of a laboratory for more accurate results

Replicating the study with different factors or settings to compare results

Using statistical methods to adjust for inconclusive data

What are the common validity threats in research, and how can their effects be minimized or nullified?

Research validity can be difficult to achieve because of internal and external threats that produce inaccurate results. These factors can jeopardize validity.

History: Events that occur between an early and later measurement

Maturation: The passage of time in a study can include data on actions that would have naturally occurred outside of the settings of the study

Repeated testing: The outcome of repeated tests can change the outcome of followed tests

Selection of subjects: Unconscious bias which can result in the selection of uniform comparison groups

Statistical regression: Choosing subjects based on extremes doesn't yield an accurate outcome for the majority of individuals

Attrition: When the sample group is diminished significantly during the course of the study

Maturation: When subjects mature during the study, and natural maturation is awarded to the effects of the study

While some validity threats can be minimized or wholly nullified, removing all threats from a study is impossible. For example, random selection can remove unconscious bias and statistical regression. 

Researchers can even hope to avoid attrition by using smaller study groups. Yet, smaller study groups could potentially affect the research in other ways. The best practice for researchers to prevent validity threats is through careful environmental planning and t reliable data-gathering methods. 

• How to ensure validity in your research

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of validity in the early planning stages of any study to avoid inaccurate results. Researchers must take the time to consider tools and methods as well as how the testing environment matches closely with the natural environment in which results will be used.

The following steps can be used to ensure validity in research:

Choose appropriate methods of measurement

Use appropriate sampling to choose test subjects

Create an accurate testing environment

How do you maintain validity in research?

Accurate research is usually conducted over a period of time with different test subjects. To maintain validity across an entire study, you must take specific steps to ensure that gathered data has the same levels of accuracy. 

Consistency is crucial for maintaining validity in research. When researchers apply methods consistently and standardize the circumstances under which data is collected, validity can be maintained across the entire study.

Is there a need for validation of the research instrument before its implementation?

An essential part of validity is choosing the right research instrument or method for accurate results. Consider the thermometer that is reliable but still produces inaccurate results. You're unlikely to achieve research validity without activities like calibration, content, and construct validity.

• Understanding research validity for more accurate results

Without validity, research can't provide the accuracy necessary to deliver a useful study. By getting a clear understanding of validity in research, you can take steps to improve your research skills and achieve more accurate results.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 18, Issue 3
• Validity and reliability in quantitative studies
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Roberta Heale 1 ,
• Alison Twycross 2
• 1 School of Nursing, Laurentian University , Sudbury, Ontario , Canada
• 2 Faculty of Health and Social Care , London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to : Dr Roberta Heale, School of Nursing, Laurentian University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E2C6; rheale{at}laurentian.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Evidence-based practice includes, in part, implementation of the findings of well-conducted quality research studies. So being able to critique quantitative research is an important skill for nurses. Consideration must be given not only to the results of the study but also the rigour of the research. Rigour refers to the extent to which the researchers worked to enhance the quality of the studies. In quantitative research, this is achieved through measurement of the validity and reliability. 1

• View inline

Types of validity

The first category is content validity . This category looks at whether the instrument adequately covers all the content that it should with respect to the variable. In other words, does the instrument cover the entire domain related to the variable, or construct it was designed to measure? In an undergraduate nursing course with instruction about public health, an examination with content validity would cover all the content in the course with greater emphasis on the topics that had received greater coverage or more depth. A subset of content validity is face validity , where experts are asked their opinion about whether an instrument measures the concept intended.

Construct validity refers to whether you can draw inferences about test scores related to the concept being studied. For example, if a person has a high score on a survey that measures anxiety, does this person truly have a high degree of anxiety? In another example, a test of knowledge of medications that requires dosage calculations may instead be testing maths knowledge.

There are three types of evidence that can be used to demonstrate a research instrument has construct validity:

Homogeneity—meaning that the instrument measures one construct.

Convergence—this occurs when the instrument measures concepts similar to that of other instruments. Although if there are no similar instruments available this will not be possible to do.

Theory evidence—this is evident when behaviour is similar to theoretical propositions of the construct measured in the instrument. For example, when an instrument measures anxiety, one would expect to see that participants who score high on the instrument for anxiety also demonstrate symptoms of anxiety in their day-to-day lives. 2

The final measure of validity is criterion validity . A criterion is any other instrument that measures the same variable. Correlations can be conducted to determine the extent to which the different instruments measure the same variable. Criterion validity is measured in three ways:

Convergent validity—shows that an instrument is highly correlated with instruments measuring similar variables.

Divergent validity—shows that an instrument is poorly correlated to instruments that measure different variables. In this case, for example, there should be a low correlation between an instrument that measures motivation and one that measures self-efficacy.

Predictive validity—means that the instrument should have high correlations with future criterions. 2 For example, a score of high self-efficacy related to performing a task should predict the likelihood a participant completing the task.

Reliability

Reliability relates to the consistency of a measure. A participant completing an instrument meant to measure motivation should have approximately the same responses each time the test is completed. Although it is not possible to give an exact calculation of reliability, an estimate of reliability can be achieved through different measures. The three attributes of reliability are outlined in table 2 . How each attribute is tested for is described below.

Attributes of reliability

Homogeneity (internal consistency) is assessed using item-to-total correlation, split-half reliability, Kuder-Richardson coefficient and Cronbach's α. In split-half reliability, the results of a test, or instrument, are divided in half. Correlations are calculated comparing both halves. Strong correlations indicate high reliability, while weak correlations indicate the instrument may not be reliable. The Kuder-Richardson test is a more complicated version of the split-half test. In this process the average of all possible split half combinations is determined and a correlation between 0–1 is generated. This test is more accurate than the split-half test, but can only be completed on questions with two answers (eg, yes or no, 0 or 1). 3

Cronbach's α is the most commonly used test to determine the internal consistency of an instrument. In this test, the average of all correlations in every combination of split-halves is determined. Instruments with questions that have more than two responses can be used in this test. The Cronbach's α result is a number between 0 and 1. An acceptable reliability score is one that is 0.7 and higher. 1 , 3

Stability is tested using test–retest and parallel or alternate-form reliability testing. Test–retest reliability is assessed when an instrument is given to the same participants more than once under similar circumstances. A statistical comparison is made between participant's test scores for each of the times they have completed it. This provides an indication of the reliability of the instrument. Parallel-form reliability (or alternate-form reliability) is similar to test–retest reliability except that a different form of the original instrument is given to participants in subsequent tests. The domain, or concepts being tested are the same in both versions of the instrument but the wording of items is different. 2 For an instrument to demonstrate stability there should be a high correlation between the scores each time a participant completes the test. Generally speaking, a correlation coefficient of less than 0.3 signifies a weak correlation, 0.3–0.5 is moderate and greater than 0.5 is strong. 4

Equivalence is assessed through inter-rater reliability. This test includes a process for qualitatively determining the level of agreement between two or more observers. A good example of the process used in assessing inter-rater reliability is the scores of judges for a skating competition. The level of consistency across all judges in the scores given to skating participants is the measure of inter-rater reliability. An example in research is when researchers are asked to give a score for the relevancy of each item on an instrument. Consistency in their scores relates to the level of inter-rater reliability of the instrument.

Determining how rigorously the issues of reliability and validity have been addressed in a study is an essential component in the critique of research as well as influencing the decision about whether to implement of the study findings into nursing practice. In quantitative studies, rigour is determined through an evaluation of the validity and reliability of the tools or instruments utilised in the study. A good quality research study will provide evidence of how all these factors have been addressed. This will help you to assess the validity and reliability of the research and help you decide whether or not you should apply the findings in your area of clinical practice.

• Lobiondo-Wood G ,
• Shuttleworth M
• ↵ Laerd Statistics . Determining the correlation coefficient . 2013 . https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/pc/pearson-correlation-in-spss-8.php

Twitter Follow Roberta Heale at @robertaheale and Alison Twycross at @alitwy

Competing interests None declared.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

What is the Significance of Validity in Research?

Introduction

• What is validity in simple terms?

Internal validity vs. external validity in research

Uncovering different types of research validity, factors that improve research validity.

In qualitative research , validity refers to an evaluation metric for the trustworthiness of study findings. Within the expansive landscape of research methodologies , the qualitative approach, with its rich, narrative-driven investigations, demands unique criteria for ensuring validity.

Unlike its quantitative counterpart, which often leans on numerical robustness and statistical veracity, the essence of validity in qualitative research delves deep into the realms of credibility, dependability, and the richness of the data .

The importance of validity in qualitative research cannot be overstated. Establishing validity refers to ensuring that the research findings genuinely reflect the phenomena they are intended to represent. It reinforces the researcher's responsibility to present an authentic representation of study participants' experiences and insights.

This article will examine validity in qualitative research, exploring its characteristics, techniques to bolster it, and the challenges that researchers might face in establishing validity.

At its core, validity in research speaks to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure or understand. It's about ensuring that the study investigates what it purports to investigate. While this seems like a straightforward idea, the way validity is approached can vary greatly between qualitative and quantitative research .

Quantitative research often hinges on numerical, measurable data. In this paradigm, validity might refer to whether a specific tool or method measures the correct variable, without interference from other variables. It's about numbers, scales, and objective measurements. For instance, if one is studying personalities by administering surveys, a valid instrument could be a survey that has been rigorously developed and tested to verify that the survey questions are referring to personality characteristics and not other similar concepts, such as moods, opinions, or social norms.

Conversely, qualitative research is more concerned with understanding human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. It's less about measuring in the strictest sense and more about interpreting the phenomenon that is being studied. The questions become: "Are these interpretations true representations of the human experience being studied?" and "Do they authentically convey participants' perspectives and contexts?"

Differentiating between qualitative and quantitative validity is crucial because the research methods to ensure validity differ between these research paradigms. In quantitative realms, validity might involve test-retest reliability or examining the internal consistency of a test.

In the qualitative sphere, however, the focus shifts to ensuring that the researcher's interpretations align with the actual experiences and perspectives of their subjects.

This distinction is fundamental because it impacts how researchers engage in research design , gather data , and draw conclusions . Ensuring validity in qualitative research is like weaving a tapestry: every strand of data must be carefully interwoven with the interpretive threads of the researcher, creating a cohesive and faithful representation of the studied experience.

While often terms associated more closely with quantitative research, internal and external validity can still be relevant concepts to understand within the context of qualitative inquiries. Grasping these notions can help qualitative researchers better navigate the challenges of ensuring their findings are both credible and applicable in wider contexts.

Internal validity

Internal validity refers to the authenticity and truthfulness of the findings within the study itself. In qualitative research , this might involve asking: Do the conclusions drawn genuinely reflect the perspectives and experiences of the study's participants?

Internal validity revolves around the depth of understanding, ensuring that the researcher's interpretations are grounded in participants' realities. Techniques like member checking , where participants review and verify the researcher's interpretations , can bolster internal validity.

External validity

External validity refers to the extent to which the findings of a study can be generalized or applied to other settings or groups. For qualitative researchers, the emphasis isn't on statistical generalizability, as often seen in quantitative studies. Instead, it's about transferability.

It becomes a matter of determining how and where the insights gathered might be relevant in other contexts. This doesn't mean that every qualitative study's findings will apply universally, but qualitative researchers should provide enough detail (through rich, thick descriptions) to allow readers or other researchers to determine the potential for transfer to other contexts.

Try out a free trial of ATLAS.ti today

See how you can turn your data into critical research findings with our intuitive interface.

Looking deeper into the realm of validity, it's crucial to recognize and understand its various types. Each type offers distinct criteria and methods of evaluation, ensuring that research remains robust and genuine. Here's an exploration of some of these types.

Construct validity

Construct validity is a cornerstone in research methodology . It pertains to ensuring that the tools or methods used in a research study genuinely capture the intended theoretical constructs.

In qualitative research , the challenge lies in the abstract nature of many constructs. For example, if one were to investigate "emotional intelligence" or "social cohesion," the definitions might vary, making them hard to pin down.

To bolster construct validity, it is important to clearly and transparently define the concepts being studied. In addition, researchers may triangulate data from multiple sources , ensuring that different viewpoints converge towards a shared understanding of the construct. Furthermore, they might delve into iterative rounds of data collection, refining their methods with each cycle to better align with the conceptual essence of their focus.

Content validity

Content validity's emphasis is on the breadth and depth of the content being assessed. In other words, content validity refers to capturing all relevant facets of the phenomenon being studied. Within qualitative paradigms, ensuring comprehensive representation is paramount. If, for instance, a researcher is using interview protocols to understand community perceptions of a local policy, it's crucial that the questions encompass all relevant aspects of that policy. This could range from its implementation and impact to public awareness and opinion variations across demographic groups.

Enhancing content validity can involve expert reviews where subject matter experts evaluate tools or methods for comprehensiveness. Another strategy might involve pilot studies , where preliminary data collection reveals gaps or overlooked aspects that can be addressed in the main study.

Ecological validity

Ecological validity refers to the genuine reflection of real-world situations in research findings. For qualitative researchers, this means their observations , interpretations , and conclusions should resonate with the participants and context being studied.

If a study explores classroom dynamics, for example, studying students and teachers in a controlled research setting would have lower ecological validity than studying real classroom settings. Ecological validity is important to consider because it helps ensure the research is relevant to the people being studied. Individuals might behave entirely different in a controlled environment as opposed to their everyday natural settings.

Ecological validity tends to be stronger in qualitative research compared to quantitative research , because qualitative researchers are typically immersed in their study context and explore participants' subjective perceptions and experiences. Quantitative research, in contrast, can sometimes be more artificial if behavior is being observed in a lab or participants have to choose from predetermined options to answer survey questions.

Qualitative researchers can further bolster ecological validity through immersive fieldwork, where researchers spend extended periods in the studied environment. This immersion helps them capture the nuances and intricacies that might be missed in brief or superficial engagements.

Face validity

Face validity, while seemingly straightforward, holds significant weight in the preliminary stages of research. It serves as a litmus test, gauging the apparent appropriateness and relevance of a tool or method. If a researcher is developing a new interview guide to gauge employee satisfaction, for instance, a quick assessment from colleagues or a focus group can reveal if the questions intuitively seem fit for the purpose.

While face validity is more subjective and lacks the depth of other validity types, it's a crucial initial step, ensuring that the research starts on the right foot.

Criterion validity

Criterion validity evaluates how well the results obtained from one method correlate with those from another, more established method. In many research scenarios, establishing high criterion validity involves using statistical methods to measure validity. For instance, a researcher might utilize the appropriate statistical tests to determine the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two sets of data.

If a new measurement tool or method is being introduced, its validity might be established by statistically correlating its outcomes with those of a gold standard or previously validated tool. Correlational statistics can estimate the strength of the relationship between the new instrument and the previously established instrument, and regression analyses can also be useful to predict outcomes based on established criteria.

While these methods are traditionally aligned with quantitative research, qualitative researchers, particularly those using mixed methods , may also find value in these statistical approaches, especially when wanting to quantify certain aspects of their data for comparative purposes. More broadly, qualitative researchers could compare their operationalizations and findings to other similar qualitative studies to assess that they are indeed examining what they intend to study.

In the realm of qualitative research , the role of the researcher is not just that of an observer but often as an active participant in the meaning-making process. This unique positioning means the researcher's perspectives and interactions can significantly influence the data collected and its interpretation . Here's a deep dive into the researcher's pivotal role in upholding validity.

Reflexivity

A key concept in qualitative research, reflexivity requires researchers to continually reflect on their worldviews, beliefs, and potential influence on the data. By maintaining a reflexive journal or engaging in regular introspection, researchers can identify and address their own biases , ensuring a more genuine interpretation of participant narratives.

Building rapport

The depth and authenticity of information shared by participants often hinge on the rapport and trust established with the researcher. By cultivating genuine, non-judgmental, and empathetic relationships with participants, researchers can enhance the validity of the data collected.

Positionality

Every researcher brings to the study their own background, including their culture, education, socioeconomic status, and more. Recognizing how this positionality might influence interpretations and interactions is crucial. By acknowledging and transparently sharing their positionality, researchers can offer context to their findings and interpretations.

Active listening

The ability to listen without imposing one's own judgments or interpretations is vital. Active listening ensures that researchers capture the participants' experiences and emotions without distortion, enhancing the validity of the findings.

Transparency in methods

To ensure validity, researchers should be transparent about every step of their process. From how participants were selected to how data was analyzed , a clear documentation offers others a chance to understand and evaluate the research's authenticity and rigor .

Member checking

Once data is collected and interpreted, revisiting participants to confirm the researcher's interpretations can be invaluable. This process, known as member checking , ensures that the researcher's understanding aligns with the participants' intended meanings, bolstering validity.

Embracing ambiguity

Qualitative data can be complex and sometimes contradictory. Instead of trying to fit data into preconceived notions or frameworks, researchers must embrace ambiguity, acknowledging areas of uncertainty or multiple interpretations.

Make the most of your research study with ATLAS.ti

From study design to data analysis, let ATLAS.ti guide you through the research process. Download a free trial today.

Validity In Psychology Research: Types & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

In psychology research, validity refers to the extent to which a test or measurement tool accurately measures what it’s intended to measure. It ensures that the research findings are genuine and not due to extraneous factors.

Validity can be categorized into different types based on internal and external validity .

The concept of validity was formulated by Kelly (1927, p. 14), who stated that a test is valid if it measures what it claims to measure. For example, a test of intelligence should measure intelligence and not something else (such as memory).

Internal and External Validity In Research

Internal validity refers to whether the effects observed in a study are due to the manipulation of the independent variable and not some other confounding factor.

In other words, there is a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables .

Internal validity can be improved by controlling extraneous variables, using standardized instructions, counterbalancing, and eliminating demand characteristics and investigator effects.

External validity refers to the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other settings (ecological validity), other people (population validity), and over time (historical validity).

External validity can be improved by setting experiments more naturally and using random sampling to select participants.

Types of Validity In Psychology

Two main categories of validity are used to assess the validity of the test (i.e., questionnaire, interview, IQ test, etc.): Content and criterion.

• Content validity refers to the extent to which a test or measurement represents all aspects of the intended content domain. It assesses whether the test items adequately cover the topic or concept.
• Criterion validity assesses the performance of a test based on its correlation with a known external criterion or outcome. It can be further divided into concurrent (measured at the same time) and predictive (measuring future performance) validity.

Face Validity

Face validity is simply whether the test appears (at face value) to measure what it claims to. This is the least sophisticated measure of content-related validity, and is a superficial and subjective assessment based on appearance.

Tests wherein the purpose is clear, even to naïve respondents, are said to have high face validity. Accordingly, tests wherein the purpose is unclear have low face validity (Nevo, 1985).

A direct measurement of face validity is obtained by asking people to rate the validity of a test as it appears to them. This rater could use a Likert scale to assess face validity.

For example:

• The test is extremely suitable for a given purpose
• The test is very suitable for that purpose;
• The test is adequate
• The test is inadequate
• The test is irrelevant and, therefore, unsuitable

It is important to select suitable people to rate a test (e.g., questionnaire, interview, IQ test, etc.). For example, individuals who actually take the test would be well placed to judge its face validity.

Also, people who work with the test could offer their opinion (e.g., employers, university administrators, employers). Finally, the researcher could use members of the general public with an interest in the test (e.g., parents of testees, politicians, teachers, etc.).

The face validity of a test can be considered a robust construct only if a reasonable level of agreement exists among raters.

It should be noted that the term face validity should be avoided when the rating is done by an “expert,” as content validity is more appropriate.

Having face validity does not mean that a test really measures what the researcher intends to measure, but only in the judgment of raters that it appears to do so. Consequently, it is a crude and basic measure of validity.

A test item such as “ I have recently thought of killing myself ” has obvious face validity as an item measuring suicidal cognitions and may be useful when measuring symptoms of depression.

However, the implication of items on tests with clear face validity is that they are more vulnerable to social desirability bias. Individuals may manipulate their responses to deny or hide problems or exaggerate behaviors to present a positive image of themselves.

It is possible for a test item to lack face validity but still have general validity and measure what it claims to measure. This is good because it reduces demand characteristics and makes it harder for respondents to manipulate their answers.

For example, the test item “ I believe in the second coming of Christ ” would lack face validity as a measure of depression (as the purpose of the item is unclear).

This item appeared on the first version of The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and loaded on the depression scale.

Because most of the original normative sample of the MMPI were good Christians, only a depressed Christian would think Christ is not coming back. Thus, for this particular religious sample, the item does have general validity but not face validity.

Construct Validity

Construct validity assesses how well a test or measure represents and captures an abstract theoretical concept, known as a construct. It indicates the degree to which the test accurately reflects the construct it intends to measure, often evaluated through relationships with other variables and measures theoretically connected to the construct.

Construct validity was invented by Cronbach and Meehl (1955). This type of content-related validity refers to the extent to which a test captures a specific theoretical construct or trait, and it overlaps with some of the other aspects of validity

Construct validity does not concern the simple, factual question of whether a test measures an attribute.

Instead, it is about the complex question of whether test score interpretations are consistent with a nomological network involving theoretical and observational terms (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).

To test for construct validity, it must be demonstrated that the phenomenon being measured actually exists. So, the construct validity of a test for intelligence, for example, depends on a model or theory of intelligence .

Construct validity entails demonstrating the power of such a construct to explain a network of research findings and to predict further relationships.

The more evidence a researcher can demonstrate for a test’s construct validity, the better. However, there is no single method of determining the construct validity of a test.

Instead, different methods and approaches are combined to present the overall construct validity of a test. For example, factor analysis and correlational methods can be used.

Convergent validity

Convergent validity is a subtype of construct validity. It assesses the degree to which two measures that theoretically should be related are related.

It demonstrates that measures of similar constructs are highly correlated. It helps confirm that a test accurately measures the intended construct by showing its alignment with other tests designed to measure the same or similar constructs.

For example, suppose there are two different scales used to measure self-esteem:

Scale A and Scale B. If both scales effectively measure self-esteem, then individuals who score high on Scale A should also score high on Scale B, and those who score low on Scale A should score similarly low on Scale B.

If the scores from these two scales show a strong positive correlation, then this provides evidence for convergent validity because it indicates that both scales seem to measure the same underlying construct of self-esteem.

Concurrent Validity (i.e., occurring at the same time)

Concurrent validity evaluates how well a test’s results correlate with the results of a previously established and accepted measure, when both are administered at the same time.

It helps in determining whether a new measure is a good reflection of an established one without waiting to observe outcomes in the future.

If the new test is validated by comparison with a currently existing criterion, we have concurrent validity.

Very often, a new IQ or personality test might be compared with an older but similar test known to have good validity already.

Predictive Validity

Predictive validity assesses how well a test predicts a criterion that will occur in the future. It measures the test’s ability to foresee the performance of an individual on a related criterion measured at a later point in time. It gauges the test’s effectiveness in predicting subsequent real-world outcomes or results.

For example, a prediction may be made on the basis of a new intelligence test that high scorers at age 12 will be more likely to obtain university degrees several years later. If the prediction is born out, then the test has predictive validity.

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin , 52, 281-302.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory . New York: Psychological Corporation.

Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. New York : Macmillan.

Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited . Journal of Educational Measurement , 22(4), 287-293.

Validity & Reliability In Research

A Plain-Language Explanation (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Kerryn Warren (PhD) | September 2023

Validity and reliability are two related but distinctly different concepts within research. Understanding what they are and how to achieve them is critically important to any research project. In this post, we’ll unpack these two concepts as simply as possible.

This post is based on our popular online course, Research Methodology Bootcamp . In the course, we unpack the basics of methodology  using straightfoward language and loads of examples. If you’re new to academic research, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).

Overview: Validity & Reliability

• The big picture
• Validity 101
• Reliability 101 
• Key takeaways

First, The Basics…

First, let’s start with a big-picture view and then we can zoom in to the finer details.

Validity and reliability are two incredibly important concepts in research, especially within the social sciences. Both validity and reliability have to do with the measurement of variables and/or constructs – for example, job satisfaction, intelligence, productivity, etc. When undertaking research, you’ll often want to measure these types of constructs and variables and, at the simplest level, validity and reliability are about ensuring the quality and accuracy of those measurements .

As you can probably imagine, if your measurements aren’t accurate or there are quality issues at play when you’re collecting your data, your entire study will be at risk. Therefore, validity and reliability are very important concepts to understand (and to get right). So, let’s unpack each of them.

What Is Validity?

In simple terms, validity (also called “construct validity”) is all about whether a research instrument accurately measures what it’s supposed to measure .

For example, let’s say you have a set of Likert scales that are supposed to quantify someone’s level of overall job satisfaction. If this set of scales focused purely on only one dimension of job satisfaction, say pay satisfaction, this would not be a valid measurement, as it only captures one aspect of the multidimensional construct. In other words, pay satisfaction alone is only one contributing factor toward overall job satisfaction, and therefore it’s not a valid way to measure someone’s job satisfaction.

Oftentimes in quantitative studies, the way in which the researcher or survey designer interprets a question or statement can differ from how the study participants interpret it . Given that respondents don’t have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions when taking a survey, it’s easy for these sorts of misunderstandings to crop up. Naturally, if the respondents are interpreting the question in the wrong way, the data they provide will be pretty useless . Therefore, ensuring that a study’s measurement instruments are valid – in other words, that they are measuring what they intend to measure – is incredibly important.

There are various types of validity and we’re not going to go down that rabbit hole in this post, but it’s worth quickly highlighting the importance of making sure that your research instrument is tightly aligned with the theoretical construct you’re trying to measure .  In other words, you need to pay careful attention to how the key theories within your study define the thing you’re trying to measure – and then make sure that your survey presents it in the same way.

For example, sticking with the “job satisfaction” construct we looked at earlier, you’d need to clearly define what you mean by job satisfaction within your study (and this definition would of course need to be underpinned by the relevant theory). You’d then need to make sure that your chosen definition is reflected in the types of questions or scales you’re using in your survey . Simply put, you need to make sure that your survey respondents are perceiving your key constructs in the same way you are. Or, even if they’re not, that your measurement instrument is capturing the necessary information that reflects your definition of the construct at hand.

If all of this talk about constructs sounds a bit fluffy, be sure to check out Research Methodology Bootcamp , which will provide you with a rock-solid foundational understanding of all things methodology-related. Remember, you can take advantage of our 60% discount offer using this link.

Need a helping hand?

What Is Reliability?

As with validity, reliability is an attribute of a measurement instrument – for example, a survey, a weight scale or even a blood pressure monitor. But while validity is concerned with whether the instrument is measuring the “thing” it’s supposed to be measuring, reliability is concerned with consistency and stability . In other words, reliability reflects the degree to which a measurement instrument produces consistent results when applied repeatedly to the same phenomenon , under the same conditions .

As you can probably imagine, a measurement instrument that achieves a high level of consistency is naturally more dependable (or reliable) than one that doesn’t – in other words, it can be trusted to provide consistent measurements . And that, of course, is what you want when undertaking empirical research. If you think about it within a more domestic context, just imagine if you found that your bathroom scale gave you a different number every time you hopped on and off of it – you wouldn’t feel too confident in its ability to measure the variable that is your body weight 🙂

It’s worth mentioning that reliability also extends to the person using the measurement instrument . For example, if two researchers use the same instrument (let’s say a measuring tape) and they get different measurements, there’s likely an issue in terms of how one (or both) of them are using the measuring tape. So, when you think about reliability, consider both the instrument and the researcher as part of the equation.

As with validity, there are various types of reliability and various tests that can be used to assess the reliability of an instrument. A popular one that you’ll likely come across for survey instruments is Cronbach’s alpha , which is a statistical measure that quantifies the degree to which items within an instrument (for example, a set of Likert scales) measure the same underlying construct . In other words, Cronbach’s alpha indicates how closely related the items are and whether they consistently capture the same concept . 

Recap: Key Takeaways

Alright, let’s quickly recap to cement your understanding of validity and reliability:

• Validity is concerned with whether an instrument (e.g., a set of Likert scales) is measuring what it’s supposed to measure
• Reliability is concerned with whether that measurement is consistent and stable when measuring the same phenomenon under the same conditions.

In short, validity and reliability are both essential to ensuring that your data collection efforts deliver high-quality, accurate data that help you answer your research questions . So, be sure to always pay careful attention to the validity and reliability of your measurement instruments when collecting and analysing data. As the adage goes, “rubbish in, rubbish out” – make sure that your data inputs are rock-solid.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Methodology Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

THE MATERIAL IS WONDERFUL AND BENEFICIAL TO ALL STUDENTS.

THE MATERIAL IS WONDERFUL AND BENEFICIAL TO ALL STUDENTS AND I HAVE GREATLY BENEFITED FROM THE CONTENT.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Are Credible Sources & How to Spot Them | Examples

What Are Credible Sources & How to Spot Them | Examples

Published on August 26, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on May 9, 2024.

A credible source is free from bias and backed up with evidence. It is written by a trustworthy author or organization.

There are a lot of sources out there, and it can be hard to tell what’s credible and what isn’t at first glance.

Evaluating source credibility is an important information literacy skill. It ensures that you collect accurate information to back up the arguments you make and the conclusions you draw.

Table of contents

Types of sources, how to identify a credible source, the craap test, where to find credible sources, evaluating web sources, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

There are many different types of sources , which can be divided into three categories: primary sources , secondary sources , and tertiary sources .

Primary sources are often considered the most credible in terms of providing evidence for your argument, as they give you direct evidence of what you are researching. However, it’s up to you to ensure the information they provide is reliable and accurate.

You will likely use a combination of the three types over the course of your research process .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

There are a few criteria to look at right away when assessing a source. Together, these criteria form what is known as the CRAAP test .

• The information should be up-to-date and current.
• The source should be relevant to your research.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For web sources, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

The CRAAP test is a catchy acronym that will help you evaluate the credibility of a source you are thinking about using. California State University developed it in 2004 to help students remember best practices for evaluating content.

• C urrency: Is the source up-to-date?
• R elevance: Is the source relevant to your research?
• A uthority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field?
• A ccuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly?
• P urpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source?

The criteria for evaluating each point depend on your research topic .

For example, if you are researching cutting-edge scientific technology, a source from 10 years ago will not be sufficiently current . However, if you are researching the Peloponnesian War, a source from 200 years ago would be reasonable to refer to.

Be careful when ascertaining purpose . It can be very unclear (often by design!) what a source’s motive is. For example, a journal article discussing the efficacy of a particular medication may seem credible, but if the publisher is the manufacturer of the medication, you can’t be sure that it is free from bias. As a rule of thumb, if a source is even passively trying to convince you to purchase something, it may not be credible.

Newspapers can be a great way to glean first-hand information about a historical event or situate your research topic within a broader context. However, the veracity and reliability of online news sources can vary enormously—be sure to pay careful attention to authority here.

When evaluating academic journals or books published by university presses, it’s always a good rule of thumb to ensure they are peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

What is peer review?

The peer review process evaluates submissions to academic journals. A panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether a submission should be accepted for publication based on a set of criteria.

For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

What sources you use depend on the kind of research you are conducting.

For preliminary research and getting to know a new topic, you could use a combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

• Encyclopedias
• Websites with .edu or .org domains
• News sources with first-hand reporting
• Research-oriented magazines like ScienceMag or Nature Weekly .

As you dig deeper into your scholarly research, books and academic journals are usually your best bet.

Academic journals are often a great place to find trustworthy and credible content, and are considered one of the most reliable sources you can use in academic writing.

• Is the journal indexed in academic databases?
• Has the journal had to retract many articles?
• Are the journal’s policies on copyright and peer review easily available?
• Are there solid “About” and “ Scope ” pages detailing what sorts of articles they publish?
• Has the author of the article published other articles? A quick Google Scholar search will show you.
• Has the author been cited by other scholars? Google Scholar also has a function called “Cited By” that can show you where the author has been cited. A high number of “Cited By” results can often be a measurement of credibility.

Google Scholar is a search engine for academic sources. This is a great place to kick off your research. You can also consider using an academic database like LexisNexis or government open data to get started.

Open Educational Resources , or OERs, are materials that have been licensed for “free use” in educational settings. Legitimate OERs can be a great resource. Be sure they have a Creative Commons license allowing them to be duplicated and shared, and meet the CRAAP test criteria, especially in the authority section. The OER Commons is a public digital library that is curated by librarians, and a solid place to start.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

It can be especially challenging to verify the credibility of online sources. They often do not have single authors or publication dates, and their motivation can be more difficult to ascertain.

Websites are not subject to the peer-review and editing process that academic journals or books go through, and can be published by anyone at any time.

When evaluating the credibility of a website, look first at the URL. The domain extension can help you understand what type of website you’re dealing with.

• Educational resources end in .edu, and are generally considered the most credible in academic settings.
• Advocacy or non-profit organizations end in .org.
• Government-affiliated websites end in .gov.
• Websites with some sort of commercial aspect end in .com (or .co.uk, or another country-specific domain).

In general, check for vague terms, buzzwords, or writing that is too emotive or subjective . Beware of grandiose claims, and critically analyze anything not cited or backed up by evidence.

• How does the website look and feel? Does it look professional to you?
• Is there an “About Us” page, or a way to contact the author or organization if you need clarification on a claim they have made?
• Are there links to other sources on the page, and are they trustworthy?
• Can the information you found be verified elsewhere, even via a simple Google search?
• When was the website last updated? If it hasn’t been updated recently, it may not pass the CRAAP test.
• Does the website have a lot of advertisements or sponsored content? This could be a sign of bias.
• Is a source of funding disclosed? This could also give you insight into the author and publisher’s motivations.

Social media posts, blogs, and personal websites can be good resources for a situational analysis or grounding of your preliminary ideas, but exercise caution here. These highly personal and subjective sources are seldom reliable enough to stand on their own in your final research product.

Similarly, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source due to the fact that it can be edited by anyone at any time. However, it can be a good starting point for general information and finding other sources.

Checklist: Is my source credible?

My source is relevant to my research topic.

My source is recent enough to contain up-to-date information on my topic.

There are no glaring grammatical or orthographic errors.

The author is an expert in their field.

The information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have checked that it is supported by evidence and/or verifiable elsewhere.

My source cites or links to other sources that appear relevant and trustworthy.

There is a way to contact the author or publisher of my source.

The purpose of my source is to educate or inform, not to sell a product or push a particular opinion.

My source is unbiased, and offers multiple perspectives fairly.

My source avoids vague or grandiose claims, and writing that is too emotive or subjective.

[For academic journals]: My source is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable and established journal.

[For web sources]: The layout of my source is professional and recently updated. Backlinks to other sources are up-to-date and not broken.

[For web sources]: My source’s URL suggests the domain is trustworthy, e.g. a .edu address.

Your sources are likely to be credible!

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

The CRAAP test is an acronym to help you evaluate the credibility of a source you are considering using. It is an important component of information literacy .

The CRAAP test has five main components:

• Currency: Is the source up to date?
• Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research?
• Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field?
• Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly?
• Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source?

Academic dishonesty can be intentional or unintentional, ranging from something as simple as claiming to have read something you didn’t to copying your neighbor’s answers on an exam.

You can commit academic dishonesty with the best of intentions, such as helping a friend cheat on a paper. Severe academic dishonesty can include buying a pre-written essay or the answers to a multiple-choice test, or falsifying a medical emergency to avoid taking a final exam.

To determine if a source is primary or secondary, ask yourself:

• Was the source created by someone directly involved in the events you’re studying (primary), or by another researcher (secondary)?
• Does the source provide original information (primary), or does it summarize information from other sources (secondary)?
• Are you directly analyzing the source itself (primary), or only using it for background information (secondary)?

Some types of source are nearly always primary: works of art and literature, raw statistical data, official documents and records, and personal communications (e.g. letters, interviews ). If you use one of these in your research, it is probably a primary source.

Primary sources are often considered the most credible in terms of providing evidence for your argument, as they give you direct evidence of what you are researching. However, it’s up to you to ensure the information they provide is reliable and accurate.

Always make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2024, May 09). What Are Credible Sources & How to Spot Them | Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/credible-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, how to cite a wikipedia article | apa, mla & chicago, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Reliability and validity: Importance in Medical Research

Affiliations.

• 1 Al-Nafees Medical College,Isra University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
• 2 Fauji Foundation Hospital, Foundation University Medical College, Islamabad, Pakistan.
• PMID: 34974579
• DOI: 10.47391/JPMA.06-861

Reliability and validity are among the most important and fundamental domains in the assessment of any measuring methodology for data-collection in a good research. Validity is about what an instrument measures and how well it does so, whereas reliability concerns the truthfulness in the data obtained and the degree to which any measuring tool controls random error. The current narrative review was planned to discuss the importance of reliability and validity of data-collection or measurement techniques used in research. It describes and explores comprehensively the reliability and validity of research instruments and also discusses different forms of reliability and validity with concise examples. An attempt has been taken to give a brief literature review regarding the significance of reliability and validity in medical sciences.

Keywords: Validity, Reliability, Medical research, Methodology, Assessment, Research tools..

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments. Walters SJ, Stern C, Robertson-Malt S. Walters SJ, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):138-97. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-2159. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016. PMID: 27532315 Review.
• Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Bolarinwa OA. Bolarinwa OA. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015 Oct-Dec;22(4):195-201. doi: 10.4103/1117-1936.173959. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015. PMID: 26776330
• Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Kimberlin CL, et al. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008 Dec 1;65(23):2276-84. doi: 10.2146/ajhp070364. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008. PMID: 19020196 Review.
• [Psychometric characteristics of questionnaires designed to assess the knowledge, perceptions and practices of health care professionals with regards to alcoholic patients]. Jaussent S, Labarère J, Boyer JP, François P. Jaussent S, et al. Encephale. 2004 Sep-Oct;30(5):437-46. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(04)95458-9. Encephale. 2004. PMID: 15627048 Review. French.
• Evaluation of research studies. Part IV: Validity and reliability--concepts and application. Fullerton JT. Fullerton JT. J Nurse Midwifery. 1993 Mar-Apr;38(2):121-5. doi: 10.1016/0091-2182(93)90146-8. J Nurse Midwifery. 1993. PMID: 8492191
• A psychometric assessment of a novel scale for evaluating vaccination attitudes amidst a major public health crisis. Cheng L, Kong J, Xie X, Zhang F. Cheng L, et al. Sci Rep. 2024 May 4;14(1):10250. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61028-z. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38704420 Free PMC article.
• Test-Retest Reliability of Isokinetic Strength in Lower Limbs under Single and Dual Task Conditions in Women with Fibromyalgia. Gomez-Alvaro MC, Leon-Llamas JL, Melo-Alonso M, Villafaina S, Domínguez-Muñoz FJ, Gusi N. Gomez-Alvaro MC, et al. J Clin Med. 2024 Feb 24;13(5):1288. doi: 10.3390/jcm13051288. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38592707 Free PMC article.
• Bridging, Mapping, and Addressing Research Gaps in Health Sciences: The Naqvi-Gabr Research Gap Framework. Naqvi WM, Gabr M, Arora SP, Mishra GV, Pashine AA, Quazi Syed Z. Naqvi WM, et al. Cureus. 2024 Mar 8;16(3):e55827. doi: 10.7759/cureus.55827. eCollection 2024 Mar. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 38590484 Free PMC article. Review.
• Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simplified Chinese version of the knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in patients after total knee arthroplasty. Yao R, Yang L, Wang J, Zhou Q, Li X, Yan Z, Fu Y. Yao R, et al. Heliyon. 2024 Feb 21;10(5):e26786. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26786. eCollection 2024 Mar 15. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 38434342 Free PMC article.
• Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the stressors in breast cancer scale: a translation and validation study. Hu W, Bao J, Yang X, Ye M. Hu W, et al. BMC Public Health. 2024 Feb 9;24(1):425. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18000-3. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38336690 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Pakistan Medical Association

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

What makes a scientific article credible? A look at peer review and impact factors

Imagine you want to eat out tonight and decide to try out a new restaurant in your town. How do you choose which restaurant to go to? Do you check online for reviews or ask your friends for recommendations? Now, imagine that you narrow your choices down to two restaurants. One of them has five-star reviews from the top chefs of your country and the other has no reviews. Which restaurant are you more likely to choose?

You’re probably even more selective when choosing which journal articles to rely on for evidence-based medicine. A vast amount of research is being published regularly and sifting through the numerous articles can be daunting. Here are three questions that will help you quickly determine an article’s credibility:

• Is it published in a peer-reviewed journal?
• Is it published in a journal with a high impact factor?
• Is it cited by other authors in their papers?

What is a peer-reviewed journal?

Peer-reviewed journals are considered the gold standard of scientific research publications. Reputable journals have subject matter experts who volunteer their time to review submitted articles and evaluate their credibility. Think of the peer-review process as a team of experts reviewing and approving the work before you see it.

How does the peer-review process work?

During the submission process, experts raise any concerns they may have with an article to the authors. An article is evaluated on its originality, significant findings, research methodology, and writing. The reviewers usually come back to the authors with comments and suggestions on how to make the article (e.g., study) better. The authors are then given a specific amount of time to respond back with their revisions. Once an article meets the standards of the editorial board, it is cleared for publication. If it doesn’t meet the standards, it will be rejected, and the authors will usually submit the article to another (usually less prestigious) journal.

How does the peer-review process differ across journal publications?

The length of time that the peer-review process takes differs across publications. As well, some journals do not share the authors’ names with the reviewers, and the authors are unaware of who reviewed their paper. Other journals fully disclose the authors’ names and affiliated institutions.

What are some problems with the peer-review process?

The peer-review process is not perfect. Faulty scientific papers do still get published due to potential loopholes. For example, a journal relies on the integrity of its editorial board. Experts are not paid for their work. They may be working with tight deadlines making it difficult for them to critically evaluate all the research that comes their way.

Experts also shouldn’t have any personal affiliations with the authors of the study. Would you trust a chef’s review of a restaurant if you found out he owned it? Or that the owner was his daughter? Finally, peer-reviewers only see the manuscript that is in front of them. They don’t get to see the raw data that the researchers used. So, any errors in the data may not be picked up by them.

Determining where an article is published is an important step for determining its credibility. The peer-review process is the first test of a scientific article’s credibility. Ideally, experts in the specific field will be best equipped to identify potential concerns with a paper’s methodology and findings. Rigorous journal standards should filter out dodgy scientific papers before they are released to the public. But, remember that the peer-review process does not guarantee a journal article’s validity.

What is an impact factor?

A journal publication that claims to be peer-reviewed may still be unreliable. One way to ensure its credibility is to examine its impact factor. The impact factor, or IF, of a journal publication is the number of times an average paper published in the journal is cited by other articles. It gives you an idea of how reputable the journal’s articles are. Ideally, an impact factor gives you an impression of a journal publication’s impact on the scientific community.

In general, credible journals have high impact factors. Conversely, a low impact factor may indicate that a journal is predatory and unreliable. However, the actual value of a specific impact factor may differ across disciplines. An impact factor of three may be considered low for a wide-ranging specialty (such as internal medicine), but considered high for a specific discipline such as physics. Impact factors are best used when compared between journals within your target field.

Where can you find a journal’s impact factor?

A journal’s impact factor can usually be found on the journal’s website. However, it may be tricky to locate. Sometimes, the impact factor listed may even be fake! One sign of a predatory journal is that they may list a made-up impact factor on their website to fake credibility. It’s important to verify the impact factor on a journal’s website with an online database that lists this type of information. The best-known site, Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR) , is a great online resource to find the latest impact factor for a journal.

What are some problems with impact factors?

As we already mentioned, predatory journals may just make up an impact factor on their website. So, you’ll need to cross-reference what they state with credible databases.

Younger journals that may be credible won’t be able to have an impact factor for the first two years since impact factors aren’t calculated for journals that are less than two years old.

Also, impact factors are calculated using the average number of citations in a publication. This means that a journal with a few highly cited articles will have a high impact factor although most of the articles are not cited. So, a journal’s impact factor isn’t always an accurate reflection of how an individual paper is cited.

Does an article have multiple citations?

A great source to directly evaluate an article’s credibility is Google Scholar , which allows you to see how many times an article has been cited.

If an article is cited by other papers, this usually means that the authors’ citing it think that it’s legitimate and valuable research. Overall, articles with many citations are deemed valuable by many researchers.

Just as positive reviews of a product can be a good indication of the product’s quality, a well-received article with many citations can give you a good idea about the article’s quality.

The problem with citations

However, multiple citations do not always equal quality research. For example, researchers may cite their own work in other articles. These articles will then appear as highly cited on Google Scholar. As well, if there are thousands of citations it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of those citations are from credible authors. Think about the reviews you may find for a popular Thai restaurant promising authentic cuisine. How many of those reviewers have experience with authentic Thai cuisine in the first place?

So, now you know how to check an article’s credibility by looking for peer reviews, citations, and the journal’s impact factor. But what about the people writing the papers? Check out the next article in this guide to learn how to assess whether an author has the experience and credentials to write a credible research article .

Become a great clinician with our video courses and workshops

About the author.

Next article

Who are the people behind the papers examining an author’s credentials.

Learn the essential tips for finding and verifying an author’s credentials in a scientific journal article.

• Directories
• What is UW Libraries Search and how do I use it to find resources?
• Does the library have my textbook?
• Who can access databases, e-journals, e-books etc. and from where?
• How do I find full-text scholarly articles in my subject?
• How do I find e-books?
• How do I cite a source using a specific style?
• How do I find an article by citation?
• How do I renew books and other loans?
• Do I have access to this journal?
• How do I request a book/article we don't have?
• How do I request materials using Interlibrary Loan?
• What does the “Request Article” button mean?
• How do I connect Google Scholar with UW Libraries?
• How do I pay fines?
• How do I access resources from off-campus?
• How do I know if my sources are credible/reliable?
• How do I know if my articles are scholarly (peer-reviewed)?
• What is Summit?
• Start Your Research
• Research Guides
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides
• UW Libraries

FAQ: How do I know if my sources are credible/reliable?

UW Libraries has a whole guide, Savvy Info Consumers: Evaluating Information , which discusses different types of sources and how to approach evaluating their credibility/reliability.

What it means for a source to be credible/reliable can vary depending on the context of its use. Generally, a credible or reliable source is one that experts in your subject domain would agree is valid for your purposes. This can vary, so it is best to use one of the source evaluation methods that best fits your needs. Do remember that credibility is contextual!

It is important to critically evaluate sources because using credible/reliable sources makes you a more informed writer. Think about unreliable sources as pollutants to your credibility, if you include unreliable sources in your work, your work could lose credibility as a result.

There are certain frameworks that information professionals have put together to help people think critically about the information provided. 

Some of the methods that UW Libraries suggest are: 

5 W Questions (5Ws) : This method means thinking critically about each of your sources by answering five questions to determine if the source is credible/reliable. The acceptable answers to these questions will vary depending on your needs. The questions are:

• Who is the author? (Authority)
• What is the purpose of the content? (Accuracy)
• Where is the content from? (Publisher)
• Why does the source exist? (Purpose and Objectivity)
• How does this source compare to others? (Determining What’s What)

SMART Check : This method is particularly good at evaluating newspaper sources. Like the 5Ws method it also involves answering critical questions about your source. The criteria are:

• Source: Who or what is the source?
• Motive: Why do they say what they do?
• Authority: Who wrote the story?
• Review: Is there anything included that jumps out as potentially untrue?
• Two-Source Test: How does it compare to another source?

CRAAP Test : This method provides you with a set of criteria that make a source more or less credible. The criteria are:

• Currency: Timeliness of the information
• Relevance: Importance of the information for your needs
• Authority: Source of the information
• Accuracy: Truthfulness and correctness of the information
• Purpose: Reason the information exists

Additional Help

If you would like personalized support from UW Libraries on source evaluation you can

• Make an appointment with a librarian at the Odegaard Writing and Research Center
• Ask Us! Chat with a librarian live or email your question
• << Previous: How do I access resources from off-campus?
• Next: How do I know if my articles are scholarly (peer-reviewed)? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 1:15 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/faq

How to Determine if an Article is Reliable

• Reliable vs. Unreliable Sources
• Types of Sources
• Popular vs. Scholarly

Determine if an article is reliable

Reliable Sources:

Provide a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, or discussion based on strong evidence.

Most sources can be categorized as one of these types of sources:

• Scholarly peer-reviewed articles and books
• Trade or professional articles and books
• Magazine articles, books and newspaper articles from well-established publishers
• Magazine articles, books and newspaper articles written for entertainment purposes
• Websites and blogs
• Background sources

Professors typically prefer scholarly peer-reviewed articles and books, but usually accept sources from trade and well-established publishers. Individual websites and blogs can be hit or miss, so be sure to check with your professor or a Librarian before using. Background sources are great for facts, but often do not count towards citation requirements.

• Next: Types of Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 30, 2020 12:29 PM
• URL: https://library.loras.edu/reliable

Unless otherwise noted, the content of these guides by Loras College Library , is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Some icons by Yusuke Kamiyamane . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

What Makes Valid Research? How to Verify if a Source is Credible on the Internet

January 28, 2019 David Childs Democracy & Me Blog , The Role Of Media 57

By Dr. David Childs, Ph.D. Northern Kentucky University Introduction Computer and digital technology has increased at an astounding rate within the last several decades. With the advent of various informational Internet resources such as social media, online articles, books and so forth many people purport to do thorough research, but lack the understanding of what research means. The advent of search engines has given everyone the illusion that they have done research and are experts on a particular topic. In reality, people simply pull information from unreliable sources, thinking that they have researched a topic thoroughly. What makes a source not reliable? What makes certain information unreliable and untrustworthy? This article will offer information and resources to help people be able to differentiate between what is a valid source of knowledge and what is not. What is research? Research should involve a thorough reading and analysis of an adequate number of sources on a given subject. One does not have to have a college degree to do research. But the proper time should be devoted in order to draw valid conclusions that can be held up as reliable research. As a side note, some information cannot be obtained without proper research methodologies and even research tools. Examples of this is research in the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry or physics, or in the social sciences in areas such as history, economics or sociology. With the hard sciences one must conduct countless experiments to arrive at certain conclusions that cannot be obtained by simply reading a lot of Internet articles and watching videos. Furthermore, to do valid historical work one must study many reliable primary sources or conduct countless interviews with people who were present during a certain time period the historian is studying. So in this way, valid natural or social science experiments cannot be replaced by reading a few articles on the Internet. At the very least, one can read the work of experts who have devoted their life to research in a particular subject. Teachers in K-12 schools often have not spent their lives conducting research in their field (Of course there are many exceptions to this). Even though some teachers may not be researchers, they have devoted their lives to studying, reading and mastering their content. In this way, a middle school science teacher (for example) can read thoroughly within a certain discipline and gain a wide enough knowledge base on a topic to become a reliable source of information and somewhat of an expert. The knowledge they have gained was achieved through much time and effort. There is no shortcut for conducting research on a topic thoroughly and adequately. In contemporary times, when many individuals do research, their primary means of gathering information is through the Internet. The Internet can be a great resource for gathering information, problems arise when people cannot differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Below are some key components that one should consider when trying to verify if an online source is credible. How to Find Reliable Information on the Internet 1) Identify the source of the information and determine whether it is reliable and credible. A good starting point for this is to identify the name of the writer and or the organization from which the source was derived. Is the source reputable and reliable? Is the person or organization a respected authority on the subject matter? What makes a person or organization an authority on a particular topic? It has become very easy to publish information on the Internet and as a result there are many people purporting to be an expert in a particular field that are not qualified to write on that topic. A good way to understand the danger of this is to liken it to public school teachers teaching subjects outside of their certification in order to remedy teacher shortages. For example, one might find a teacher certified in social studies teaching high school math. In this cases, students are not getting the proper instruction in math. In the same way, there is a lot information on the Internet written by individuals that have no expertise in the particular content in which they are writing about. For example, many people that dispute climate change and global warming are not scientists and often rely on political rhetoric to support their claims. Scientists who do work in climate change have devoted their entire lives to research in that area, often holding undergraduate and several graduate degrees in subjects like geology and earth science. When a person is thought to be a well-known and respected expert in a certain field, they have a proven track record of careful study and research and are validated by reputable institutions that are known for producing reliable research. Often non-experts will spend just a few days or weeks “researching” climate change, in an effort to “dispute” data that is backed by decades of careful research. One does not have to have a Ph.D. to understand and challenge mainstream scientific knowledge, but time and energy devoted to research cannot be bypassed.    2) Checking sources for validity against other reliable sources. It is important when doing research on the Internet to check the provided information against other reliable sources to verify accuracy. For example, if every reputable source reports that cigarette smoking causes cancer and one source says otherwise, the lone source should be questioned until further notice because it has no credibility or way to verify its information. When checking facts and data for accuracy provided in an Internet source one should look for reliable and trusted sources. These might include academic articles, books, universities, museums, mainline reputable religious organizations, government agencies and academic associations. Libraries, universities and professional organizations usually provide reliable information. There is a growing public mistrust of long established institutions that has added to the level of uncertainty about knowledge. But it is important to know that institutions have credibility for good reason. Their history, information and knowledge base is backed by hard work, and long held traditions.    3) Is the information presented in a biased way? When one is reading an article or any information on the internet it is important to determine if that information has a specific agenda or goal in mind. What is the author’s agenda? Does the author or organization have a particular religious, sociological or political bent? These factors determine the validity of an information source. For example, oftentimes newspapers will feature op-ed pieces in which the author states up front that the article is largely based on their personal views. Therefore, when one reads an op-ed piece, they understand going into the article that it will be slanted to the right or left or toward a certain worldview. The article is not be completely useless, but the reader should realize they have to sort through the bias and decided what information is helpful to them in their research.  The reader should also search for possible bias in the information presented (Could be political, sociological, religious bias, or other ideas drawn from a particular worldview) and or even claims made that seem unrealistic or unreasonable with no evidence to back it up. 4) Search for citations that support the claims made by the author or organization. Most articles or information on the web will provide a link to do further research on the topic or to back claims made. When this information is not adequately provided one can assume that the source is not reputable. In addition, a site can have many citations but the sources may not be credible or reliable sources. Health and fitness writer Robin Reichert states the following about the topic reliable sources. Readers should “follow the links provided” in the article to “verify that the citations in fact support the writer’s claims. Look for at least two other credible citations to support the information.” Furthermore, readers should “always follow-up on citations that the writer provides to ensure that the assertions are supported by other sources.” It is also important to note that the end designation of a website can help determine credibility. When websites end in “.com” they are often are for profit organizations and trying to sell a product or service. When one comes across a site that ends in “.org” they are often non-profit organizations and thus have a particular social cause they are trying to advance or advocate for. Government agency websites always end in “.gov” while educational institutions end in “.edu.” Government agencies, educational institutions or non-profits generally offer reliable and trustworthy information. Teachers in middle and high schools attempt should spend more time having students do research papers as it teaches students the value of citing valid sources. The projects often call for proper citations using one of the various styles of citation with the most popular being APA, MLA and Chicago. How to Verify if a Source is Credible on the Internet Below I have provided a number of resources for our average internet researchers, students and teachers. The idea of truth and valid, reliable resources are being challenged because people are unsure as to what information is valid and what is not. The links below offer a number of resources that can further offer tools to help  to understand how to do research properly. Resources and References A Comprehensive Guide to APA Citations and Format EasyBib Guide to Citing and Writing in APA Format MLA General Format Formatting a Research Paper EasyBib Guide to MLA 8 Format Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition Evaluating Internet Resources Check It Out: Verifying Information and Sources in News Coverage How to Do Research: A Step-By-Step Guide: Get Started How can I tell if a website is credible? Detecting Fake News at its Source: Machine learning system aims to determine if an information outlet is accurate or biased. What does “research” mean and are you doing it?

This is a great source of information. There are many times I am reading an article or a research paper revolving around my work. A lot of times I find the information is skewed by antidotal evidence or bias. In addition, what helps here is discussing what websites are more credible vs others. I had no idea .com and .org had differences. One being for profit and the other being not for profit. This goes into what kind of addenda they have and what they want the reader to learn vs providing all of the facts. Lastly, looking at the resources provided and the validity of them is very important. I just read an article today that was advocating for fire based ambulance services vs private and all of the sources were extremely old, none of which were from this or the last decade. So, how can I find the article credible? Bottom line, I can’t.

I thought this article was very informative and gave great information on determining if a resource is reliable or not. I feel like we were never necessarily taught how to find reliable resources. There is a lot of “fake information” online and it can be hard to tell what an accurate resource is and what is not an accurate resource. I thought this article gave some great ways to make sure you have a credible resource. I think this is what is wrong with technology though, there is a lot of fake news that people think is real and from there it creates numerous inaccurate ideas.

I have always had a hard time finding credible resources when I have had to do research for assignments. Especially since the pandemic hit, I think it’s even harder to find credible sources because of all the fake news that has been spread. When I use an online resource, I never put much thought into thinking if it is credible enough or not. If I find a resource that fits, I use it.

I’m a very naive and gullible person that overlooks the sources of where I found the information. Fake news is also more popular than ever and I like how this article helps depict articles to decipher if they are fake or legitimate

I like that this article explains how to properly identify a credible source. We live in a time where it is so easy to believe sources online. It is easier than every for people to upload any information online for people to access and eventually use as not-credible sources.

I like how this article forms a cohesive and understandable format for checking for reliable resources. It also shows how to think critically about the articles used for research.

I like that this article informs about whether an article is credible or not. Doing pre -research to make sure that you are getting the same information for all of your sources. I like that the article tells us to look at bias in our sources because that is a really big factor.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

Validity and Reliability

The principles of validity and reliability are fundamental cornerstones of the scientific method.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Types of Validity
• Definition of Reliability
• Content Validity
• Construct Validity
• External Validity

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Validity and Reliability
• 2 Types of Validity
• 3.1 Population Validity
• 3.2 Ecological Validity
• 4 Internal Validity
• 5.1.1 Concurrent Validity
• 5.1.2 Predictive Validity
• 6 Content Validity
• 7.1 Convergent and Discriminant Validity
• 8 Face Validity
• 9 Definition of Reliability
• 10.1 Reproducibility
• 10.2 Replication Study
• 11 Interrater Reliability
• 12 Internal Consistency Reliability
• 13 Instrument Reliability

Together, they are at the core of what is accepted as scientific proof, by scientist and philosopher alike.

By following a few basic principles, any experimental design will stand up to rigorous questioning and skepticism.

What is Reliability?

The idea behind reliability is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable .

Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment , under the same conditions and generate the same results. This will reinforce the findings and ensure that the wider scientific community will accept the hypothesis .

Without this replication of statistically significant results , the experiment and research have not fulfilled all of the requirements of testability .

This prerequisite is essential to a hypothesis establishing itself as an accepted scientific truth.

For example, if you are performing a time critical experiment, you will be using some type of stopwatch. Generally, it is reasonable to assume that the instruments are reliable and will keep true and accurate time. However, diligent scientists take measurements many times, to minimize the chances of malfunction and maintain validity and reliability.

At the other extreme, any experiment that uses human judgment is always going to come under question.

For example, if observers rate certain aspects, like in Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment , then the reliability of the test is compromised. Human judgment can vary wildly between observers , and the same individual may rate things differently depending upon time of day and current mood.

This means that such experiments are more difficult to repeat and are inherently less reliable. Reliability is a necessary ingredient for determining the overall validity of a scientific experiment and enhancing the strength of the results.

Debate between social and pure scientists, concerning reliability, is robust and ongoing.

What is Validity?

Validity encompasses the entire experimental concept and establishes whether the results obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific research method.

For example, there must have been randomization of the sample groups and appropriate care and diligence shown in the allocation of controls .

Internal validity dictates how an experimental design is structured and encompasses all of the steps of the scientific research method .

Even if your results are great, sloppy and inconsistent design will compromise your integrity in the eyes of the scientific community. Internal validity and reliability are at the core of any experimental design.

External validity is the process of examining the results and questioning whether there are any other possible causal relationships.

Control groups and randomization will lessen external validity problems but no method can be completely successful. This is why the statistical proofs of a hypothesis called significant , not absolute truth.

Any scientific research design only puts forward a possible cause for the studied effect.

There is always the chance that another unknown factor contributed to the results and findings. This extraneous causal relationship may become more apparent, as techniques are refined and honed.

If you have constructed your experiment to contain validity and reliability then the scientific community is more likely to accept your findings.

Eliminating other potential causal relationships, by using controls and duplicate samples, is the best way to ensure that your results stand up to rigorous questioning.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Oct 20, 2008). Validity and Reliability. Retrieved Jul 10, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/validity-and-reliability

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Related articles

Internal Validity

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.3(2); 2011 Jun

A Primer on the Validity of Assessment Instruments

1. what is reliability 1.

Reliability refers to whether an assessment instrument gives the same results each time it is used in the same setting with the same type of subjects. Reliability essentially means consistent or dependable results. Reliability is a part of the assessment of validity.

2. What is validity? 1

Validity in research refers to how accurately a study answers the study question or the strength of the study conclusions. For outcome measures such as surveys or tests, validity refers to the accuracy of measurement. Here validity refers to how well the assessment tool actually measures the underlying outcome of interest. Validity is not a property of the tool itself, but rather of the interpretation or specific purpose of the assessment tool with particular settings and learners.

Assessment instruments must be both reliable and valid for study results to be credible. Thus, reliability and validity must be examined and reported, or references cited, for each assessment instrument used to measure study outcomes. Examples of assessments include resident feedback survey, course evaluation, written test, clinical simulation observer ratings, needs assessment survey, and teacher evaluation. Using an instrument with high reliability is not sufficient; other measures of validity are needed to establish the credibility of your study.

3. How is reliability measured? 2 – 4

Reliability can be estimated in several ways; the method will depend upon the type of assessment instrument. Sometimes reliability is referred to as internal validity or internal structure of the assessment tool.

For internal consistency 2 to 3 questions or items are created that measure the same concept, and the difference among the answers is calculated. That is, the correlation among the answers is measured.

Cronbach alpha is a test of internal consistency and frequently used to calculate the correlation values among the answers on your assessment tool. 5 Cronbach alpha calculates correlation among all the variables, in every combination; a high reliability estimate should be as close to 1 as possible.

For test/retest the test should give the same results each time, assuming there are no interval changes in what you are measuring, and they are often measured as correlation, with Pearson r.

Test/retest is a more conservative estimate of reliability than Cronbach alpha, but it takes at least 2 administrations of the tool, whereas Cronbach alpha can be calculated after a single administration. To perform a test/retest, you must be able to minimize or eliminate any change (ie, learning) in the condition you are measuring, between the 2 measurement times. Administer the assessment instrument at 2 separate times for each subject and calculate the correlation between the 2 different measurements.

Interrater reliability is used to study the effect of different raters or observers using the same tool and is generally estimated by percent agreement, kappa (for binary outcomes), or Kendall tau.

Another method uses analysis of variance (ANOVA) to generate a generalizability coefficient, to quantify how much measurement error can be attributed to each potential factor, such as different test items, subjects, raters, dates of administration, and so forth. This model looks at the overall reliability of the results. 6

5. How is the validity of an assessment instrument determined? 4 – 7 , 8

Validity of assessment instruments requires several sources of evidence to build the case that the instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. , 9,10 Determining validity can be viewed as constructing an evidence-based argument regarding how well a tool measures what it is supposed to do. Evidence can be assembled to support, or not support, a specific use of the assessment tool. Evidence can be found in content, response process, relationships to other variables, and consequences.

Content includes a description of the steps used to develop the instrument. Provide information such as who created the instrument (national experts would confer greater validity than local experts, who in turn would have more validity than nonexperts) and other steps that support the instrument has the appropriate content.

Response process includes information about whether the actions or thoughts of the subjects actually match the test and also information regarding training for the raters/observers, instructions for the test-takers, instructions for scoring, and clarity of these materials.

Relationship to other variables includes correlation of the new assessment instrument results with other performance outcomes that would likely be the same. If there is a previously accepted “gold standard” of measurement, correlate the instrument results to the subject's performance on the “gold standard.” In many cases, no “gold standard” exists and comparison is made to other assessments that appear reasonable (eg, in-training examinations, objective structured clinical examinations, rotation “grades,” similar surveys).

Consequences means that if there are pass/fail or cut-off performance scores, those grouped in each category tend to perform the same in other settings. Also, if lower performers receive additional training and their scores improve, this would add to the validity of the instrument.

Different types of instruments need an emphasis on different sources of validity evidence. 7 For example, for observer ratings of resident performance, interrater agreement may be key, whereas for a survey measuring resident stress, relationship to other variables may be more important. For a multiple choice examination, content and consequences may be essential sources of validity evidence. For high-stakes assessments (eg, board examinations), substantial evidence to support the case for validity will be required. 9

There are also other types of validity evidence, which are not discussed here.

6. How can researchers enhance the validity of their assessment instruments?

First, do a literature search and use previously developed outcome measures. If the instrument must be modified for use with your subjects or setting, modify and describe how, in a transparent way. Include sufficient detail to allow readers to understand the potential limitations of this approach.

If no assessment instruments are available, use content experts to create your own and pilot the instrument prior to using it in your study. Test reliability and include as many sources of validity evidence as are possible in your paper. Discuss the limitations of this approach openly.

7. What are the expectations of JGME editors regarding assessment instruments used in graduate medical education research?

JGME editors expect that discussions of the validity of your assessment tools will be explicitly mentioned in your manuscript, in the methods section. If you are using a previously studied tool in the same setting, with the same subjects, and for the same purpose, citing the reference(s) is sufficient. Additional discussion about your adaptation is needed if you (1) have modified previously studied instruments; (2) are using the instrument for different settings, subjects, or purposes; or (3) are using different interpretation or cut-off points. Discuss whether the changes are likely to affect the reliability or validity of the instrument.

Researchers who create novel assessment instruments need to state the development process, reliability measures, pilot results, and any other information that may lend credibility to the use of homegrown instruments. Transparency enhances credibility.

In general, little information can be gleaned from single-site studies using untested assessment instruments; these studies are unlikely to be accepted for publication.

8. What are useful resources for reliability and validity of assessment instruments?

The references for this editorial are a good starting point.

Gail M. Sullivan, MD, MPH, is Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Graduate Medical Education .

How to Determine the Validity of a Research Article

Michele cooper.

Writers, students and scholars often use articles to support their research and their writing. When assessing an article in order to gather information for research, it is important that it be based on reliable data and valid information. Although there is no way of knowing whether an article is 100 percent accurate, there are methods to determine the overall validity of a piece.

Explore this article

• Checking Sources
• Citations and Evidence
• Verify Author Credentials
• Cross Checking Sources

1 Checking Sources

Check the source where the research article originated. Peer-reviewed journals, academic publications, nonbiased news journals and academic websites are excellent places to find research articles. Ensure that the publication is not slanted, and that both the article and the source are free of opinions. Articles that include the opinion of the author and that do not consider opposing viewpoints are considered biased. Be aware of the date of the research article, as sometimes facts become outdated and are no longer accurate or valid.

2 Citations and Evidence

Look for citations and references throughout the article. Valid articles should include sources within the text and have a clear reference page at the end. Is the author providing evidence to back up statements and facts? Check a few of the sources on the reference page to make sure that the references are solid. For example, if there is a scientific trial presented as evidence, do a search on the source as listed on the reference page, and make sure the information matches up.

3 Verify Author Credentials

Research the author to ensure that he is a professional in his field of study. Check his credentials and education, and ensure he has a solid reputation. Pay closer attention to the source, citations and evidence if there is no author. For example, websites often have articles but do not list an author. When considering these articles, ensure that they are from a government agency or educational institution, or are peer reviewed. Peer reviewed articles are those in which the content has already been viewed and credibility established by professionals other than the author.

4 Cross Checking Sources

Check the information you are using against another source beyond the reference page to ensure the validity of the research. For example, if the piece includes specific dates or facts, check those dates and facts against a second reliable source. If the facts do not match, there is a good chance the research article is not entirely valid. Prefer primary sources when possible over secondary sources. Primary sources are the original source of the information before interpretation by another author. For example, a primary scientific source would come from the person or institution that performed the research, rather than an encyclopedia entry about the research.

• 1 University of Colorado Boulder: How Do I Evaluate Sources?
• 2 Purdue OWL: Evaluation During Reading
• 3 Princeton University: What is a Primary Source?

Related Articles

How to Do a Critical Evaluation

How to Analyze Journal Articles

The Minimum Number of References in a Dissertation

Why Is Credibility of Online Sources Important in Education?

How to Write MLA Abstracts

The Advantages of an Annotated Bibliography

What Criteria Should Be Used to Evaluate the Credibility...

How to Write a Parenthetical Notation

How to Find Data Sources for Your Research

The Difference Between an Abstract & a Full-Text Article

How to Know When an Article Is Peer-Reviewed

How to Write an Analytical Book Report

How to Evaluate a Research Design

Scanning Skills in Reading

How to Write a Nonfiction Analysis

How to Write an MLA Argument Essay

How Can One Tell if Information Is Credible?

Tools Used in Research

How to Evaluate Research Articles

How to Gather Information for a Report

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

• You are here:
• The European Centre For Expertise, Networking & Resources In The Internationalisation Of Higher Education

8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports

In our work, we are increasingly asked to make data-driven or fact-based decisions. A myriad of organisations offer analysis, data, intelligence and research on developments in international higher education. It can be difficult to know which source to rely on. Therefore, the first page to turn to in any research report is the methodology section. The reason is to determine if the other pages are worth reading and how critical we should be to the information printed on them. This blog post covers eight elements to look for in a research report to determine its trustworthiness. 

Why was the study undertaken?

Whether the aim of the research was to generate income, lobby for a policy change, evaluate the impact of a programme or develop a new theoretical framework, this will influence the research questions, data collection and analysis, and the presentation of the results. In order to make best use of the findings and place them in context for your use, it is advisable to bear the aim of the study in mind.

Who conducted the study?

A myriad of organisations in the field offer intelligence that feed into the decisions in our daily work. It is therefore important to look at who has conducted the research, and if the organisation or individual in question has the expertise required for conducting research on the topic. Additionally, assessing if the organisation has an interest in a specific research outcome is a good practice. If so, the research should be transparent in demonstrating how the different stages of the study were conducted to guarantee its objectivity.

International higher education research should be transparent in demonstrating how the different stages of a study were conducted to guarantee its objectivity.

Who funded the research?

It is of equal importance to check if a third party has sponsored or funded the study as this could further affect the objectivity of the study. If for example a student recruitment fair organiser sponsors a study on the efficiency of different recruitment methods, you should be critical of the results, particularly if student fairs emerge as the most efficient recruitment method.

How was the data collected?

In the social sciences, structured interviews and self-completion questionnaires are perhaps the two most common ways of collecting quantitative data. How the individuals in the sample, ie those approached to be surveyed, have been identified is crucial in determining the representativeness of the results. There are two main types of samples, namely probability and non-probability samples. A probability sample is a sample in which every individual in the population has the same chance of being included. It is also a prerequisite for being able to generalise the findings to the population (see below).

To illustrate the difference, let us say you survey first-year students by asking student clubs to share the survey on social media. Since this non-probability snowball sample has a greater likelihood of reaching students active in such clubs, the results won’t be representative or generalisable.

Is the sample size and response rate sufficient?

The bigger the sample size the higher the likelihood that the results are precise. After a sample size of around 1000, gains in precision become less pronounced. Often, however, due to limited time and money approaching such a large sample might not be feasible. The homogeneity of the population further affects the desired sample size; a more heterogeneous population requires a larger sample to include the different sub-groups of the population to a satisfactory degree. The response rate is a complementary measure to the sample size, showing how many of the suitable individuals in the sample have provided a usable response. In web surveys, response rates tend to be lower than in other types of surveys.

Does the research make use of secondary data?

Data can be collected either through primary or secondary sources, ie it can be collected for the purposes of the study or existing data can be utilised. If existing data sets collected by another organisation or researcher is used, reflecting on how credible the data source is, and how usable it is for the study in question, is important. Here, using common sense (and Google if necessary) takes you a long way.

Does the research measure what it claims to measure?

A commonly used term in statistics to convey the trustworthiness of research is ‘validity’. Validity refers to the extent to which a notion, conclusion or measurement is well founded and corresponds to reality. In other words, does it measure what it intends to measure? As an example, a study intends to investigate gender discrimination of faculty and in so doing, looks at the number of cases of discrimination brought forward by female faculty. Yet, as the study does not look at the reason for these discrimination complaints – whether it was indeed gender or ethnicity, religion, age or sexual orientation – the conclusion cannot be drawn that gender discrimination has increased.

Can the findings be generalised to my situation, institution or country?

When conducting research there is often a tendency to seek to generalise the findings. Two key criteria have to be met for this to be possible. First, results are applicable only to the population of the study. In other words, if a study analyses student satisfaction among students in the UK, the findings cannot be generalised to campuses in, for example, France. Second, data must be collected via a probability sample, ie every unit of analysis, here every student in the UK, has the same chance of being included in the sample.

Oftentimes reports lack many of the essential aspects of their data collection and analysis. Since time and money are, perhaps, the biggest influencers of research quality, and no one possesses infinite amounts of either, when undertaking research a balance often has to be struck between (cost-) effectiveness and quality. Transparently and clearly accounting for how the research has been conducted is central for the reader to evaluate the trustworthiness of the report in their hands.

This blog post addresses quantitative research methods in the social sciences, and draws from the book Bryman, A., Social Research Methods 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012.

Related topics

You may also be interested in.

EAIE Barometer: National and European-level influences

This EAIE Barometer spin-off report explores the perception of national and European-level influences on internationalisation in higher education.

Research Snapshot: Current trends in international education

Discover how IAU's Strategy 2030 is driving inclusive internationalisation for societal benefit.

Research Snapshot: The economic role of international students

Have international students become a source of income for all universities, or is this a uniquely Anglo-Saxon phenomenon?

Danica Purg: Reflections on Leadership

Tune in for a discussion with Professor Danica Purg on leadership in international education ahead of the EAIE Summer Forum's deep dive into this pivotal theme.

Research Snapshot: European instrument for transnational cooperation

Learn about a new project aimed at supporting university alliances by crafting a cooperation instrument.

Research Snapshot: EAIE Barometer

Discover the key takeaways from the latest edition of the EAIE Barometer.