girlworld_club
Member
What is the difference between all three. Examples would be great!
Realability, accuracy and Validity? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter girlworld_club
- Start date
madharris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,160
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Reliability is repeating the experiment and getting similar/the same results each time
Validity is using the same conditions/ equipment e.g. same volume of water, same exposure to sunlight, same sized beaker, etc
Accuracy... i've never seen this is bio, but i'm assuming it's a mixture of reliability and validity....
i.e. You need to be accurate in your measurements in order to achieve the similar results
hope that helps
Validity is using the same conditions/ equipment e.g. same volume of water, same exposure to sunlight, same sized beaker, etc
Accuracy... i've never seen this is bio, but i'm assuming it's a mixture of reliability and validity....
i.e. You need to be accurate in your measurements in order to achieve the similar results
hope that helps
carpe_diem
Member
You achieve accuracy by repeating your experiments and by using reliable methods (eg. using a electronic pH reader instead of a universal indicator and colour chart)
Reliability is how reliable your experiment and its results are. As madharris stated above, this is achieved through repeating your experiment (eg. repeat experiment 10x)
Validity refers to how relevant your experiment is. This can be achieved by checking your variables and make sure you have the correct independent/dependent/controlled variables. For example, if you wanted to test the effect of temperature on enzyme activity, you wouldn't change the pH of the different test tubes.
Hope this helps!
quoting a sheet from my Bio book:
Validity: A first hand investigation is valid if it has been set up properly and run through properly to test the aim and/or hypothesis (if any). Also the measurements taken must be valid i.e. they can be used to answer the aim or hypothesis
Reliability: Reliability is shown by consistent same/similar results results or observations when a first hand investigation or experiment is repeated e.g. consistently obtaining the boiling temp of water as 100oC give or take a few degrees, not 110oC etc. Reliability can be improved by improving validity (often involving improving the method) e.g. including a step that asks for the purifying of the water sample to obtain a reading as close to 100oC as possible. Experiments must be repeatable.
Accuracy
You must try make observations or take measurements as accurately as possible (i.e. try not to make mistakes. Errors are a different thing however and can't be avoided e.g. parallax error. Errors can be minimised however by attempting to read measurements in an accurate manner). Another way to maximise accuracy and minimise errors is using accurate instruments (e.g. electronic scales vs. balancing beam). Errors can't be fixed but mistakes are. An example of a mistake is mistaking an 8 for a 0, forgeting to zero your electronic scale etc.
However if a first hand investigation/experiment is not valid (i.e. doesn't answer aim or hypothesis), ACCURACY IS IRRELEVANT
Validity: A first hand investigation is valid if it has been set up properly and run through properly to test the aim and/or hypothesis (if any). Also the measurements taken must be valid i.e. they can be used to answer the aim or hypothesis
Reliability: Reliability is shown by consistent same/similar results results or observations when a first hand investigation or experiment is repeated e.g. consistently obtaining the boiling temp of water as 100oC give or take a few degrees, not 110oC etc. Reliability can be improved by improving validity (often involving improving the method) e.g. including a step that asks for the purifying of the water sample to obtain a reading as close to 100oC as possible. Experiments must be repeatable.
Accuracy
You must try make observations or take measurements as accurately as possible (i.e. try not to make mistakes. Errors are a different thing however and can't be avoided e.g. parallax error. Errors can be minimised however by attempting to read measurements in an accurate manner). Another way to maximise accuracy and minimise errors is using accurate instruments (e.g. electronic scales vs. balancing beam). Errors can't be fixed but mistakes are. An example of a mistake is mistaking an 8 for a 0, forgeting to zero your electronic scale etc.
However if a first hand investigation/experiment is not valid (i.e. doesn't answer aim or hypothesis), ACCURACY IS IRRELEVANT
Last edited:
deswa1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,256
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
Our teachers repeat this so much- they call it the target analogy. If I shoot an arrow and they all end up in the same spot (regardless of how bad I miss) I am reliable. If I shoot and I hit the centre, I am accurate. Obviously the aim is to continously hit the centre, thus being accurate and reliable.
jason2kool
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 186
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
Reliability
--> Have I tested the reliability of the method with repetition?
--> How consistent is the information with information from other reputable sources?
--> Has the data been confirmed with other reputable sources?
Validity
--> Does my experimental procedure/design actually test the hypothesis that I want it to? Have all variables been identified and controlled. Do I have a control condition when appropriate? Have the results been analysed with appropriate theory.
--> Do the findings relate to the hypothesis or problem?
--> Is the source creditable (e.g., peer reviewed)? Is the source up-to-date?
--> Have I tested the reliability of the method with repetition?
--> How consistent is the information with information from other reputable sources?
--> Has the data been confirmed with other reputable sources?
Validity
--> Does my experimental procedure/design actually test the hypothesis that I want it to? Have all variables been identified and controlled. Do I have a control condition when appropriate? Have the results been analysed with appropriate theory.
--> Do the findings relate to the hypothesis or problem?
--> Is the source creditable (e.g., peer reviewed)? Is the source up-to-date?