Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i3CGbqm12586; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000901c420ac$38080550$37e95ba5@coehdserver.tamu.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Don Seaman" <dseaman@tamu.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:500] Re: why "valid and reliable"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 1921 Lines: 42 David Rosen's comments about validity and reliability are quite accurate and explained in a meaningful way. You want data to be from valid and reliable sources, but getting there isn't always easy. Resources needed include time, knowledge, sufficient financial support, and cooperation from the data sources, including students, teachers, administrators, and other staff who may not really know about those two concepts. That is what makes social science research interesting, but also often frustrating. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Rosen" <DJRosen@theworld.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:27 PM Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:493] Re: why "valid and reliable"? > Eileen, > > On Friday, April 9, 2004, you wrote: > > > As I read the messages concerning "good" assessment and training in > > good assessment, one unexamined assumption strikes me. Why do we think > > assessment has to be "valid and reliable" to be good? Why are those > > the criteria we use? > > If an assessment is valid it measures what it says it measures, not > something else. If it is reliable, it does that the same way each time > it is used. A typical example of an unreliable assessment is a scale > that gives you a different weight for the same object each time you > weigh it even though the weight hasn't actually changed. Validity and > reliability are good standards for any assessment whether it is formal > or informal, published or teacher-made. Sometimes, however, they are > criteria which are difficult to meet because an investment of resources > is needed to make valid and reliable assessments (and for their > administration) and this is hard to come by. The problem, as I see it, > is not the criteria of validity and reliability, but getting the > resources to meet these standards. > > David J. Rosen > djrosen@comcast.net > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:14 EST