Understanding the Roles of Intelligence

...

Reliability and Validity

Both reliability and validity are both fundamental concepts used to determine the worthiness of a test or assessment. Although many may confuse these two terms or inappropriately use them interchangeably, these two principles are both quite different. Each looks at different characteristics to determine test worthiness: Reliability deals with consistency and accuracy while validity deals with how well the evidence supports the interpretation. There are three types of validity: content, criterion-related, and construct validity; however, for the purposes of this paper we will focus on criterion-related and construct validity (2009). Criterion-related validity is relationship between a test and a related criterion, for example: comparing answers to an eating disorder inventory to results of a survey administered at a camp for eating disorders. Criterion-related validity can be further broken down into two categories: concurrent validity (i.e. does a test relate to a current criterion?) and predictive validity (i.e. is the test related to some future criterion(2009).

For a test to have reliability and validity, the test must be standardized. Standardization refers to methods used administering test for a particular study. In order for a test to be standardized, the same procedures and norms should be used(2009). This will make sure the test in able to be fairly compared to other groups. This includes receiving the same verbal instructions, time, length, and testing materials. Without standardization, we could never adequately compare groups.

References

Benson, E. (2003). Intelligent intelligence testing. APA Monitor, 34(2), 48. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

Cattell, R. B. (1978). Use of factor analysis in the behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.

Cherry, K. (2011). Theories of intelligence.

Cozby, Paul C. Methods in behavioral research. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. Print

Gignac, G. E. (2016). Residual group-level factor associations: Possibly negative implications for the mutualism theory of general intelligence. Intelligence, 5569-78.

Gottfredson, L.S. (2003). "On Sternberg's 'Reply to Gottfredson'". Intelligence. 31 (4): 415–424. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00024-2.

Goodwin, C. J. (2008). A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ/ Wiley & Sons.

Groth-Marnat, Gary. Handbook of psychological assessment. John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

Harvard College. (2010). David Perkins. Retrieved from http://pzweb.harvard.edu/pis/DP.htm

Keith, T. Z., & Reynolds, M. R. (2010). Cattell–Horn–Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: What we've learned from 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 635-65

Oregon Technology in Education Council (OTEC). (2007). Theories of Intelligence. Plucker, J. (2007). Human intelligence: Historical influences, current controversies, teaching resources.

Reynolds, C.R. (2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 144-150.

Weinberg, R. A. (1989). Intelligence and iq: Landmark issues and great debates. American Psychologist, 44(2), 98-104.

Harada, C. N., Love, M. C. N., & Triebel, K. L. (2013). Normal cognitive aging. Clinics in geriatric medicine, 29(4), 737-752.