answer the research questions

timer Asked: Feb 5th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $5

Question Description

1.Explain the difference between reliability and validity differ? How do they complement each other? Can a measure be reliable but invalid?

Assignment 6-1: Updated course-based research proposal

You must submit an updated course-based research proposal prior to the start of class to the course instructor that will include the following:

  1. Introduction - half page rationale for your chosen course-based research topic.
  2. Type of research – (refer to powerpoint for module 1)
  3. Purpose of research - discuss the purpose of your proposed course-based research study and what is it that you hope to achieve? (refer to powerpoint for module 1)
  4. Research Paradigm – explain your choice of research paradigm (refer to powerpoint for module 1)
  5. Novelty - Explain how your research topic/focus is novel.
  6. Benefits - Explain how will you and/or the profession of Social Work benefit from your research?
  7. Statement of Research Question
  8. Sample Method (i.e., How will you select your sample? How many subjects will be involved in the study?)

Assignment Instructions: You will be given time working on the sampling method and present an updated drafted course-based research proposal to the class for feedback and submit a copy of your assignment to the instructor through Blackboard by the midnight of Feb 06.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

M E T H O D O L O G I C A L I S S UE S I N N U R S I N G R E S E A R C H Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework Gerard A. Tobin BSc MSc RGN RMN RCNT RNT Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, The University of Dublin Trinity College, and Clinical Nursing Research Fellow, Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland Cecily M. Begley MSc PhD RGN RM RNT FFNRCSI Professor of Nursing and Midwifery/Director, School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, The University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Submitted for publication 24 November 2003 Accepted for publication 7 June 2004 Correspondence: Gerard Tobin, School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, The University of Dublin, Trinity College, 24 D’Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. E-mail: T O B I N G . A . & B E G L E Y C . M . ( 2 0 0 4 ) Journal of Advanced Nursing 48(4), 388– 396 Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework Aim. This paper discusses the literature on establishing rigour in research studies. It describes the methodological trinity of reliability, validity and generalization and explores some of the issues relating to establishing rigour in naturalistic inquiry. Background. Those working within the naturalistic paradigm have questioned the issue of using validity, reliability and generalizability to demonstrate robustness of qualitative research. Triangulation has been used to demonstrate confirmability and completeness and has been one means of ensuring acceptability across paradigms. Emerging criteria such as goodness and trustworthiness can be used to evaluate the robustness of naturalistic inquiry. Discussion. It is argued that the transference of terms across paradigms is inappropriate; however, if we reject the concepts of validity and reliability, we reject the concept of rigour. Rejection of rigour undermines acceptance of qualitative research as a systematic process that can contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Emerging criteria for demonstrating robustness in qualitative inquiry, such as authenticity, trustworthiness and goodness, need to be considered. Goodness, when not seen as a separate construct but as an integral and embedded component of the research process, should be useful in assuring quality of the entire study. Triangulation is a tried and tested means of offering completeness, particularly in mixedmethod research. When multiple types of triangulation are used appropriately as the ‘triangulation state of mind’, they approach the concept of crystallization, which allows for infinite variety of angles of approach. Conclusion. Qualitative researchers need to be explicit about how and why they choose specific legitimizing criteria in ensuring the robustness of their inquiries. A shift from a position of fundamentalism to a more pluralistic approach as a means of legitimizing naturalistic inquiry is advocated. Keywords: reliability, validity, generalization, trustworthiness, triangulation, crystallization 388  2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Methodological issues in nursing research Introduction According to Kvale (1995), the concepts validity, reliability and generalization have virtually attained religious sanctification, almost reaching the status of a holy trinity, worshipped by all true believers in science. In this paper, we explore the ‘trinity of truth’ as a means of offering legitimization and demonstrating rigour in naturalistic inquiry. We identify the origins of the debate around validating qualitative studies, explore the idea of triangulation vs. crystallization, and propose a move towards the use of emerging criteria for assessing quality and robustness in qualitative research. Legitimizing research In recent discussions, the role of validity, reliability and generalizability has been questioned, and within a naturalistic (qualitative) paradigm the concept of an objective reality validating knowledge has been generally discarded (Kvale 1995). Debate about the relationship between rationalistic (quantitative) and naturalistic paradigms is often muddled and confused (Bryman 2002), and the clutter of terms and arguments has resulted in the concepts becoming obscure and unrecognizable (Morse et al. 2002). Difficulty arises because of a tendency to discuss philosophical and technical issues in the same context: ‘Philosophical issues relate to questions of epistemology…technical issues bespeak the consideration of the superiority or appropriateness of methods of research in relation to one another’ (Bryman 2002, p. 14). The former is theoretical and the latter intensely practical. Although guidelines on the establishment of validity, reliability and generalizability have been vigorously debated across disciplines (Mays & Pope 2000), many who do not embrace the qualitative paradigm remain sceptical. It has been suggested that, despite the long history and undeniable contribution of qualitative research, opponents of these methods dismiss qualitative criteria as radical, nonrigorous and subjective (Denzin & Lincoln 2000b). This same critique also emerges from qualitative authors such as Van Maanen (1995), Smith and Deemer (2000) and Morse et al. (2002). It could be argued that this crisis arose as researchers moved from a detached outsider position to that of integrated insider; from the researcher using a research instrument to the researcher being the instrument (McCracken 1988). Debate around the relevance and use in the naturalistic paradigm of the terms validity, reliability and generalizability has continued over 20 years (Guba & Lincoln 1981, Methodological rigour Sandelowski 1986, Mishler 1990, Lather 1995, Lincoln 1995, Morse et al. 2001). Much of current understanding of the difficulties associated with these concepts has emerged as researchers have striven for clarity of purpose in qualitative methodologies (Lather 1993, Altheide & Johnson 1994). Differences in epistemological perspectives between the two paradigms have been highlighted, particularly by qualitative researchers as they have endeavoured to establish arguments for rigour in their methodology (Bryman 2002). It has been suggested that concerns about rigour may be due partly to the fact that we are being drawn into a positivist, reductionist mode of thought and in the process are losing integrity in our own methodological positions (Aroni et al. 1999). It seems that, due to a long history of producing important findings, quantitative research has become the language of research rather than the language of a particular paradigm. Use of this language in qualitative research, and the need to ‘prove’ that an ‘unbiased’ approach has been used may stem from a desire for intellectual and scientific acceptance by the academic community. Quality assurance criteria Language is the basis on which philosophical beliefs are articulated and communicated. As language differs within philosophical perspectives, it is argued that the transference of terms across paradigms is inappropriate (Hamberg & Johansson 1999). Values, beliefs, epistemology and ontology of paradigms may not be comparable and may be semantically incompatible. This has led to a number of developments in qualitative inquiry, especially in the areas of quality and robustness of research; however, establishing a consensus on criteria for assessing quality of a qualitative study remains elusive. Indeed, some authors have questioned whether consensus can or will be achieved (Wainwright 1997, Sparks 2001, Seale 2002). As the field of qualitative inquiry is still emerging and being defined, what is needed is not consensus but a recognition of emerging criteria in the qualitative paradigm (Lincoln 1995). Epistemological developments in qualitative research The evolution of qualitative research has been discussed as a methodological journey. Writing on epistemological developments, Denzin and Lincoln (2000a)) identify seven major moments or ‘turns’ in qualitative research (Table 1). These turns offer a picture of epistemological, philosophical and methodological developments of qualitative research methods, and trace the epistemology of validity and reliability as concepts.  2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388–396 389 390 From Denzin and Lincoln (2000b, pp. 12–18). 7. The future Late 1990s–new millennium 6. Postexperimental period Fictional ethnographies, ethnographic poetry and multimedia texts Late 1980s–1990s 5. Postmodern period A struggle for making sense of the crises Action, participatory and activist-orientated research emerges Writings became more reflective. Issues regarding gender, class and race emerged. Writing becomes a method of inquiry through successive stages of self-reflection Struggle to represent the ‘other’. Reflections on the responsibility of social researchers strives to punctuate all texts Researcher seek to connect writings to the needs of society Mid-1980s 4. Crisis of representation Symbolic interactionism, constructivism, naturalistic inquiry, positivism and postpositivism, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, critical theory, neo-Marxist theory, semiotics, structuralism, and feminism Anthropological challenge, critical feminist theory Issues of validity, reliability and objectivity became once more unsettled and open to discourse 3. The blurred genres Post-World War II–1970s and still present today 1970–1986 2. The modernist phase Social realism, naturalism and slice of life ethnographies Researchers wrote objective accounts which reflected the positivist paradigm Formalization of qualitative methods. Rigorous qualitative analysis Diverse ways of collecting and analysing empirical material. Computerization was influencing data management and analysis Early 1900s–World War II 1. The traditional period Offered valid, reliable and objective interpretations Period Moments Table 1 Seven moments of qualitative research Focus Output G.A. Tobin and C.M. Begley Rigour A major argument presented in the literature concerns the need for a new approach and to reject anything that might link qualitative inquiry to the positivist quantitative approach; hence, the rejection of the terms validity and reliability (Peck & Secker 1999, Whittemore et al. 2001). The reasons for rejection of these terms as pertaining to a quantitative paradigm and therefore not pertinent to qualitative inquiry have been clearly argued (Altheide & Johnson 1994, Leninger 1994), but this outright denunciation has been cautioned by Morse (1999),as it may result in qualitative research being rejected as a science. She points out that science is concerned with rigour and that if we reject the concepts of validity and reliability, we reject the concept of rigour. If we reject scientific enquiry, we are undermining the belief that qualitative research is a scientific process that has a valued contribution to make to the advancement of knowledge. Rigour is the means by which we demonstrate integrity and competence (Aroni et al. 1999), a way of demonstrating the legitimacy of the research process. Without rigour, there is a danger that research may become fictional journalism, worthless as contributing to knowledge (Morse et al. 2002). However, in response to Morse’s caution, we suggest that qualitative researchers are not rejecting the concept of rigour, but are placing it within the epistemology of their work and making it more appropriate to their aims. The need to incorporate rigour, subjectivity and creativity into the scientific process of qualitative research has fuelled debate over the issues of bias and the process of demonstrating validity (Johnson 1999). Slevin and Sines (2000) identify use of rigorous methods of assessing truth and consistency as a means of ensuring that their findings represent reality. However, Van Manen (1990), Smith (1993), Denzin and Lincoln (2000a) and Arminio and Hultgren (2002) have all challenged the concept of rigour, arguing that by its nature it is an empirical analytical term and therefore does not fit into an interpretive approach. This view is refuted by Aroni et al. (1999), who suggest that concern about the demonstration of rigour is due to a struggle for legitimacy in a discipline that is dominated historically by the positivist paradigm. The representation of reality is the means of legitimizing the research and demonstrating the researcher’s integrity (Slevin & Sines 2000). Rigour is the means by which we show integrity and competence: it is about ethics and politics, regardless of the paradigm. Lincoln (1995, p. 287) suggests that ‘the standards for quality in interpretive social science are also standards for ethics’. The attributes of rigour span all research approaches. It is the construction, application and operationalization of these attributes that require innovation, creativity and transparency in qualitative study. Use of the  2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388–396 Methodological issues in nursing research term ‘validity’ changes somewhat as it translates the language of rationalistic to naturalistic paradigms. However, some writers have rejected the term completely and use others, such as trustworthiness, which is demonstrated through credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba 1985), peer debriefing, audit trail, member checks (Guba & Lincoln 1981), soundness (Marshall & Rossman 1989) and triangulation (Begley 1996b, Creswell 2002, Tobin & Begley 2002). Goodness Goodness is one application of rigour suggested by Smith (1993), Denzin and Lincoln (2000a), and Arminio and Hultgren (2002). They present the concept of goodness as a means of locating situatedness, trustworthiness and authenticity. This move towards goodness allows interpretive researchers to shift away from the shadow of empiricalanalytical expectations (Arminio & Hultgren 2002). Goodness is not seen as a separate construct, but as an integral and embedded component of the research process (Mishler 1990). In this respect, the goodness of a study cannot be limited merely to a discussion in a methodology section, but the essence of goodness must be reflected by the entire study. Arminio and Hultgren (2002) recommend that there should be at least six elements in an interpretive study through which goodness is shown: • Foundation (epistemology and theory) – this provides the philosophical stance and gives context to and informs the study • Approach (methodology) – specific grounding of the study’s logic and criteria • Collection of data (method) – explicitness about data collection and management • Representation of voice (researcher and participant as multicultural subjects) – researchers reflect on their relationship with participants and the phenomena under exploration • The art of meaning making (interpretation and presentation) – the process of presenting new insights through the data and chosen methodology • Implication for professional practice (recommendations). These six elements of the research process that are embedded throughout a research study, are central to communication of the study and should be explicit in the written report (Arminio and Hultgren (2002). However, the presentation of goodness as a linear process may be misleading as it could be applied solely to the writing up of projects and thus would become a ‘post hoc’ standard. Qualitative research is not linear, as often presented in methodological literature, but dynamic and interactive. The researcher is Methodological rigour constantly moving back and forth between design and implementation (Morse et al. 2002). Goodness therefore becomes an overarching principle of qualitative inquiry and an interactive process that takes place throughout the study. Qualitative researchers can move away from the language of positivist concerns with validity and reliability and embrace a more illuminative approach when offering evidence of goodness. However, in doing so are we simply introducing another word that says the same thing? Arminio and Hultgren’s (2002) suggested linear model of ensuring goodness appears to have similarities to other approaches that aim to highlight the robustness of a study. Are we in danger of introducing yet more confusion into the already turbulent waters of the validity debate? In embracing the latest ‘fad’ or newest terminology, are we becoming slaves to the consumerism of methodolatry (Janesick 2000)? Goodness may be viewed as developmental, leading to growth of understanding, surfacing of clarity, emerging of criteria (Lincoln 1995), and stretching of epistemologies (Janesick 1998). Whilst its origins might seem rooted in a need to defend our interpretative positions, it could be argued that there is a need to stand back, to take stock and examine our ontology, and to be judicious thinkers. In moving forward, we are not abandoning our held beliefs, or prostituting ourselves, as suggested by Aroni et al. (1999), but are refocusing our lens on the future (Hutchinson 2001). Emerging criteria within the naturalistic paradigm The 1980s saw the first main wave of qualitative literature, and the emergence of a new language for research. The introduction of Lincoln and Guba’s ideas on trustworthiness provided an opportunity for naturalistic inquirers to explore new ways of expressing validity, reliability and generalizability outside the linguistic confines of a rationalistic paradigm. Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 329) recognized that their criterion may be imperfect and that it ‘stands in marked contrast to that of conventional inquiry [positivist paradigm] which claims to be utterly unassailable’. Their concepts of credibility and dependability were innovative and challenging, and they provided the initial platform from which much of current debate on rigour emerged. They refined their concept of trustworthiness by introducing criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba 1985). Credibility (comparable with internal validity) addresses the issue of ‘fit’ between respondents’ views and the researcher’s representation of them (Schwandt 2001). It poses the questions of whether the explanation fits the description (Janesick 2000) and whether the description is credible.  2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388–396 391 G.A. Tobin and C.M. Begley Credibility is demonstrated through a number of strategies: member checks, peer debriefing, prolonged engagement, persistent observation and audit trails (Lincoln 1995). Transferability (comparable with external validity) refers to the generalizability of inquiry. In a naturalistic study, this concerns only to case-to-case transfer. Qualitative inquirers need to recognize that the comparable ‘external validity’ is substantially different in qualitative inquiry, as there is no single correct or ‘true’ interpretation in the naturalistic paradigm. Donmoyer (1990) argues that rejection of traditional perspectives of generalizability is required, as naturalistic inquiry has individual subjective meaning as central. Dependability (comparable with reliability) is achieved through a process of auditing. Inquirers are responsible for ensuring that the process of research is logical, traceable and clearly documented (Schwandt 2001). Dependability can then be demonstrated through an audit trail, where others can examine the inquirer’s documentation of data, methods, decisions and end product. Reflexivity is central to the audit trail, in which inquirers keep a self-critical account of the research process, including their internal and external dialogue. Auditing can also be used to authenticate confirmability. Confirmability (comparable with objectivity or neutrality) is concerned with establishing that ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: UC Berkeley




Research Approach


Research Approach

Explain the difference between reliability and validity differ? How do they complement
each other? Can a measure be reliable but invalid?
Reliability denotes a measure’s consistency while validity is the extent to which the scores of a
measure display actual values, which they are intended to represent. The main difference
between validity and reliability, therefore, is that while validity focuses on the accuracy of a
measure, reliability focuses on the consistency and predictability of the same (Tobin and Begley,
2004). Reliability involves such elements as test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and
interrater reliability. Reliability and validity complement each other in that reliability is a
prerequisite of validity. For a test to be valid, it has to display reliability first. For instance, if a
tool measures intelligence and gives a figure 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, applying the tool again to
the same person should bring a figure close to 6 or six itself. A measure can be reliable without
being valid. For instance, a measure using a tool that is defective may show constant results, but
these results are not accurate. Reliability and validity, therefore, work together to ensure
credibility in research and a study that is both reliable and valid is highly likely to be credible.
1. Introduction
The course-based research topic that I am going to consider is the effect of social media on selfesteem. The importance of this topic is in the general obsession with social media that many
people have in contemporary society. Primarily, many Americans are involved with social media
and hence are engaged with these avenues on a daily basis. From personal experience, social
media is mainly based on showing off, and many people go to the avenue to show off their lives
and achievements. My hypothesis is that this showing off may have a negative effect on the se...

flag Report DMCA

Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors