According to Dr. Zak, the reliability of her measuring tool was consistent, however, she could have estimated the reliability of her measure through making it a priority to keep the measuring scale at a consistent value because the reliability of a measuring tool relies on its consistency. Although "reliability is neccessary it is not a sufficient element of a good test" (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010, p. 108). She also could have changed the measuring scale to more specifics to estimate reliability. Validity is when test measures what it proposes to test and accurately (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). Dr. Zak could have presented the scale items more specifically related to the subject being tested. Another, approach to estimating validity in Dr. Zak's assessment was to calibrate the scale to more appropriately identify symptoms of the subject being tested. When measuring depression, Dr. Zak presented simplistic items within her assessment that would not have been indicative of major depression; there was also not possibility for those without depression but lower depression. These items on her scale did not leave much room for success but for error, which her assessment did not accurately prevent. The measuring scale was not appropriate for Dr. Zak's study because she did not have a consistency in her measurements, neither did her assessment measure what it was supposed to, and this limited the validity of her assessment. I believe that Zak's assessment scale limits her reliability and validity which is why the scale could contain more specific items instead of general items.
Upon reading the post, he or she used a lot of repetition, and confused me at times. The individual made some good points on the reliability of measurements needing to be consistent. I believe that both reliability and validity both need tested within a psychological ...
This solution provided an opinion based off a scenario about Dr. Zak.