quantitative research validity and reliability

In the case of quantitative research, for instance, will they measure what they need to measure. Internal validity refers to the procedures or methods used in the research and the extent to which they are appropriate to address the research question. There are two aspects of validity, internal and external, that are brought into play within the scientific paradigm. In other words, are the research methods and findings authentic and useful. Validity, I have discovered, refers to the credibility of any research. I have, therefore, been reading up and will briefly outline what I have gleaned in relation to these terms in the hope that it will bring some clarity. Yet often I am unclear what validity or reliability criteria are being applied and not sure if these are appropriate for my own or others’ qualitative, practice-based studies. I have the same unease with the concept and language of ‘validity’ and ‘reliability,’ both of which are frequently invoked alongside rigour to suggest that qualitative research is or isn’t of high quality and worth believing. I have written in a previous blog on the concept of ‘care’ in relation to qualitative and arts-based research and how this makes more sense to me than notions of ‘rigour’ derived from scientific research.

Running through my mind are a series of questions: is the investigation thorough and the argument logical? Has the methodology been appropriate, given the questions I am asking? Am I generating new insights that make a useful contribution to the field? Needless to say, I am keen to produce research of high quality and have been paying attention to how others define this, comparing their ideas with my own sense of what constitutes valuable work.

As I get closer to the end of my fellowship and the writing up of my research I have become preoccupied with whether it is any good.

Quantitative research validity and reliability