Hello everyone,
I am trying to grasp a concept but not having any luck.
The statement "reliability places an upper limit on validity" makes a bit of sense to me, for example, a test with r = .70 could not correlate higher than this with any other test.
BUT what would it mean if it did? Say a test of Emotional Intelligence has a reliability coefficient r = .70 but then the test correlates more highly with another test, say at r = .92. What would this mean? My thoughts are...
1. that the original test is not consistent, so not reliable
2. since the original test is not reliable, it is not valid.
Does this make sense or have I gone wrong somewhere? Stats logic not my forte clearly!
Thank you for any help in advance
I am trying to grasp a concept but not having any luck.
The statement "reliability places an upper limit on validity" makes a bit of sense to me, for example, a test with r = .70 could not correlate higher than this with any other test.
BUT what would it mean if it did? Say a test of Emotional Intelligence has a reliability coefficient r = .70 but then the test correlates more highly with another test, say at r = .92. What would this mean? My thoughts are...
1. that the original test is not consistent, so not reliable
2. since the original test is not reliable, it is not valid.
Does this make sense or have I gone wrong somewhere? Stats logic not my forte clearly!
Thank you for any help in advance