[etni] [FWD: Re: relialbility]

  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: relialbility
From: z_levi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
     
Although I was referring to Ruth Shefer's comment 
regarding reliability, 'I will take the trouble' 
and say to you that there are various types of 
reliability when it comes to examining a test's quality. 
You mentioned one type. You are right that the Bagrut 
is not reliable in terms of test-retest. But for 
example, inter-rater reliability is achieved to a 
certain extent.  
Still, I want to point out that what was described  
was a different aspect altogether which has nothing 
to do with reliability. 
(By the way, the cynical tone was unnecessary)  
Tziona. 
  
  

Motti wrote:
>I am sorry, my previous answer did not come through like planned. 
  
>Dear Ziona, 
>If you cared to read what I wrote in my original note you could 
>possibly have saved yourself the trouble of commenting that 
>"this is not reliability". 
>In that note I referred readers to a quotation from an academic source: 
   
http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/psychology/researchmethods/researchanddesign/validityandreliability.htm

Other related posts: