While reliability and validity are distinct

Reliability in Tests concepts, they are closely interrelated in the

I. Introduction context of educational assessment. Validity
refers to the extent to which a test measures
Reliability in the context of educational what it is intended to measure. The relationship
assessment refers to the degree to which a test between reliability and validity can be
measures something consistently. It is a summarized as follows:
fundamental concept in psychometrics and a
crucial characteristic of any well-designed • Reliability is necessary but not sufficient for
assessment tool. Reliability can be thought of validity - A test cannot be valid if it is not
as the consistency or stability of assessment reliable. If a test produces inconsistent
results (Garcia, 2013). results, it cannot accurately measure the
intended construct. However, a test can be
Importantly, reliability is considered to be a reliable without being valid – it might
characteristic of scores or results, not the test consistently measure something, but not
itself. This distinction is crucial because it necessarily what it's supposed to measure.
emphasizes that reliability can vary depending • Improving reliability can enhance validity -
on the specific group of test-takers and the By reducing measurement error and
circumstances under which the test is increasing consistency, improvements in
administered. A reliable test is one that reliability often lead to enhanced validity.
produces consistent scores across different • Trade-offs between reliability and validity -
testing occasions, assuming that the underlying In some cases, efforts to increase reliability
trait or knowledge being measured has not (e.g., by making test items more similar to
changed (Ornstein, 1990). each other) can potentially reduce validity
by narrowing the scope of what is being
measured.
The importance of reliability in assessments • Different types of validity - Reliability
cannot be overstated. Reliable assessments are contributes differently to various types of
essential for several reasons: validity. For instance, it is particularly crucial
for predictive validity, where test scores are
• Fairness - Consistent measurement ensures
used to forecast future performance.
that all test-takers are evaluated on an
equal footing, regardless of when or where An interesting way to understand this
they take the test. relationship is through an analogy provided in
• Decision-making - Educational and the document: Consider two tests, one that is
administrative decisions based on test "reliable but not valid" and another that is "valid
scores (such as grade advancement, but not reliable." For example, measuring
program placement, or certification) require student intelligence by counting how many
reliable data to be valid and defensible. push-ups they can do in a week is likely to be
• Instructional planning - Teachers and reliable (you'll get consistent results) but not
educators use assessment results to inform valid (it doesn't actually measure intelligence).
their teaching strategies and curriculum Conversely, a teacher evaluation survey
development. Unreliable assessments can administered right after an uncharacteristic
lead to misguided instructional decisions. reprimand might be valid in its questions but
• Research validity - In educational research, not reliable due to the unusual circumstances
reliable measurements are crucial for affecting students' responses.
drawing accurate conclusions about
teaching methods, learning interventions,
and student progress. Understanding the interplay between reliability
• Confidence in results - Stakeholders, and validity is crucial for developing and
including students, parents, and interpreting educational assessments that
policymakers, need to trust that assessment provide meaningful and actionable information
results accurately reflect student knowledge about student learning and performance
or skills. (Calmorin & Calmorin, 1997).
II. Common Threats to Reliability and conduct thorough item analysis to detect
and resolve inconsistencies (Ornstein, 1990).
Reliability in educational assessment can be
compromised by various factors. Understanding
these threats is crucial for educators and test
3. Inconsistencies between alternate skills in
developers to design and implement more
the same content domain
effective assessment tools. Let's explore the
common threats to reliability in detail: This threat arises from the complexity of skills
taught in the classroom. When assessing
1. Inconsistencies between earlier and later
related but distinct skills within a content area,
measures
student performance may vary, potentially
This threat refers to the potential for test affecting the overall reliability of the
scores to change over time, even when the assessment.
underlying trait or knowledge being measured
For instance, in assessing a student's ability to
hasn't changed. While some changes in
deliver a persuasive speech, inconsistencies
performance are expected and even desirable
might arise due to factors such as the speech
(e.g., improvement due to learning),
topic, the instructional goals of the teacher, or
inconsistent results can threaten reliability.
the confidence and attitude of the student.
For example, consider students who are While these factors contribute to the richness
administered aptitude tests in third grade and of the assessment, they can also introduce
again in sixth grade. Some inconsistency in variability that affects reliability (Garcia, 2013).
results is expected and even desirable, as it may
reflect genuine cognitive development.
However, significant unexplained variations 4. Inconsistencies from measuring unrelated
could indicate a reliability issue (Garcia, 2013). qualities within one test

It's important to note that the appropriate level This threat occurs when a single score is used
of consistency depends on what's being to report student performance on multiple
measured. For relatively stable traits like unrelated qualities. For example, using one
intelligence, high consistency is expected. For score on an essay test to indicate the
skills that are actively being taught, some correctness of answers, spelling accuracy, and
inconsistency might reflect learning progress. reading comprehension can lead to unreliable
results.

To address this, it's crucial to clearly define

2. Inconsistencies between test items
what is being measured and, when necessary,
measuring the same skill
use separate scores for distinct skills or
When multiple items on a test are designed to qualities. This approach, known as analytic
measure the same skill, inconsistent responses scoring, can improve the reliability and
across these items can threaten reliability. This diagnostic value of assessments (Calmorin &
type of inconsistency can arise from several Calmorin, 1997).
sources:

1. Guessing: Especially on multiple-choice

5. Inconsistencies between different raters in
tests, random guessing can lead to
scoring
inconsistent responses.
2. Vague questions: Poorly worded or When multiple raters are involved in scoring,
ambiguous items can lead to such as for essays or performance assessments,
misinterpretation and inconsistent differences in their judgments can threaten
responses. reliability. This is known as inter-rater reliability.
3. Misalignment: Items intended to measure
While having multiple raters can potentially
the same skill might inadvertently assess
improve reliability by averaging out individual
different skills or knowledge areas.
biases, it's often impractical in classroom
To mitigate this threat, test developers should settings. Therefore, the focus is often on
ensure clear, unambiguous wording of items reducing inconsistencies in a single teacher's
ratings. This can be achieved through clear
rubrics, rater training, and periodic checks for • Aptitude tests
consistency (Ornstein, 1990). • Personality assessments
• Physical skill measurements
• Cognitive ability tests
6. Inconsistencies in decisions based on
This method is most appropriate when the
student performance
construct being measured is believed to be
This threat relates to the potential for stable over time. For instance, intelligence
misclassification of students relative to a quotient (IQ) scores are expected to remain
passing score due to inconsistencies in test relatively constant, making the Test-Retest
scores. Such misclassifications are more likely method suitable for IQ tests (Kaplan &
to occur among students whose true Saccuzzo, 2017).
performance is close to the passing score.

To mitigate this threat, it's important to

B. Potential biases
consider the standard error of measurement
when making high-stakes decisions based on While the Test-Retest method is
test scores. Additionally, using multiple straightforward, it's not without potential
measures or assessments can provide a more biases:
reliable basis for important educational
a) Practice effects: Participants may perform
decisions (Garcia, 2013).
better on the second test administration due to
familiarity with the test items or format.

Understanding these threats to reliability is b) Maturation: If the time between test

crucial for developing and implementing administrations is significant, natural
effective assessment strategies. By recognizing development or changes in the participants
potential sources of inconsistency, educators could affect scores.
and test developers can take steps to minimize
c) Memory effects: Participants might
their impact and create more reliable
remember and reproduce their previous
assessments. This, in turn, contributes to more
answers, artificially inflating reliability
valid and fair educational measurement
estimates.
practices.
d) Intervening events: Significant life events or
learning experiences between test
III. Methods of Determining Test Reliability administrations could impact scores.

Reliability is a crucial aspect of test quality, and To mitigate these biases, researchers must
there are several methods to assess it. Each carefully consider the time interval between
method has its strengths and is appropriate for test administrations. This interval should be
different situations. In this section, we'll explore long enough to minimize memory effects but
two key methods: the Test-Retest method and short enough to avoid significant maturation or
the Parallel/Alternate-Form Method. intervening events (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018).

1. Test-Retest Method C. Calculating Test-Retest Reliability

The Test-Retest method is one of the most There are several statistical methods for
straightforward approaches to assessing calculating Test-Retest reliability:
reliability. It involves administering the same
a) Pearson Correlation CoefficientLinks to an
test to the same group of individuals on two
external site.
separate occasions and then comparing the
results (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). This is the most commonly used method for
two test administrations. It measures the
A. Appropriate use cases
strength of the linear relationship between the
The Test-Retest method is particularly suitable two sets of scores. The formula is:
for tests that are expected to yield consistent
results over time. It's often used for:
r = Σ((X - X̄)(Y - Ȳ)) / √(Σ(X - X̄)² * Σ(Y - Ȳ)²) particularly useful when practice effects are a
concern or when multiple test administrations
are required (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).
Where X and Y are the scores from the first
A. Appropriate use cases
and second test administrations, respectively,
and X̄ and Ȳ are their means. This method is suitable for:

- Achievement tests where multiple versions

are needed
b) Spearman Rank Rho correlationLinks to an
external site. - Aptitude tests requiring repeated
measurements
This is used when the data are ordinal or when
the relationship between the two sets of scores - Situations where test security is a concern
is non-linear but monotonic. It's calculated
The Parallel/Alternate-Form Method is
similarly to the Pearson correlation, but using
particularly valuable in educational settings
ranked data
where teachers need to administer similar but
c) Intraclass CorrelationLinks to an external site. not identical tests throughout a course (Cohen
(ICC) & Swerdlik, 2018).

This method is preferred when there are more

than two test administrations or when you
B. Test construction considerations
want to account for systematic differences in
test scores. ICC is also advantageous for small Creating truly parallel forms is challenging and
sample sizes (n < 15) as it doesn't overestimate requires careful test construction:
relationships like Pearson's correlation can.
a) Content equivalence: Both forms should
cover the same content areas in similar
proportions.
4. Interpreting reliability coefficients
b) Statistical equivalence: The forms should
have similar means, variances, and inter-item
Test-retest reliability coefficients range from 0 correlations.
to 1, where:
c) Difficulty level: The overall difficulty and the
difficulty of individual items should be
comparable across forms.
- 1.0 indicates perfect reliability
d) Time limits: If timed, both forms should have
- ≥ 0.9 suggests excellent reliability
the same time limit.
- 0.8 - 0.89 indicates good reliability

- 0.7 - 0.79 suggests acceptable reliability

C. Calculating Parallel/Alternate-Form
- 0.6 - 0.69 indicates questionable reliability Reliability

- 0.5 - 0.59 suggests poor reliability The reliability coefficient is typically calculated
using the Pearson correlation coefficient
- < 0.5 indicates unacceptable reliability between scores on the two forms. The
interpretation of these coefficients follows the
same guidelines as for Test-Retest reliability.
These interpretations are guidelines and may
vary depending on the specific context and
purpose of the test (Koo & Li, 2016). D. Advantages and limitations

Advantages:
2. Parallel/Alternate-Form Method • Minimizes practice effects
The Parallel/Alternate-Form Method involves • Useful for repeated testing situations
administering two equivalent forms of a test to • Can help maintain test security
the same group of individuals. This method is
Limitations: The KR methods provide a more
comprehensive measure of internal consistency
• Difficult and time-consuming to construct
than the split-half method, as they consider all
truly parallel forms
possible split-half combinations (Kuder &
• May not account for day-to-day
Richardson, 1937).
fluctuations in performance

C. Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha

3. Internal-Consistency Reliability

Internal-consistency reliability is a measure of

how well the items on a test that are designed Cronbach's alpha is a generalization of the KR-
to measure the same construct produce similar 20 formula and can be used with items that
results. This method is particularly useful when have more than two score values (e.g., Likert
you have only one test administration and want scales). It's widely used in social sciences
to assess the consistency of results across research
items within the test (Devellis, 2016).
Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0 to 1, with
A. Split-half methodLinks to an external site. higher values indicating greater internal
consistency. Generally, an alpha of 0.70 or
The split-half method involves dividing the test
higher is considered acceptable for research
into two equal halves and comparing the scores
purposes, though this can vary depending on
on these halves. Typically, this is done by
the field and purpose of the test (Nunnally &
correlating scores on odd-numbered items with
Bernstein, 1994).
scores on even-numbered items.
Cronbach's alpha assumes that all items
Procedure:
contribute equally to the measurement of the
a) Administer the full test to a group of construct. When this assumption is violated
participants. (e.g., in multidimensional scales), alpha may
underestimate the true reliability (Cortina,
b) Divide the test items into two halves (usually 1993).
odd and even items).

c) Calculate the correlation between scores on

the two halves. D. Inter-Rater Method

d) Apply the Spearman-Brown prophecy The inter-rater method, also known as inter-
formula to estimate the reliability of the full rater reliability or inter-observer reliability, is
test: used to assess the degree to which different
raters or observers give consistent estimates of
The split-half method is easy to implement but
the same phenomenon. This method is
has limitations. The reliability estimate can vary
particularly important for subjective
depending on how the test is split, and it
assessments, such as essay grading, behavioral
assumes that all items are measuring the same
observations, or clinical diagnoses (McHugh,
construct with equal precision (Anastasi &
2012).
Urbina, 1997).
Procedure:

1. Two or more raters independently score the

B. Kuder-Richardson methodLinks to an same set of responses or observe the same
external site. behaviors.
The Kuder-Richardson (KR) formulas are used 2. The level of agreement between the raters
for tests with dichotomous items (e.g., is calculated using appropriate statistical
right/wrong, true/false). The most commonly methods.
used formulas are KR-20 and KR-21.

KR-20 Formula: Common statistical measures for inter-rater

reliability include:
1. Percentage Agreement: The simplest guessing formulas in multiple-choice tests
measure, calculated as the number of (Frary, 1988).
agreements divided by the total number of
- Use innovative item formats that reduce the
ratings. However, this method doesn't
probability of correct guessing, such as multiple
account for agreements that occur by
true-false items or confidence-weighted
chance.
scoring (Ebel & Frisbie, 1991).
2. Cohen's KappaLinks to an external site.:
Used for categorical ratings, it accounts for
the possibility of agreement occurring by
C. Standardizing test administration:
chance.
- Develop and follow detailed administration
protocols to ensure consistency across
4. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC): different test administrators and settings.
Used for continuous ratings, it assesses
- Provide clear instructions to test-takers to
both the consistency of ratings and the
minimize misunderstandings.
agreement between raters.
5. Krippendorff's Alpha: A versatile measure
that can be used with any number of raters,
missing data, and various types of variables D. Minimizing external distractions:
(nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio). - Create a suitable testing environment that is
Improving inter-rater reliability often involves free from noise and other disruptions.
clear scoring rubrics, rater training, and regular - Ensure all test-takers have access to
calibration sessions (Gwet, 2014). necessary resources (e.g., calculators, if
permitted) to avoid inequities.

IV. Techniques for Improving Reliability

Improving the reliability of assessments is 2. Improving the scoring of performance

crucial for ensuring accurate and consistent Consistent and accurate scoring is essential for
measurement of student learning and reliable assessments, particularly for subjective
performance. Here are four key techniques that measures like essays or performance tasks.
can be employed to enhance reliability:

1. Improving the quality of observations

A. Developing clear scoring rubrics:
The quality of observations in assessments
significantly impacts reliability. This technique - Create detailed, objective criteria for each
focuses on reducing ambiguities and improving score point.
the precision of test items and observational - Include examples of responses at each
methods. performance level to guide scorers.
A. Enhancing test item quality: - Regularly review and refine rubrics based on
- Use clear, unambiguous language in test scorer feedback and item analysis (Jonsson &
questions. Svingby, 2007).

- Ensure that items are appropriate for the

intended age group and skill level. B. Training scorers:
- Conduct thorough item analysis to identify - Provide comprehensive training to all
and revise problematic questions. scorers, including practice with sample
responses.

B. Controlling for guessing: - Conduct regular calibration sessions to

ensure consistent interpretation of scoring
- Implement appropriate scoring methods that criteria.
account for guessing, such as correction for
C. Implementing double-scoring:

- Have two independent raters score each 4. Expanding the breadth of observations
response and resolve discrepancies through
This technique involves assessing a construct
discussion or a third rater.
using a variety of methods or contexts to
- Use statistical methods to monitor inter- improve generalizability and reduce the impact
rater reliability and identify scorers who may of method-specific variance.
need additional training (Johnson et al., 2003).
1. Using diverse item formats:

- Incorporate a mix of item types (e.g.,

D. Utilizing automated scoring: multiple-choice, short answer, essay) to assess
the same construct.
- Where appropriate, consider using
computer-assisted or fully automated scoring - This approach helps to balance the strengths
systems for certain types of responses (e.g., and weaknesses of different item formats
short answer questions, essays). (Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013).

- Validate automated scoring against human

raters to ensure accuracy and fairness (Shermis
2. Assessing across multiple contexts:
& Burstein, 2013).
- In performance assessments, evaluate skills
across various relevant situations or scenarios.
3. Increasing the number of observations
- This approach improves the generalizability
Reliability can often be improved by simply of the assessment results (Brennan, 2001).
increasing the number of observations or test
items, as this helps to average out random
fluctuations in performance. 3. Implementing multi-method assessment:

A. Lengthening tests: - Use a combination of assessment methods

(e.g., written tests, oral examinations, practical
- Add more items to the test, ensuring they
demonstrations) to evaluate a single construct.
are of similar quality and difficulty to existing
items. - This approach can provide a more
comprehensive and reliable measure of student
- Use the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula
abilities (Kane, 2006).
to estimate the impact of test length on
reliability (Wells & Wollack, 2003).

4. Incorporating technology:

B. Implementing multiple assessments: - Utilize computer-adaptive testing to tailor

item difficulty to student ability levels,
- Use a series of shorter tests rather than a
potentially improving measurement precision
single long test to reduce fatigue effects.
with fewer items (Wainer, 2000).
- Combine scores from multiple assessments
- Use simulation or virtual reality
to get a more reliable measure of student
environments to create more realistic and
performance over time.
varied assessment contexts, particularly for
performance-based skills.

C. Increasing sampling of behavior:

- In performance assessments, observe By implementing these techniques, educators

students multiple times in various contexts to and assessment developers can significantly
get a more comprehensive view of their enhance the reliability of their measures. It's
abilities. important to note that the most appropriate
techniques will depend on the specific context,
- Use portfolio assessments that collect
purpose, and constraints of the assessment.
evidence of student work over an extended
Regular evaluation and refinement of
period (Linn & Baker, 1996).
assessment practices, informed by both
quantitative analyses and qualitative feedback,
are key to maintaining and improving reliability
over time.