( make sure you ask substantial questions and engage in the topic)
discussion 1 PSY 7610
Unit 3 Discussion 1-Brooke Kight
In the field of psychology, reliability refers to test score consistency. When exploring the reliability of a test, one must ensure clear understanding of what, specifically, they are determining the reliability of. Reliability is not a concept of what is good or bad but simply what is consistent (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). A test may be reliable at measuring one aspect; however, may be unreliable measuring another. (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). Different degrees of reliability are referred to as reliability coefficient. The term reliability coefficient is the ratio between the tests true score and the total variance (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). In this way of speaking, a score on an aptitude test must be considered to not only reflect the test-takers true score, but also potential errors that do not accurately represent the test-takers abilities. Three types of reliability explored in this discussion are test-retest reliability coefficient, alternate-forms coefficient, and internal consistency coefficient.
Reliability Coefficients
A test-retest reliability coefficient is designed to evaluate the stability of measurements provided by a test (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). The coefficient of alternate-forms evaluates the relationship between the different forms of a measure such as cross-cultural measures (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). Internal consistency provides an evaluation of how items on a scale relate to each other (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). Reliability coefficients are score of 1 is considered the perfect score and anything below this score can be correlated with the typical grading scale of an educational institution. In this relation, a score of 0.65-0.70s is considered a weak score, or a grade that is barely passing and thus would be determined to be unreliable. A test score of 0.80s correlates to a B rating, relating that anything below 0.85 to be below average. A score of .90 would result in the grade of an A with anything above 0.95 being considered the most reliable (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018).
Evaluation of Things Reliability Scores
The test-retest reliability coefficient is used to determine the stability of what the test is measuring over time (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). Test-retest reliability is achieved through giving the same test, to the same individual, at a variety of times. If the reliability coefficient score is close to 1.0 the test is determined stable in its measurement. A score of .50, received by THING, provides indication that the test administration or development is not considered consistent and thus cannot be considered reliable.
The alternative-forms reliability coefficient of the THING test scored 0.82. This score is attained by measuring the relationship between the alternative forms of the THING tests. Frequent forms of error result from error variance occurring from alternative types of test being unreliable (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). THINGs measure of 0.82 achieves the scoring correlation of a B- and relates that the reliability is higher in this aspect; however, still falls short of perfection.
The THING tests scored highest in the internal consistency reliability coefficient with a score of 0.92. Internal consistency reliability determines the reliability of a test through single administration only (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). A score of 0.92 presents the internal consistency of the test format, test words, to be directly connected to the criterion of the test. This score relates that the internal consistency can be deemed reliable.
Conclusion
Reliability coefficient scoring measures test based on specific criteria. Although reliable in one aspect, a test may be unreliable in many others (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). Each of the scores presented above provide an evaluation varying perspectives on the reliability of THING tests. Through the scores provided, one can assume that this test form is reliable; however, the varying forms and administration practices of the test could be improved upon.
Brooke Kight
Applied Behavior Analysis
References
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Discussion 2 PSY7708
1 day agoAshley Hammonds Unit 3 DiscussionCOLLAPSE
Operant conditioning and respondent conditioning are the two different methods of learning that are used by individuals. According to Cooper et al. (2020), operant conditioning is learning that occurs through consequence that is increased (reinforcement) or decreased (punishment) in frequency of the behavior. The three-term contingency in operant conditioning is an ABC which shows a relationship between antecedent, behavior and consequence (Cooper et al., 2020). Respondent conditioning is when behaviors are elicited by stimuli and will occur automatically when the stimuli is presented. These behaviors are natural occurring responses and involves a two-term contingency, stimuli- response (S-R). Below are examples of both operant and respondent conditionings.
Operant conditioning:
A- The teacher told Andrea to complete her math assignment.
B- Andrea completed the math assignment.
C- The teacher gave Andrea a sticker.
Andrea will more than likely continue to complete her assignments because she was reinforced with stickers. This shows how reinforcement can influence the future.
A- Dad instructed Chris to take out the trash.
B- Chris took the trash outside.
C- Dad gave Chris a dollar.
Chris will more than likely continue to empty the trash because he was reinforced with money. This example shows how reinforcement can influence the future.
A- Mom told Alex not to jump off the stairs.
B. Alex jumped off the stairs.
C. Both of Alexs knees began to bleed.
Alex will more than likely not jumped off of the stairs anymore because he hurt both of his legs, this is an example of how the behavior will likely decrease.
Respondent Conditioning:
Lisa rattles the bag of food. (S)
Her dog comes running to her. (R)
Rattling the bag of food is the stimuli and when the dog hears it, she runs to it and that is the response.
Dexter is seasoning his food with black pepper. (S)
Dexter begins to sneeze. (R)
Black pepper is the neutral stimuli and sneezing is his response or reflex to the stimuli.
Alicia smells her favorite food of crab being cook. (S)
Alicia begins to salivate. (R)
Alicia smelling crab being cooked is the stimuli while her salivating is the response to the stimuli.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
DISCUSSION 3 PSY7708
1 day agoTammy Greenfield Unit 3 discussionCOLLAPSE
Operant conditioning as described by Cooper, Heron, and Heward refers to the process and selective effects of consequences on behavior. (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2020, p.34). Operant conditioning seeks to change behavior that occurs within the future by either increasing or decreasing with the use of reinforcement and punishment. A three term contingency referred to as ABC format consists of antecedent, behavior, and consequence. For example:
1. John is presented a writing task by his teacher, John throws the task on the floor, and the teacher presents the task a second time with additional instructions. John was given additional instruction and the task represented because of the behavior; positive punishment. The positive punishment enforced would be intended to increase John completing writing tasks while also decreasing the times john throws his assignments on the floor.
2. Kellys alarm clock goes off, Kelly hits the snooze button, and Kelly is late to work. Example two is operant conditioning because Kelly is late to work resulting in negative punishment. This punishment would be decrease the future behavior of hitting the snooze button.
3. Whistle blows to line up at recess, David quickly lines up, and David earns a sticker. With the use of reinforcement for quickly lining up this example also meets the criteria for operant conditioning.
Respondent conditioning involves a neutral stimulus which is followed by an unconditioned stimulus; using a two-term contingency format. For example: a dog barks and the person jumps from being startled, soda can is opened fizzing and you begin to salivate, or hearing a bag crinkle and the dog coming up for a treat. These examples fall under respondent conditioning as each response is a reflex to the neutral stimulus.
References
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
