Internal consistency--The application and appropriateness of internal consistency would be viewed as reliability. Internal consistency describes the continuous results provided in any given test. It guarantees that a range of items measure the singular method giving consistent scores. The appropriateness would be to use the re-test method in which the same test is given to be able to compare whether the internal consistency has done its job (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). For example a test that could be given is the proficiency test which provides three different parts to the test, but if a person does not pass the test the same test is given again.
Strengths—The strength of internal consistency is its ability to provide continuously reliable measurement. Sometimes it may provide an internal consistency estimate in which the ability of different items continuously creating and ensuring the results is measureable. Internal consistency tracks down the most reliable contribution to measure the effectiveness of the context.
Weaknesses—The weakness in the internal consistency when used with some test it only become affective when the use of the test consist of the same items, and they must be items of the same difficulty and length. Test of reliability have been known to work best when the whole application items are used verses the shorter application items.
Split-half—Is obtained by correlating two pairs of scores obtained form equivalent halves of a single test administered once. It is a useful measure of reliability when it is impractical or undesirable to assess reliability with two tests or to administer a test twice (because of factors such as time or expense). When it comes to calculating split-half reliability coefficients, there’s more than one way to split a test, but there are some ways you should never split a test. Simply dividing the test in the middle is not recommended because it’s likely this procedure would spuriously raise or lower the reliability coefficient.
Strengths-The strength of this measure is that it takes less time and it is less troublesome for test takers than the parallel form, but a good measurement for the internal consistency. The split half helps to keep the go-between variables in check which might cause error variance into the study since each part of the parallel is taken once.
Weaknesses— Numerous amounts of go-between variables are developed by this form of measuring reliability. It is not wise to split a test down the middle, but a person may not obtain the best score. Other halves should have the same content and trouble questions so the measure of reliability can be accurate.
Test/retest—The test/retest reliability measure is appropriate when evaluating the reliability of a test that maintains to measure something that is relatively stable over time, such as a personality trait. If the characteristic being measured is assumed to change over time, than there would be little sense in assessing the reliability of the test using the test-retest method. The purpose of test/retest is to take the same test all the time, using the same people at different times (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). For example a grammar test in which the person is given and than at a different time the same test is given. When given the test a second time the results should be about the same.
Strengths—The strengths of the test/retest the measure the reliability of test such as reaction time or one’s perceptual judgment (including discrimination of brightness, loudness or taste. However, even in measuring variables such as these, an even when the time period between the two administrations of the test is relatively small, various factors such as experience, practice, memory, fatigue and motivation may intervene and confound an obtained measure of reliability ( Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). For example one grammar test that...