Nowadays, as what we known students are prefer to do their research and gain the information throughout the online sources as opposed to the past time students. By using the modern way, students probably will face several problems in term of comparison the information and linking the data together cause the student neglect the three different approaches of the literature to guide the student in form of business research, which is involves the validity, reliability and the generalization the data of information that they have been through. In this article, the researcher has to review and think about how they are going to encourage the students to maintain the quality of the research on the three different approaches in form of the literature which is distinguish into four categories views such as: the positivist view, the phenomenological view, the embedded view, and the skills view.
Critical of the following in the research paper
Structure
The structure of the article is not smooth because it’s doesn’t indicate any aim and objective. It doesn’t provide any research problem, list out all the approaches research methods in generally. It does provide an excellent literature review.
Content
The research methodologies requirement of the research paper are involves the three approaches which are mentioned by the article. It’s consists validity, reliability and generalization. The three approaches are required to the student’s research paper. However, students are facing a number of the problem on writing their research paper. Students are requiring applying the concepts of the three different approaches on their research paper. Unfortunately, the students seem did not notice those approaches and lack of the consideration on generating their research. Thus, students are unable to write a good research paper. In this article, the research paper problem is about how to encourage the student to write a good research and influence the student consider to contribute those three approaches which are: validity, reliability, and generalization in form of quantitative and qualitative research.
Validity and reliability in Quantitative study.
Validity in quantitative study is defined as “ the test for internal validity is how confident the researcher is that the independent variable is at least partly responsible for the variation found in the dependent variable.” (Smallbone, T. and Quinton, Sarah , 2004). In this research article has mentioned there are four validity test that used by philosophical approach and research methodology which are: construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability. The internal validity of the quantitative research measurement fall into three aspects which are involves the content validity, predictive validity and concurrent validity. The experimental researchers are using the triangulation in quantitative research. Reliability in quantitative study is discussed about the consistency or the accuracy of the result by doing the measurement to test the result.
The author of this research article has stated the validity and reliability in Qualitative study are relevant. The external validity in qualitative study is hard to generalise. In qualitative research there are two key issues, involves: trustworthiness and authenticity. Trustworthiness sub-divide into four aspects. These are including: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The authenticity sub-divide into four aspects. These are including: fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, and catalytic authenticity. In qualitative research, generalization is the weakness point and can only be generalised only by some theories. The consideration of the validity, reliability and generalisation while the secondary data being read, discuss, analyze and the theories applied to the case study.
Underlying principles and assumptions
Thomas, Alan B (2006) argue that definition of validity in quantitative research is the discussion of the issues are strongly shows the clearly the measurement of the problem. According to Golafshani. N (2003), validity in quantitative research is the measurement of the research which is measure and ensures that the result is accurate in the research. Generally, the researchers establish the validity by asking the questions and compare the answer with other research paper. In quantitative research, validity is described as the construct validity which is to determine the information has been collected to be link together and how to be linked by Wainer and Braun 1998 (cited in Golafshani. N, 2003). The four type of test in the research methods have been summarized, involves: the first test is construct validity has defined as the problematic test in the research it usually correct the measurement of the fact in case study for the concepts that have been studied. The second test is internal validity has defined as the test that are more relied to causal studies which is determine the causal relationship whether the conditions are lead to the other conditions. The third test is external validity has defined as the test of the problem to indentify research could be generalized. The last test is reliability has defined as the test that to identify whether the examiner is followed the earlier examiner procedures and repeated the same result again. (Yin, Robert K, 2003).
The quantitative research measurement classified into three major way of identifying the ascertain and the type of notion increase in the validity. These are including predictive validity – predictive validity has defined as the test of the relationship between the result of the test and the following manners for those being examined. Concurrent validity – has defined as the test of the relationship between the result of the test and those valid measurement procedures are repeated and occupied over again. Content validity – has defined as the test of the validity which effectively, represent the content to assess by area under discussion. In the other hand, predictive validity and concurrent validity were gathered as a group in criterion-relation validity. The reason both types of validity has been grouped and recognized by comparing their test result with a set of attribute that proposed to be measure (Thomas, Alan B, 2006). “ An experiment is valid if the results obtained are due only to the manipulated independent variable, and if they are generalizable to situation outside of the experimental setting” (Gay, L. R and Diehl, P. L. (P. 386), 1996). Triangulation is the most important methodologies issue in naturalistic approach and it is typically improving the validity and reliability of the research evaluation of the data that has been collected by using some strategy or a test to measure it (Golafshani, N., 2003). Reliability in quantitative research has defined as the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the result of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable by Joppe (2000) (p. 1) (cited in Golafshani, N., 2003). Reliability is the level of the test which is over and over again measures anything it measures and it is often useful in expressed numerically (Gay, L. R. and Diehl, P. L., 1996). According to Golafshani, N. (2003), the reliability is the method of test by questioning or identify the test being answered and can be determine the test by using the test-retest method is to measure the similarity of the result and the result is repeatable.
In qualitative research, reliability is a method that used for examines and evaluates the quality by explaining approach in qualitative research. Reliability is irrelevant in qualitative research is because of the difference of evaluate the quality. Qualifying and measure the research in term of validity in qualitative research is not applicable. To increase the validity of the research throughout the test to measure the high quality of the research is connected to the generalizability of the result (Golafshani, N., 2003).
