Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
NursingDiscussion postResearch methods

DNP 820 Topic 4 DQ 1: reliability and validity

Explaining it plainly without losing accuracy is the graded skill, and the classic trap is any explanation that implies a reliable instrument is a good one.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 15, 2026

01

Explaining it to a colleague is the actual test

The audience instruction is the assignment. Anyone can restate a textbook definition; being able to make it land for a colleague without a research background is a different and harder skill, and it is what the prompt is testing. Choose one example and carry it all the way through rather than switching. A weighing scale is the cleanest: a scale that reads three kilograms heavy every single time is perfectly reliable and completely invalid, which establishes the central point in one sentence — reliability is consistency, validity is whether you are measuring the thing you meant to measure, and consistency without accuracy is worse than useless because it is trusted. Blood pressure with the wrong cuff size and a pain scale that a patient interprets differently from the nurse recording it both work as clinical alternatives. Choose one and stay with it; switching examples partway is what loses a reader who had just understood the first.

Then add just enough structure to be accurate without lecturing. Reliability has recognisable forms — the same rater getting the same result twice, two raters agreeing, the items of a scale hanging together — and validity has its own — whether the instrument covers the whole concept, whether it agrees with an established measure, whether it predicts what it should. Naming two or three of these in plain words is enough. The translation half then needs a direct answer: translation means taking a finding from a study population into your own patients, so an unreliable measure means the study's effect may be noise, and an invalid one means the study measured something other than what its title claims — and in both cases you would be changing practice on the strength of a number that does not mean what you think it does. That is the argument, and it is worth stating in exactly those terms.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

  • 01
    Explain psychometric concepts in plain language without losing accuracy.
  • 02
    Distinguish consistency from accuracy with a single worked example.
  • 03
    Name the principal forms of each property.
  • 04
    Connect measurement quality to the safety of translating a finding.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Reliability and validity are often misunderstood and not given much notice in research articles. Using any example, demonstrate how you would correctly describe these two terms to a nurse prepared at a bachelor’s degree level or below. Then describe why the reliability and validity of a study is important for translation.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class DNP 820 Topic 4 DQ 1 Reliability and validity are often misunderstood and not given much notice in research articles, demonstrate how you would correctly describe these two terms Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! Name: Discussion Rubric Grid View List View Excellent 90–100 Good 80–89 Fair 70–79 Poor 0–69 Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Posting: Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. First Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Total Points: 100 Name: Discussion Rubric

02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01
    One example carried through both terms.
  2. 02
    A plain-language definition of reliability and of validity.
  3. 03
    The principal forms of each, named briefly.
  4. 04
    An explanation of why both matter for translating evidence into practice.
03

The example, both terms, then translation

01

The example

Introduce a single measurement example a clinician will recognise.

02

Reliability

Explain consistency plainly and name its principal forms.

03

Validity

Explain measuring the intended thing, and show reliability without it.

04

Why it matters for translation

Explain what changes when you act on an unreliable or invalid finding.

04

Psychometrics stated plainly

Recommended databases

  • PubMed Central
  • CINAHL
  • Instrument development literature
  • EQUATOR Network

Search sequence

  1. 1.
    Find a study reporting both reliability and validity figures for its instrument.
  2. 2.
    Check what values are considered acceptable, so the explanation is grounded.
  3. 3.
    Look for one paper where an instrument was valid in one population and not another.
  4. 4.
    Read a reporting guideline's requirements on measurement description.
05

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

  1. 01

    Measuring psychological safety in healthcare teams: developing an observational measure to complement survey methods

    BMC Medical Research Methodology · 2020

    An observational measure developed and tested, which shows what establishing these properties actually involves.

  2. 02

    STROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

    EQUATOR Network · 2024

    What a study is required to report about its measurements, and therefore what its absence tells you.

  3. 03

    CASP Checklists

    Critical Appraisal Skills Programme · 2024

    Appraisal items that ask directly about measurement quality, the practical form of this question.

  4. 04

    The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

    BMJ · 2021

    Reporting standards for evidence synthesis, where measurement weaknesses propagate if they are not caught.

06

Review before submission

Common mistakes

  • Restating textbook definitions rather than explaining them.
  • Implying that a reliable instrument is therefore a good one.
  • Switching examples partway and losing the contrast.
  • Listing every subtype, which defeats the audience instruction.
  • Answering the translation question with a general remark about research quality.

Submission checklist

  • Would a colleague without research training follow it?
  • Does one example carry both terms?
  • Is it clear that reliability does not imply validity?
  • Are the main forms of each named in plain words?
  • Does the translation answer say what goes wrong in practice?

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order