VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

The researcher contends that without reliability and validity, he would not know if he was measuring what was supposed to be measured and how precisely it should be measured. Nieuwenhuis (2011: 80) notes that when qualitative researchers speak of “validity and reliability” they are normally referring to the credibility and trustworthiness of the research. Various authors and scholars have provided clarity on the two concepts of reliability and validity. McMillan and Schumacher (2010: 102) state that the study’s findings are trustworthy when they are found to ‘approximate’ reality. Similarly, credibility concerns the truthfulness of the research findings (Ary et al., 2006: 504).

4.6.1 Reliability

Ridenour and Newman (2008: 39) highlight that “the basic purpose of reliability is to help the researchers estimate validity of the findings”. This underscores that validity

111

links closely to reliability; thus it was important for the researcher to produce valid and reliable knowledge/findings when doing the research. According to Leedy and Ormrod, 2005: 29), reliability refers to the degree of consistency the chosen instrument demonstrates when employed to gather the data for a given study. Matee (2009: 175) expands the definition of reliability as the consistency of the instrument and test administration in the study, the consistency of the researcher’s interactive style, data recording, data analysis and interpretation of participants’ meaning of data. Similarly, Cooper and Schindler (2004: 710) defined reliability as “a characteristic of measurement concerned with … accuracy, precision and consistency”. Furthermore, reliability refers to the dependability of a measurement instrument, that is, the extent to which the instrument yields the same results on repeated trials (Terre Blanche et al., 2006: 152). To enhance reliability, the researcher gave the same instructions, amount of time to complete the questionnaire and followed similar procedures at all the NUST-COLL regional centres. The same approach was followed during the interview sessions with the regional coordinators. There was consistency with the results obtained from both the regional coordinators and senior students in terms of challenges experienced and problems with the current SSS at COLL regional centres.

4.6.2 Validity

The student questionnaire used in this study was adapted from Möwes 2005 study where the general design was kept but with additions of current support services and removal of items that were not relevant to the study. Constructs such as students’ attitudes, motivation and usage of SSS were tested through statements where students could agree or disagree with in a Likert Scale.

There are different types of validity such as concurrent validity, predictive validity, content validity and criterion-related validity but this study defined validity in the context of measurement validity. Terre Blanche et al. (2006: 146) define validity as the degree to which a measure does what it is intended to do. In other words, the instruments should be used for the particular purposes for which they were designed. Similarly, Ridenour and Newman (2008: 39) define validity as the extent to which the test or set of data or design actually measures or reflects or produces what it is supposed to measure, reflect or produce. The researcher concurs with Mears

112

(2012: 174) that trustworthiness can be measured by how accurately the study reflects the participants’ meaning of the topic under study. Validity was then addressed through the honesty (of the researcher and participants), depth and richness of data and academic level of senior students that were approached.

4.6.3 Triangulation

Triangulation is broadly defined by Denzin (1978: 291) as “the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon.” Boeije (2010: 176) states that triangulation refers to the examination of a social phenomenon from different angles. According to Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe (2002: 146), triangulation “is a term borrowed from navigation and surveying, where a minimum of three reference points are taken to check an object’s location.” This study used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, with qualitative approach being predominant. In other words, the study used a questionnaire (closed and open-ended questions) and interviews as sources of data. Furthermore, in order to eliminate common threats to trustworthiness, this study engaged triangulation as the process of obtaining information from multiple sources, cross-checking, and verifying the gathered data. Using different methods in the context of this study was useful in the validation process as it sought to ensure that there was convergence or agreement in the collected data. Bouchard (1976: 268) submits that when there is convergence or agreement between two methods, this enhances the belief of the researcher that the results are valid and not a methodological artifice. In this study triangulation was used as a vehicle for cross-validation especially when two methods were found to be congruent and yielded comparable results.

Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009: 266) submit that “Although the two sets of analyses are independent, each provides an understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. These understandings are linked, combined, or integrated into meta- inferences”. For example, if many students indicated that there are face-to-face tutorial classes at their regional centres or they do not attend face-to-face tutorial classes on the closed-ended part of the questionnaire. Such responses or indications are explained on the open-ended part of the questionnaire or during the interview by the regional coordinators. The categories and themes developed from

113

the interviews and open-ended questions of the questionnaires were used to corroborate findings from the quantitative findings. Social reality is complex; thus, if students provide conflicting responses to the same question, each finding is interpreted in its context or representing different viewpoints on the same issue. It is noted that NUST-COLL regional centres are located in different settings in terms of geographical factors, social dynamics, and access to technology.