Validity and Reliability of the Research
Qualitative Data Quantitative Data
Validity Reliability
Validity Reliability
Democratic Validity Outcome Validity
Process Validity Catalytic Validity
Dialogic Validity
Time Triangulation
Investigator Triangulation
Theoretical Triangulation Content
Validity
Internal Consistency
with Cronba
ch’s Alpha
Figure 6: Validity and Reliability of the Research
1. Validity and Reliability of the Qualitative Data
In relation to the qualitative data, the validity was based on the five criteria proposed by Anderson et al. in Burns 1999, i.e. democratic validity, outcome
validity, process validity, catalytic validity and dialogic validity. a The democratic validity has something to do with the extent to which the
research conducted is truly collaborative and allows for inclusion of multiple voices. To meet this criterion, the researcher engaged the other research
members, i.e. the teacher collaborator and the students, and interviews them to find data related to their opinions and expectations about the teaching-learning
process in the attempt to improve in the next meeting. b The process validity raises questions concerning dependability and competency
of the research itself. They have something to do with the believability of the research findings. To meet this criterion, the research employed two types of
qualitative data collection techniques, i.e. observation, and interviews, to gather accounts of a teaching situation from three different points of views; the
researcher herself, the teacher collaborator, and the students. In addition, the
findings gained from those qualitative data were also compared to the ones gained from the quantitative data. To ensure the data validity, each data
collection instruments both qualitative and quantitative data were consulted first with expert judgment.
c The outcome validity is related to the notion of actions leading to “successful”
outcomes. To meet this criterion, the researcher attempted maximally in conducting the research. Reflection was done at the end of each meeting. The
fruitful results are indicated by improvements in students’ reading
comprehension ability. d The catalytic validity concerns with the extent to which the research allows
participants to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context and how they can make changes within it. To meet this criterion, the researcher
identifi ed the students’ behavior changes during and after the action
implementation and then interviewed them. e The dialogic validity is in line with the processes of peer review used
commonly in academic research. In action research, this term refers to dialogue with practitioner peers. To meet this criterion, the researcher did peer-review
through dialogue with the teacher collaborator. In relation to reliability of the qualitative data, the researcher employs
triangulation to obtain the trustworthy of the data collected. Burns 1999 suggests four types of triangulation, i.e. time triangulation, space triangulation,
investigator triangulation, and theoretical triangulation. However, since this study only collects data in one class, therefore the space triangulation is not
applied here. Below is the explanation of the three types of triangulation that this research employs.
a Time triangulation. It was employed by collecting the data over certain period of time. Using three data collection instruments, this study collected data in the
planning, action, and observing stages of the research. b Investigator triangulation. It was occupied by having more than one observer
involved in a study in order to avoid bias observation. In this study, the researcher did not observe the research conduct only on her own. The English
teacher serving as a research collaborator was also engaged. c Theoretical triangulation. It was applied by having the data collected during
the research analyzed by more than one theoretical perspectives.
2. Validity and Reliability of the Quantitative Data
