- Search Used Yachts For Sale
- Search Boats By Brand
- Search Boats By Type
- Search By Location
- Search By Price
- What's My Boat Worth?
- Search Boats Just Listed
- Small Yachts
- Custom Sport Fishing Boats
- Finance A Boat
- Amer Yachts
- Aquitalia Yachts
- Cabo Yachts
- Century Boats
- French Yachts
- Gulfstream Yachts
- Hatteras Yachts
- Shelter Island Yachts
- Solaris Yachts
- Sunpower Yachts
- Sunreef Yachts
- Vela Boatworks
- Virtus Yachts
- Why List With United?
- Why Own A Boat Or Yacht?
- Custom Website For Your Yacht
- United Sold Boats
- Buy A Yacht With Crypto
- Find a Yacht Broker Near Me
- Search For Broker By Name
- Meet The United Support Team
- Our History
- Fort Lauderdale Boat Show
- Stuart Boat Show
- Miami Boat Show
- Palm Beach Boat Show
- Other Boat Shows
- Yachting News
- Yacht Closing Services
- River Forest Yachting Centers
Search All Yachts
2023 Cruisers Yachts 38' A License To Chill
A License To Chill is a 2023 Cruisers Yachts 38' 38 GLS OB listed for sale with United Yacht Broker John Blumenthal. John can be reached at 1-772-215-2571 to answer any questions you may have on this boat. United Yacht Sales is a professional yacht brokerage firm that has experience listing and selling all types of Cruisers Yachts and similar boats. With over 250 yacht brokers worldwide, we have the largest network of boat buyers and sellers in the industry.
The 38 GLS's innovative design features everything you love about the Cantius series. Still, with triple Mercury 4.6 L Verados V8 300 hp motors, it's very fast and smooth and quiet and dependable trouble-free motors. You can just increase your swimming area by lowering the starboard side balcony of the 38 GLS to convert it into a swim platform with the push of a button. The lower cabin features an aft stateroom and a U-shaped dinette that converts into a berth. A full galley and standing head with shower complete this extraordinary yacht. Large bow rider area with a varnished table that drops down to make a sun lounger area in the bow area. And Sea-Dec mat floor covering on the entire floor for cushioned comfort and a non-skid deck that looks great. Storage covers for all seats to keep the 38 GLS in great shape when stored. Bow cover can be used underway to protect from wind in the cockpit. The big sunroof in a fiberglass hard top with lighting and speakers in the hard top.
Specifications
- Price USD: $ 695,000
Cruisers Yachts
Jupiter, florida, united states, power yacht.
- LOA: 38 ft in
- Display Length: 38 ft
- Beam: 12' 6"
- Water Capacity: 50 gals
- Fuel Capacity: 335 gals
- Engine Details: Mercury Verado TR-300 Verado 300 XX
- Engine 1: 2023 100.00 HRS 300.00 HP
- Engine 2: 2023 100.00 HRS 300.00 HP
- Engine 3: 2023 100.00 HRS 300.00 HP
- Engine Fuel: Gas/Petrol
- Days on Market: INQUIRE
+ Manufacturer Provided Description
The 38 GLS’s innovative design features everything you love about the Cantius series but with triple Mercury Verados. Expand your swimming area by lowering the beach door to convert it into a swim platform. The lower cabin features an aft stateroom and U-Shaped dinette that converts into a berth. A full galley and standing head with shower complete this extraordinary yacht.
+ Vessel Walkthrough
- Grey SeaDek Flooring Throughout
- Port Side L-Shape Seating with Table
- Stbd. Side Seating with Table
- Electric Grill
- Serving Countertop with Sink
- 2 Hard Mounted Stools
- Refrigerator
- Ice Maker under Helm Seat
- Canvas Retractable Sunroof
- Walkthrough to Aft Bench Seating
- Transom Shower
- Concealed Swim Ladder
- Black Covers for All Seating, Tables, Grill and Helm Area
- Stereo Speakers
- Beach Door is a Highlight!
- Cockpit Retractable Sure Shade
- Overhead Lighting in Hardtop
- Walkthrough to Bow Seating Arrangement
- Black Cover for Seating Protection
- Bolster Helm Seat
- Seat Folds Out (Hi/Lo)
- Custom Tilt Steering Wheel
- 2 x Simrad Nav Screens (Sounder/Plotter/Radar)
- Sea Keeper Control
- Mercury Joy Stick Control
- Mercury Side by Side Control Levers
- Smartphone Charging Station
- Ritchie Compass
- Stereo Head Control
- Operating Panel with Press Button Controls
- Cup Holders
Bow Arrangement:
- U-Shape Seating
- High Gloss Table with Cup Holders
- SeaDek Flooring
- Numerous Cup Holders
- Remote Stereo Head
- Under Seating Storage
- Table Drops to make-up Sun Lounge
- Full Protection Cover
- Anchor Locker
- Fresh Water Spigot for Washdown
- Electric Windlass with Chain and Rode
- Up/Down Depress Pads
- Navigation Lights
Engine & Mechanical & Lazarette:
- Triple 300 Verados
- Aft Underwater Lights
- Electric Lazarette Access Hatch
- 6 KW Kohler Generator with Hardcover Sound Shield (Diesel)
- Racor Filter
- Gas Filters
- Hydraulics for Beach Door
- Main 12V Distribution Panel
- 2 x Pro-Mariner 12V Charger
- House and Engine Start Batteries
- Sea Keeper 3
- 3 x Power Steering Pumps for each Verado
- Fire Buoy Suppression
- Sliding Access Door with Screen
- 3 x Steps Down into Cabin
- Ebony Oak Finish Throughout Vessel
- Port/Stbd. Seating
- High Gloss Dinette Table
- Overhead LED Lighting
- Table Drops to make up Large Bed
- Stereo Head with Speakers
- Port/Stbd. Shelves
- Under Seat Storage
- Vitrigo Fridge
- Flat Screen TV
- Full Beam Aft Berth
- Air Conditioning
- Shelve and Cabinet Storage
- Above Counter Designer Sink
- Vanity with Mirror Doors
- Ample Storage below Sink
- 110V Outlet
- Overhead Lighting
- Ventilation Fan
- Shower with Curtain
- Electric Head
+ Mechanical Disclaimer
Engine and generator hours are as of the date of the original listing and are a representation of what the listing broker is told by the owner and/or actual reading of the engine hour meters. The broker cannot guarantee the true hours. It is the responsibility of the purchaser and/or his agent to verify engine hours, warranties implied or otherwise and major overhauls as well as all other representations noted on the listing brochure.
+ Disclaimer
The company offers the details of this vessel in good faith but cannot guarantee or warrant the accuracy of this information nor warrant the condition of the vessel. A buyer should instruct his agents, or his surveyors, to investigate such details as the buyer desires validated. This vessel is offered subject to prior sale, price change or withdrawal without notice.
+ Brokers Comments
The A LICENSE TO CHILL has recently come to market. The seller has decided to downsize. This vessel, being a 2023 model, still has current warranties.
This is a perfect opportunity to step into a warrantied vessel.
Do not hesitate to call me for more details and schedule a showing.
Listing MLS by Yachtr.com
Interested In This Yacht?
Contact John Blumenthal to learn more!
ABOUT THIS YACHT FOR SALE
Our Cruisers Yachts listing is a great opportunity to purchase a 38' Bowrider for sale in Jupiter, Florida - United States. This Cruisers Yachts is currently listed for $695,000. For more information on this vessel or to schedule a showing, please contact United Yacht Sales broker John Blumenthal at 1-772-215-2571.
PROFESSIONAL YACHT BROKERAGE SERVICES
United is a professional yacht brokerage firm with over 200 yacht brokers in over 104 different locations worldwide. By listing your boat or yacht for sale with us, the entire team is immediately notified of your boat and begin working to match your yacht with a buyer. We have many examples where boats have sold through our network within days of being introduced to our team. With more than $1.3 billion in sales, there is no better firm than United to help with the listing and sale of your vessel. Find out what your current yacht is worth on today's market!
BUYING A YACHT WITH THE UNITED TEAM
The yacht MLS consists of thousands of available brokerage vessels from all over the world and in different conditions. Hiring an experienced yacht broker to help you find the perfect boat makes financial sense, as well as takes the stress out of the process. A United broker starts by listening to your needs, how you plan to use your boat, your potential boating locations, and your budget. We then go to work looking at all of the available yachts that fit your criteria, research their history, provide you with a clear picture of the market, and organizes the showings. We're with you every step of the way from survey to acceptance and our industry-leading support staff will make sure your closing goes smoothly.
RELATED YACHTS
TIME TRAVEL
60' Cruisers Yachts Cantius Sports Coupe 2017
Kirkland, Washington, United States
Miss Tracy Lane
60' Cruisers Yachts 60 Cantius Fly 2023
Panama City Beach, Florida, United States
56' Cruisers Yachts 560 Express 2011
Miami, Florida, United States
Inquire about this Yacht
Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS Outboard
The 38 GLS OB for sale at your local dealer combines the unmatched performance and entertainment capabilities of the 38 GLS with powerful, easy-to-maintain outboards. Expand your swimming area by lowering the side of the 38 GLS to convert it into a swim platform. The lower cabin features an aft stateroom and U-shaped dinette that converts into a berth. A full galley and standing head with shower complete this extraordinary yacht. It’s a match made in heaven for lovers of on-the-water fun.
Expand your swimming area by lowering the side of the 38 GLS to convert it into a swim platform. The easy to access controls and safety mechanisms allow for endless family fun. The aft facing bench backrest can swivel to either face the cockpit or the beach door.
The 38 GLS OB is powered by triple 300-450 Mercury Verados. The joystick piloting allows you to navigate with ease at a top speed of 65 mph with the triple 450 racing engines.
The open-concept cockpit was designed with entertainment in mind. You can find endless seating options between the bow lounge, two mid-ship L-shaped dinettes, and an aft-facing bench. For alternative seating options, the aft-facing bench backrest can swivel to face the beach door.
Luxury Finishes
Cruisers Yachts incorporates numerous intricate details for superior finishes. 316L-grade stainless steel metal components enhance durability throughout the vessel, reinforcing key elements such as deck cleats, rail stanchions, arch legs, and sump and bilge pump foundations. Cutting-edge machines and hand-sewn techniques create high-quality upholstery. Top-quality materials are used for a classic and durable interior look. Exotic woods are meticulously selected, machine-sanded, and finished to withstand marine environments.
Cockpit Galley
The galley features a fiberglass inlay sink, fridge, bottle storage along with optional grill and TV. Continue the conversation while sitting on swivel bar stools at the raised wet bar.
Bow Seating
Lower Salon
Aft Stateroom
Specifications
38' / 11,58 m | |
40'3" / 12,27 m | |
12’ 6” / 3,8 m | |
12’ 8” / 3,86 m | |
38.5" / 0,98 m | |
24.5" / 0,62 m |
335 gallons / 1268 L | |
50 gallons / 189,3 L | |
31 gallons / 117,3 L | |
23,916 lbs / 10848 kg |
View All Features
Get access to the full features list for the 38 GLS OB for a complete list of specifications, accommodations, and options.
- Request Access
Find a Cruisers Yachts Dealer
Walkthrough
Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS OB
Request more information.
Fill out the form below to connect with a Cruisers Yachts specialist and access our downloadable brochures.
Explore the GLS SERIES
60 ft used yachts for sale
Search used yachts for sale worldwide from 51 to 60 feet. We offer a wide range of used yachts, including long range cruisers, motor yachts, trawlers, sportfish yachts, sailboats and more. Contact our yacht brokers for assistance.
Explore used yachts and boats for sale worldwide between 60-69 feet. Mid-size 60 foot yachts make great family boats and offer an array of entertainment options and deck space. Most 60 ft yachts feature 3-4 staterooms below deck, spacious cockpits and entertainment-filled aft decks, a flybridge option, well-appointed galleys, and sumptuous ...
Search used motor yachts for sale from 50 to 60 feet worldwide, including a range of Flybrige yachts, Trawlers, Sportfish, Express yachts & more!
Power Motor Yachts for sale A motor yacht refers to specific yachts that are larger than 40 feet, with a top length of around 90 feet, bridging the gap between small yachts and mega yachts or superyachts.
Find motor yachts for sale near you, including boat prices, photos, and more. Locate boat dealers and find your boat at Boat Trader!
Search used boats between 50 and 60 feet that are currently on the brokerage market. SI Yachts can help you find the perfect new or pre-owned boat for your needs.
Preowned sailboats for sale over 60 feet preowned sailboats for sale by owner.
Experience the epitome of nautical craftsmanship with FGI Yacht Group's distinguished collection of 60′ yachts for sale. Each vessel in our repertoire is a seamless fusion of advanced engineering, unparalleled luxury, and meticulous design. Tailored to meet the diverse preferences of our discerning clientele, these 60-foot yachts strike a perfect balance between spacious opulence and ...
Find Hatteras 60 Motor Yacht for sale in your area & across the world on YachtWorld. Offering the best selection of Hatteras boats to choose from.
Explore used Cruisers yachts & boats for sale from 50' to 60'. Crafted for those seeking the ultimate water adventure.
Explore Used Hatteras Yachts For Sale Ranging From 60′ to 70′ What sets Hatteras Yachts apart from the rest is their unwavering commitment to providing an unparalleled on-water experience. Whether you are seeking a sleek sportfish yacht for fishing adventures or a luxurious motor yacht for indulgent cruising, Hatteras Yachts offers a diverse portfolio of models to cater to every discerning ...
60 feet Trawlers for Sale Discover the world of luxury and adventure with our exquisite selection of 60-foot trawler yachts for sale. These magnificent vessels are designed to offer unparalleled comfort and style while navigating the open seas.
Experience the epitome of yachting excellence with our selection of 60-foot catamarans for sale. These magnificent vessels offer a harmonious blend of luxury and performance, providing an unforgettable cruising experience. Step aboard and discover spacious interiors adorned with elegant cabins, a stylish salon, and inviting social areas.
Find Cruisers Yachts 60 Cantius boats for sale in your area & across the world on YachtWorld. Offering the best selection of Cruisers Yachts to choose from.
Find a used yacht for sale between $400,000 and $500,000 with United's expert team of yacht brokers. We can help you find the perfect used boat on the market under $500k.
Omsk Oblast, Russia Offline Map For Travel & Navigation is a premium, very easy to use and fast mobile application. EasyNavi has developed the Omsk Oblast, Russia Offline Map For Travel & Navigation app to provide you with the world's best mobile offline map. OFFLINE MAPS: • Fully offline vector map with incredible zoom level! • Detailed and informative map - because it is based on ...
Hatteras Yachts blend technology and craftsmanship to create exceptional boats — explore used Hatteras Yachts for sale from 50-60 feet.
Houses and apartments for sale Omsk Oblast: Real estate listings Omsk Oblast for the purchase and sale by owners of houses, apartments or land.
The detailed road map represents one of many map types and styles available. Look at Omsk, Omsk Oblast, Western Siberia, Russia from different perspectives.
The division was unmanned, except for some pre-assigned officers, serving with the parent division ( 56th Training Motorised Rifle Division ).
validity and reliability in research example qualitative
Have a language expert improve your writing.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
- Methodology
Reliability vs. Validity in Research | Difference, Types and Examples
Published on July 3, 2019 by Fiona Middleton . Revised on June 22, 2023.
Reliability and validity are concepts used to evaluate the quality of research. They indicate how well a method , technique. or test measures something. Reliability is about the consistency of a measure, and validity is about the accuracy of a measure.opt
It’s important to consider reliability and validity when you are creating your research design , planning your methods, and writing up your results, especially in quantitative research . Failing to do so can lead to several types of research bias and seriously affect your work.
Reliability | Validity | |
---|---|---|
What does it tell you? | The extent to which the results can be reproduced when the research is repeated under the same conditions. | The extent to which the results really measure what they are supposed to measure. |
How is it assessed? | By checking the consistency of results across time, across different observers, and across parts of the test itself. | By checking how well the results correspond to established theories and other measures of the same concept. |
How do they relate? | A reliable measurement is not always valid: the results might be , but they’re not necessarily correct. | A valid measurement is generally reliable: if a test produces accurate results, they should be reproducible. |
Table of contents
Understanding reliability vs validity, how are reliability and validity assessed, how to ensure validity and reliability in your research, where to write about reliability and validity in a thesis, other interesting articles.
Reliability and validity are closely related, but they mean different things. A measurement can be reliable without being valid. However, if a measurement is valid, it is usually also reliable.
What is reliability?
Reliability refers to how consistently a method measures something. If the same result can be consistently achieved by using the same methods under the same circumstances, the measurement is considered reliable.
What is validity?
Validity refers to how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure. If research has high validity, that means it produces results that correspond to real properties, characteristics, and variations in the physical or social world.
High reliability is one indicator that a measurement is valid. If a method is not reliable, it probably isn’t valid.
If the thermometer shows different temperatures each time, even though you have carefully controlled conditions to ensure the sample’s temperature stays the same, the thermometer is probably malfunctioning, and therefore its measurements are not valid.
However, reliability on its own is not enough to ensure validity. Even if a test is reliable, it may not accurately reflect the real situation.
Validity is harder to assess than reliability, but it is even more important. To obtain useful results, the methods you use to collect data must be valid: the research must be measuring what it claims to measure. This ensures that your discussion of the data and the conclusions you draw are also valid.
Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
- Academic style
- Vague sentences
- Style consistency
See an example
Reliability can be estimated by comparing different versions of the same measurement. Validity is harder to assess, but it can be estimated by comparing the results to other relevant data or theory. Methods of estimating reliability and validity are usually split up into different types.
Types of reliability
Different types of reliability can be estimated through various statistical methods.
Type of reliability | What does it assess? | Example |
---|---|---|
The consistency of a measure : do you get the same results when you repeat the measurement? | A group of participants complete a designed to measure personality traits. If they repeat the questionnaire days, weeks or months apart and give the same answers, this indicates high test-retest reliability. | |
The consistency of a measure : do you get the same results when different people conduct the same measurement? | Based on an assessment criteria checklist, five examiners submit substantially different results for the same student project. This indicates that the assessment checklist has low inter-rater reliability (for example, because the criteria are too subjective). | |
The consistency of : do you get the same results from different parts of a test that are designed to measure the same thing? | You design a questionnaire to measure self-esteem. If you randomly split the results into two halves, there should be a between the two sets of results. If the two results are very different, this indicates low internal consistency. |
Types of validity
The validity of a measurement can be estimated based on three main types of evidence. Each type can be evaluated through expert judgement or statistical methods.
Type of validity | What does it assess? | Example |
---|---|---|
The adherence of a measure to of the concept being measured. | A self-esteem questionnaire could be assessed by measuring other traits known or assumed to be related to the concept of self-esteem (such as social skills and ). Strong correlation between the scores for self-esteem and associated traits would indicate high construct validity. | |
The extent to which the measurement of the concept being measured. | A test that aims to measure a class of students’ level of Spanish contains reading, writing and speaking components, but no listening component. Experts agree that listening comprehension is an essential aspect of language ability, so the test lacks content validity for measuring the overall level of ability in Spanish. | |
The extent to which the result of a measure corresponds to of the same concept. | A is conducted to measure the political opinions of voters in a region. If the results accurately predict the later outcome of an election in that region, this indicates that the survey has high criterion validity. |
To assess the validity of a cause-and-effect relationship, you also need to consider internal validity (the design of the experiment ) and external validity (the generalizability of the results).
The reliability and validity of your results depends on creating a strong research design , choosing appropriate methods and samples, and conducting the research carefully and consistently.
Ensuring validity
If you use scores or ratings to measure variations in something (such as psychological traits, levels of ability or physical properties), it’s important that your results reflect the real variations as accurately as possible. Validity should be considered in the very earliest stages of your research, when you decide how you will collect your data.
- Choose appropriate methods of measurement
Ensure that your method and measurement technique are high quality and targeted to measure exactly what you want to know. They should be thoroughly researched and based on existing knowledge.
For example, to collect data on a personality trait, you could use a standardized questionnaire that is considered reliable and valid. If you develop your own questionnaire, it should be based on established theory or findings of previous studies, and the questions should be carefully and precisely worded.
- Use appropriate sampling methods to select your subjects
To produce valid and generalizable results, clearly define the population you are researching (e.g., people from a specific age range, geographical location, or profession). Ensure that you have enough participants and that they are representative of the population. Failing to do so can lead to sampling bias and selection bias .
Ensuring reliability
Reliability should be considered throughout the data collection process. When you use a tool or technique to collect data, it’s important that the results are precise, stable, and reproducible .
- Apply your methods consistently
Plan your method carefully to make sure you carry out the same steps in the same way for each measurement. This is especially important if multiple researchers are involved.
For example, if you are conducting interviews or observations , clearly define how specific behaviors or responses will be counted, and make sure questions are phrased the same way each time. Failing to do so can lead to errors such as omitted variable bias or information bias .
- Standardize the conditions of your research
When you collect your data, keep the circumstances as consistent as possible to reduce the influence of external factors that might create variation in the results.
For example, in an experimental setup, make sure all participants are given the same information and tested under the same conditions, preferably in a properly randomized setting. Failing to do so can lead to a placebo effect , Hawthorne effect , or other demand characteristics . If participants can guess the aims or objectives of a study, they may attempt to act in more socially desirable ways.
It’s appropriate to discuss reliability and validity in various sections of your thesis or dissertation or research paper . Showing that you have taken them into account in planning your research and interpreting the results makes your work more credible and trustworthy.
Section | Discuss |
---|---|
What have other researchers done to devise and improve methods that are reliable and valid? | |
How did you plan your research to ensure reliability and validity of the measures used? This includes the chosen sample set and size, sample preparation, external conditions and measuring techniques. | |
If you calculate reliability and validity, state these values alongside your main results. | |
This is the moment to talk about how reliable and valid your results actually were. Were they consistent, and did they reflect true values? If not, why not? | |
If reliability and validity were a big problem for your findings, it might be helpful to mention this here. |
Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services
Discover proofreading & editing
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Normal distribution
- Degrees of freedom
- Null hypothesis
- Discourse analysis
- Control groups
- Mixed methods research
- Non-probability sampling
- Quantitative research
- Ecological validity
Research bias
- Rosenthal effect
- Implicit bias
- Cognitive bias
- Selection bias
- Negativity bias
- Status quo bias
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
Middleton, F. (2023, June 22). Reliability vs. Validity in Research | Difference, Types and Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/
Is this article helpful?
Fiona Middleton
Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition, uses & methods, data collection | definition, methods & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- J Family Med Prim Care
- v.4(3); Jul-Sep 2015
Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research
Lawrence leung.
1 Department of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
2 Centre of Studies in Primary Care, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations. In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research as a whole has been constantly critiqued, if not disparaged, by the lack of consensus for assessing its quality and robustness. This article illustrates with five published studies how qualitative research can impact and reshape the discipline of primary care, spiraling out from clinic-based health screening to community-based disease monitoring, evaluation of out-of-hours triage services to provincial psychiatric care pathways model and finally, national legislation of core measures for children's healthcare insurance. Fundamental concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability as applicable to qualitative research are then addressed with an update on the current views and controversies.
Nature of Qualitative Research versus Quantitative Research
The essence of qualitative research is to make sense of and recognize patterns among words in order to build up a meaningful picture without compromising its richness and dimensionality. Like quantitative research, the qualitative research aims to seek answers for questions of “how, where, when who and why” with a perspective to build a theory or refute an existing theory. Unlike quantitative research which deals primarily with numerical data and their statistical interpretations under a reductionist, logical and strictly objective paradigm, qualitative research handles nonnumerical information and their phenomenological interpretation, which inextricably tie in with human senses and subjectivity. While human emotions and perspectives from both subjects and researchers are considered undesirable biases confounding results in quantitative research, the same elements are considered essential and inevitable, if not treasurable, in qualitative research as they invariable add extra dimensions and colors to enrich the corpus of findings. However, the issue of subjectivity and contextual ramifications has fueled incessant controversies regarding yardsticks for quality and trustworthiness of qualitative research results for healthcare.
Impact of Qualitative Research upon Primary Care
In many ways, qualitative research contributes significantly, if not more so than quantitative research, to the field of primary care at various levels. Five qualitative studies are chosen to illustrate how various methodologies of qualitative research helped in advancing primary healthcare, from novel monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) via mobile-health technology,[ 1 ] informed decision for colorectal cancer screening,[ 2 ] triaging out-of-hours GP services,[ 3 ] evaluating care pathways for community psychiatry[ 4 ] and finally prioritization of healthcare initiatives for legislation purposes at national levels.[ 5 ] With the recent advances of information technology and mobile connecting device, self-monitoring and management of chronic diseases via tele-health technology may seem beneficial to both the patient and healthcare provider. Recruiting COPD patients who were given tele-health devices that monitored lung functions, Williams et al. [ 1 ] conducted phone interviews and analyzed their transcripts via a grounded theory approach, identified themes which enabled them to conclude that such mobile-health setup and application helped to engage patients with better adherence to treatment and overall improvement in mood. Such positive findings were in contrast to previous studies, which opined that elderly patients were often challenged by operating computer tablets,[ 6 ] or, conversing with the tele-health software.[ 7 ] To explore the content of recommendations for colorectal cancer screening given out by family physicians, Wackerbarth, et al. [ 2 ] conducted semi-structure interviews with subsequent content analysis and found that most physicians delivered information to enrich patient knowledge with little regard to patients’ true understanding, ideas, and preferences in the matter. These findings suggested room for improvement for family physicians to better engage their patients in recommending preventative care. Faced with various models of out-of-hours triage services for GP consultations, Egbunike et al. [ 3 ] conducted thematic analysis on semi-structured telephone interviews with patients and doctors in various urban, rural and mixed settings. They found that the efficiency of triage services remained a prime concern from both users and providers, among issues of access to doctors and unfulfilled/mismatched expectations from users, which could arouse dissatisfaction and legal implications. In UK, a care pathways model for community psychiatry had been introduced but its benefits were unclear. Khandaker et al. [ 4 ] hence conducted a qualitative study using semi-structure interviews with medical staff and other stakeholders; adopting a grounded-theory approach, major themes emerged which included improved equality of access, more focused logistics, increased work throughput and better accountability for community psychiatry provided under the care pathway model. Finally, at the US national level, Mangione-Smith et al. [ 5 ] employed a modified Delphi method to gather consensus from a panel of nominators which were recognized experts and stakeholders in their disciplines, and identified a core set of quality measures for children's healthcare under the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program. These core measures were made transparent for public opinion and later passed on for full legislation, hence illustrating the impact of qualitative research upon social welfare and policy improvement.
Overall Criteria for Quality in Qualitative Research
Given the diverse genera and forms of qualitative research, there is no consensus for assessing any piece of qualitative research work. Various approaches have been suggested, the two leading schools of thoughts being the school of Dixon-Woods et al. [ 8 ] which emphasizes on methodology, and that of Lincoln et al. [ 9 ] which stresses the rigor of interpretation of results. By identifying commonalities of qualitative research, Dixon-Woods produced a checklist of questions for assessing clarity and appropriateness of the research question; the description and appropriateness for sampling, data collection and data analysis; levels of support and evidence for claims; coherence between data, interpretation and conclusions, and finally level of contribution of the paper. These criteria foster the 10 questions for the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies.[ 10 ] However, these methodology-weighted criteria may not do justice to qualitative studies that differ in epistemological and philosophical paradigms,[ 11 , 12 ] one classic example will be positivistic versus interpretivistic.[ 13 ] Equally, without a robust methodological layout, rigorous interpretation of results advocated by Lincoln et al. [ 9 ] will not be good either. Meyrick[ 14 ] argued from a different angle and proposed fulfillment of the dual core criteria of “transparency” and “systematicity” for good quality qualitative research. In brief, every step of the research logistics (from theory formation, design of study, sampling, data acquisition and analysis to results and conclusions) has to be validated if it is transparent or systematic enough. In this manner, both the research process and results can be assured of high rigor and robustness.[ 14 ] Finally, Kitto et al. [ 15 ] epitomized six criteria for assessing overall quality of qualitative research: (i) Clarification and justification, (ii) procedural rigor, (iii) sample representativeness, (iv) interpretative rigor, (v) reflexive and evaluative rigor and (vi) transferability/generalizability, which also double as evaluative landmarks for manuscript review to the Medical Journal of Australia. Same for quantitative research, quality for qualitative research can be assessed in terms of validity, reliability, and generalizability.
Validity in qualitative research means “appropriateness” of the tools, processes, and data. Whether the research question is valid for the desired outcome, the choice of methodology is appropriate for answering the research question, the design is valid for the methodology, the sampling and data analysis is appropriate, and finally the results and conclusions are valid for the sample and context. In assessing validity of qualitative research, the challenge can start from the ontology and epistemology of the issue being studied, e.g. the concept of “individual” is seen differently between humanistic and positive psychologists due to differing philosophical perspectives:[ 16 ] Where humanistic psychologists believe “individual” is a product of existential awareness and social interaction, positive psychologists think the “individual” exists side-by-side with formation of any human being. Set off in different pathways, qualitative research regarding the individual's wellbeing will be concluded with varying validity. Choice of methodology must enable detection of findings/phenomena in the appropriate context for it to be valid, with due regard to culturally and contextually variable. For sampling, procedures and methods must be appropriate for the research paradigm and be distinctive between systematic,[ 17 ] purposeful[ 18 ] or theoretical (adaptive) sampling[ 19 , 20 ] where the systematic sampling has no a priori theory, purposeful sampling often has a certain aim or framework and theoretical sampling is molded by the ongoing process of data collection and theory in evolution. For data extraction and analysis, several methods were adopted to enhance validity, including 1 st tier triangulation (of researchers) and 2 nd tier triangulation (of resources and theories),[ 17 , 21 ] well-documented audit trail of materials and processes,[ 22 , 23 , 24 ] multidimensional analysis as concept- or case-orientated[ 25 , 26 ] and respondent verification.[ 21 , 27 ]
Reliability
In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. In qualitative research with diverse paradigms, such definition of reliability is challenging and epistemologically counter-intuitive. Hence, the essence of reliability for qualitative research lies with consistency.[ 24 , 28 ] A margin of variability for results is tolerated in qualitative research provided the methodology and epistemological logistics consistently yield data that are ontologically similar but may differ in richness and ambience within similar dimensions. Silverman[ 29 ] proposed five approaches in enhancing the reliability of process and results: Refutational analysis, constant data comparison, comprehensive data use, inclusive of the deviant case and use of tables. As data were extracted from the original sources, researchers must verify their accuracy in terms of form and context with constant comparison,[ 27 ] either alone or with peers (a form of triangulation).[ 30 ] The scope and analysis of data included should be as comprehensive and inclusive with reference to quantitative aspects if possible.[ 30 ] Adopting the Popperian dictum of falsifiability as essence of truth and science, attempted to refute the qualitative data and analytes should be performed to assess reliability.[ 31 ]
Generalizability
Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute. However, with rising trend of knowledge synthesis from qualitative research via meta-synthesis, meta-narrative or meta-ethnography, evaluation of generalizability becomes pertinent. A pragmatic approach to assessing generalizability for qualitative studies is to adopt same criteria for validity: That is, use of systematic sampling, triangulation and constant comparison, proper audit and documentation, and multi-dimensional theory.[ 17 ] However, some researchers espouse the approach of analytical generalization[ 32 ] where one judges the extent to which the findings in one study can be generalized to another under similar theoretical, and the proximal similarity model, where generalizability of one study to another is judged by similarities between the time, place, people and other social contexts.[ 33 ] Thus said, Zimmer[ 34 ] questioned the suitability of meta-synthesis in view of the basic tenets of grounded theory,[ 35 ] phenomenology[ 36 ] and ethnography.[ 37 ] He concluded that any valid meta-synthesis must retain the other two goals of theory development and higher-level abstraction while in search of generalizability, and must be executed as a third level interpretation using Gadamer's concepts of the hermeneutic circle,[ 38 , 39 ] dialogic process[ 38 ] and fusion of horizons.[ 39 ] Finally, Toye et al. [ 40 ] reported the practicality of using “conceptual clarity” and “interpretative rigor” as intuitive criteria for assessing quality in meta-ethnography, which somehow echoed Rolfe's controversial aesthetic theory of research reports.[ 41 ]
Food for Thought
Despite various measures to enhance or ensure quality of qualitative studies, some researchers opined from a purist ontological and epistemological angle that qualitative research is not a unified, but ipso facto diverse field,[ 8 ] hence any attempt to synthesize or appraise different studies under one system is impossible and conceptually wrong. Barbour argued from a philosophical angle that these special measures or “technical fixes” (like purposive sampling, multiple-coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) can never confer the rigor as conceived.[ 11 ] In extremis, Rolfe et al. opined from the field of nursing research, that any set of formal criteria used to judge the quality of qualitative research are futile and without validity, and suggested that any qualitative report should be judged by the form it is written (aesthetic) and not by the contents (epistemic).[ 41 ] Rolfe's novel view is rebutted by Porter,[ 42 ] who argued via logical premises that two of Rolfe's fundamental statements were flawed: (i) “The content of research report is determined by their forms” may not be a fact, and (ii) that research appraisal being “subject to individual judgment based on insight and experience” will mean those without sufficient experience of performing research will be unable to judge adequately – hence an elitist's principle. From a realism standpoint, Porter then proposes multiple and open approaches for validity in qualitative research that incorporate parallel perspectives[ 43 , 44 ] and diversification of meanings.[ 44 ] Any work of qualitative research, when read by the readers, is always a two-way interactive process, such that validity and quality has to be judged by the receiving end too and not by the researcher end alone.
In summary, the three gold criteria of validity, reliability and generalizability apply in principle to assess quality for both quantitative and qualitative research, what differs will be the nature and type of processes that ontologically and epistemologically distinguish between the two.
Source of Support: Nil.
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
- Reliability vs Validity in Research | Differences, Types & Examples
Reliability vs Validity in Research | Differences, Types & Examples
Published on 3 May 2022 by Fiona Middleton . Revised on 10 October 2022.
Reliability and validity are concepts used to evaluate the quality of research. They indicate how well a method , technique, or test measures something. Reliability is about the consistency of a measure, and validity is about the accuracy of a measure.
It’s important to consider reliability and validity when you are creating your research design , planning your methods, and writing up your results, especially in quantitative research .
Reliability | Validity | |
---|---|---|
What does it tell you? | The extent to which the results can be reproduced when the research is repeated under the same conditions. | The extent to which the results really measure what they are supposed to measure. |
How is it assessed? | By checking the consistency of results across time, across different observers, and across parts of the test itself. | By checking how well the results correspond to established theories and other measures of the same concept. |
How do they relate? | A reliable measurement is not always valid: the results might be reproducible, but they’re not necessarily correct. | A valid measurement is generally reliable: if a test produces accurate results, they should be . |
Understanding reliability vs validity, how are reliability and validity assessed, how to ensure validity and reliability in your research, where to write about reliability and validity in a thesis.
Validity is harder to assess than reliability, but it is even more important. To obtain useful results, the methods you use to collect your data must be valid: the research must be measuring what it claims to measure. This ensures that your discussion of the data and the conclusions you draw are also valid.
Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.
Type of reliability | What does it assess? | Example |
---|---|---|
The consistency of a measure : do you get the same results when you repeat the measurement? | A group of participants complete a designed to measure personality traits. If they repeat the questionnaire days, weeks, or months apart and give the same answers, this indicates high test-retest reliability. | |
The consistency of a measure : do you get the same results when different people conduct the same measurement? | Based on an assessment criteria checklist, five examiners submit substantially different results for the same student project. This indicates that the assessment checklist has low inter-rater reliability (for example, because the criteria are too subjective). | |
The consistency of : do you get the same results from different parts of a test that are designed to measure the same thing? | You design a questionnaire to measure self-esteem. If you randomly split the results into two halves, there should be a between the two sets of results. If the two results are very different, this indicates low internal consistency. |
Type of validity | What does it assess? | Example |
---|---|---|
The adherence of a measure to of the concept being measured. | A self-esteem questionnaire could be assessed by measuring other traits known or assumed to be related to the concept of self-esteem (such as social skills and optimism). Strong correlation between the scores for self-esteem and associated traits would indicate high construct validity. | |
The extent to which the measurement of the concept being measured. | A test that aims to measure a class of students’ level of Spanish contains reading, writing, and speaking components, but no listening component. Experts agree that listening comprehension is an essential aspect of language ability, so the test lacks content validity for measuring the overall level of ability in Spanish. | |
The extent to which the result of a measure corresponds to of the same concept. | A is conducted to measure the political opinions of voters in a region. If the results accurately predict the later outcome of an election in that region, this indicates that the survey has high criterion validity. |
To assess the validity of a cause-and-effect relationship, you also need to consider internal validity (the design of the experiment ) and external validity (the generalisability of the results).
If you use scores or ratings to measure variations in something (such as psychological traits, levels of ability, or physical properties), it’s important that your results reflect the real variations as accurately as possible. Validity should be considered in the very earliest stages of your research, when you decide how you will collect your data .
Ensure that your method and measurement technique are of high quality and targeted to measure exactly what you want to know. They should be thoroughly researched and based on existing knowledge.
For example, to collect data on a personality trait, you could use a standardised questionnaire that is considered reliable and valid. If you develop your own questionnaire, it should be based on established theory or the findings of previous studies, and the questions should be carefully and precisely worded.
To produce valid generalisable results, clearly define the population you are researching (e.g., people from a specific age range, geographical location, or profession). Ensure that you have enough participants and that they are representative of the population.
Reliability should be considered throughout the data collection process. When you use a tool or technique to collect data, it’s important that the results are precise, stable, and reproducible.
For example, if you are conducting interviews or observations, clearly define how specific behaviours or responses will be counted, and make sure questions are phrased the same way each time.
- Standardise the conditions of your research
For example, in an experimental setup, make sure all participants are given the same information and tested under the same conditions.
It’s appropriate to discuss reliability and validity in various sections of your thesis or dissertation or research paper. Showing that you have taken them into account in planning your research and interpreting the results makes your work more credible and trustworthy.
Section | Discuss |
---|---|
What have other researchers done to devise and improve methods that are reliable and valid? | |
How did you plan your research to ensure reliability and validity of the measures used? This includes the chosen sample set and size, sample preparation, external conditions, and measuring techniques. | |
If you calculate reliability and validity, state these values alongside your main results. | |
This is the moment to talk about how reliable and valid your results actually were. Were they consistent, and did they reflect true values? If not, why not? | |
If reliability and validity were a big problem for your findings, it might be helpful to mention this here. |
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
Middleton, F. (2022, October 10). Reliability vs Validity in Research | Differences, Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 17 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/reliability-or-validity/
Other students also liked, the 4 types of validity | types, definitions & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, sampling methods | types, techniques, & examples.
Validity & Reliability In Research
A Plain-Language Explanation (With Examples)
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Kerryn Warren (PhD) | September 2023
Validity and reliability are two related but distinctly different concepts within research. Understanding what they are and how to achieve them is critically important to any research project. In this post, we’ll unpack these two concepts as simply as possible.
This post is based on our popular online course, Research Methodology Bootcamp . In the course, we unpack the basics of methodology using straightfoward language and loads of examples. If you’re new to academic research, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).
Overview: Validity & Reliability
- The big picture
- Validity 101
- Reliability 101
- Key takeaways
First, The Basics…
First, let’s start with a big-picture view and then we can zoom in to the finer details.
Validity and reliability are two incredibly important concepts in research, especially within the social sciences. Both validity and reliability have to do with the measurement of variables and/or constructs – for example, job satisfaction, intelligence, productivity, etc. When undertaking research, you’ll often want to measure these types of constructs and variables and, at the simplest level, validity and reliability are about ensuring the quality and accuracy of those measurements .
As you can probably imagine, if your measurements aren’t accurate or there are quality issues at play when you’re collecting your data, your entire study will be at risk. Therefore, validity and reliability are very important concepts to understand (and to get right). So, let’s unpack each of them.
What Is Validity?
In simple terms, validity (also called “construct validity”) is all about whether a research instrument accurately measures what it’s supposed to measure .
For example, let’s say you have a set of Likert scales that are supposed to quantify someone’s level of overall job satisfaction. If this set of scales focused purely on only one dimension of job satisfaction, say pay satisfaction, this would not be a valid measurement, as it only captures one aspect of the multidimensional construct. In other words, pay satisfaction alone is only one contributing factor toward overall job satisfaction, and therefore it’s not a valid way to measure someone’s job satisfaction.
Oftentimes in quantitative studies, the way in which the researcher or survey designer interprets a question or statement can differ from how the study participants interpret it . Given that respondents don’t have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions when taking a survey, it’s easy for these sorts of misunderstandings to crop up. Naturally, if the respondents are interpreting the question in the wrong way, the data they provide will be pretty useless . Therefore, ensuring that a study’s measurement instruments are valid – in other words, that they are measuring what they intend to measure – is incredibly important.
There are various types of validity and we’re not going to go down that rabbit hole in this post, but it’s worth quickly highlighting the importance of making sure that your research instrument is tightly aligned with the theoretical construct you’re trying to measure . In other words, you need to pay careful attention to how the key theories within your study define the thing you’re trying to measure – and then make sure that your survey presents it in the same way.
For example, sticking with the “job satisfaction” construct we looked at earlier, you’d need to clearly define what you mean by job satisfaction within your study (and this definition would of course need to be underpinned by the relevant theory). You’d then need to make sure that your chosen definition is reflected in the types of questions or scales you’re using in your survey . Simply put, you need to make sure that your survey respondents are perceiving your key constructs in the same way you are. Or, even if they’re not, that your measurement instrument is capturing the necessary information that reflects your definition of the construct at hand.
If all of this talk about constructs sounds a bit fluffy, be sure to check out Research Methodology Bootcamp , which will provide you with a rock-solid foundational understanding of all things methodology-related. Remember, you can take advantage of our 60% discount offer using this link.
Need a helping hand?
What Is Reliability?
As with validity, reliability is an attribute of a measurement instrument – for example, a survey, a weight scale or even a blood pressure monitor. But while validity is concerned with whether the instrument is measuring the “thing” it’s supposed to be measuring, reliability is concerned with consistency and stability . In other words, reliability reflects the degree to which a measurement instrument produces consistent results when applied repeatedly to the same phenomenon , under the same conditions .
As you can probably imagine, a measurement instrument that achieves a high level of consistency is naturally more dependable (or reliable) than one that doesn’t – in other words, it can be trusted to provide consistent measurements . And that, of course, is what you want when undertaking empirical research. If you think about it within a more domestic context, just imagine if you found that your bathroom scale gave you a different number every time you hopped on and off of it – you wouldn’t feel too confident in its ability to measure the variable that is your body weight 🙂
It’s worth mentioning that reliability also extends to the person using the measurement instrument . For example, if two researchers use the same instrument (let’s say a measuring tape) and they get different measurements, there’s likely an issue in terms of how one (or both) of them are using the measuring tape. So, when you think about reliability, consider both the instrument and the researcher as part of the equation.
As with validity, there are various types of reliability and various tests that can be used to assess the reliability of an instrument. A popular one that you’ll likely come across for survey instruments is Cronbach’s alpha , which is a statistical measure that quantifies the degree to which items within an instrument (for example, a set of Likert scales) measure the same underlying construct . In other words, Cronbach’s alpha indicates how closely related the items are and whether they consistently capture the same concept .
Recap: Key Takeaways
Alright, let’s quickly recap to cement your understanding of validity and reliability:
- Validity is concerned with whether an instrument (e.g., a set of Likert scales) is measuring what it’s supposed to measure
- Reliability is concerned with whether that measurement is consistent and stable when measuring the same phenomenon under the same conditions.
In short, validity and reliability are both essential to ensuring that your data collection efforts deliver high-quality, accurate data that help you answer your research questions . So, be sure to always pay careful attention to the validity and reliability of your measurement instruments when collecting and analysing data. As the adage goes, “rubbish in, rubbish out” – make sure that your data inputs are rock-solid.
Psst… there’s more!
This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Methodology Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .
THE MATERIAL IS WONDERFUL AND BENEFICIAL TO ALL STUDENTS.
THE MATERIAL IS WONDERFUL AND BENEFICIAL TO ALL STUDENTS AND I HAVE GREATLY BENEFITED FROM THE CONTENT.
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
- Print Friendly
Articles and blog posts
Validity and reliability in qualitative research.
What is Validity and Reliability in Qualitative research?
In Quantitative research, reliability refers to consistency of certain measurements, and validity – to whether these measurements “measure what they are supposed to measure”. Things are slightly different, however, in Qualitative research.
Reliability in qualitative studies is mostly a matter of “being thorough, careful and honest in carrying out the research” (Robson, 2002: 176). In qualitative interviews, this issue relates to a number of practical aspects of the process of interviewing, including the wording of interview questions, establishing rapport with the interviewees and considering ‘power relationship’ between the interviewer and the participant (e.g. Breakwell, 2000; Cohen et al., 2007; Silverman, 1993).
What seems more relevant when discussing qualitative studies is their validity , which very often is being addressed with regard to three common threats to validity in qualitative studies, namely researcher bias , reactivity and respondent bias (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Researcher bias refers to any kind of negative influence of the researcher’s knowledge, or assumptions, of the study, including the influence of his or her assumptions of the design, analysis or, even, sampling strategy. Reactivity , in turn, refers to a possible influence of the researcher himself/herself on the studied situation and people. Respondent bias refers to a situation where respondents do not provide honest responses for any reason, which may include them perceiving a given topic as a threat, or them being willing to ‘please’ the researcher with responses they believe are desirable.
Robson (2002) suggested a number of strategies aimed at addressing these threats to validity, being prolonged involvement , triangulation , peer debriefing , member checking , negative case analysis and keeping an audit trail .
So, what exactly are these strategies and how can you apply them in your research?
Prolonged involvement refers to the length of time of the researcher’s involvement in the study, including involvement with the environment and the studied participants. It may be granted, for example, by the duration of the study, or by the researcher belonging to the studied community (e.g. a student investigating other students’ experiences). Being a member of this community, or even being a friend to your participants (see my blog post on the ethics of researching friends ), may be a great advantage and a factor that both increases the level of trust between you, the researcher, and the participants and the possible threats of reactivity and respondent bias. It may, however, pose a threat in the form of researcher bias that stems from your, and the participants’, possible assumptions of similarity and presuppositions about some shared experiences (thus, for example, they will not say something in the interview because they will assume that both of you know it anyway – this way, you may miss some valuable data for your study).
Triangulation may refer to triangulation of data through utilising different instruments of data collection, methodological triangulation through employing mixed methods approach and theory triangulation through comparing different theories and perspectives with your own developing “theory” or through drawing from a number of different fields of study.
Peer debriefing and support is really an element of your student experience at the university throughout the process of the study. Various opportunities to present and discuss your research at its different stages, either at internally organised events at your university (e.g. student presentations, workshops, etc.) or at external conferences (which I strongly suggest that you start attending) will provide you with valuable feedback, criticism and suggestions for improvement. These events are invaluable in helping you to asses the study from a more objective, and critical, perspective and to recognise and address its limitations. This input, thus, from other people helps to reduce the researcher bias.
Member checking , or testing the emerging findings with the research participants, in order to increase the validity of the findings, may take various forms in your study. It may involve, for example, regular contact with the participants throughout the period of the data collection and analysis and verifying certain interpretations and themes resulting from the analysis of the data (Curtin and Fossey, 2007). As a way of controlling the influence of your knowledge and assumptions on the emerging interpretations, if you are not clear about something a participant had said, or written, you may send him/her a request to verify either what he/she meant or the interpretation you made based on that. Secondly, it is common to have a follow-up, “validation interview” that is, in itself, a tool for validating your findings and verifying whether they could be applied to individual participants (Buchbinder, 2011), in order to determine outlying, or negative, cases and to re-evaluate your understanding of a given concept (see further below). Finally, member checking, in its most commonly adopted form, may be carried out by sending the interview transcripts to the participants and asking them to read them and provide any necessary comments or corrections (Carlson, 2010).
Negative case analysis is a process of analysing ‘cases’, or sets of data collected from a single participant, that do not match the patterns emerging from the rest of the data. Whenever an emerging explanation of a given phenomenon you are investigating does nto seem applicable to one, or a small number, of the participants, you should try to carry out a new line of analysis aimed at understanding the source of this discrepancy. Although you may be tempted to ignore these “cases” in fear of having to do extra work, it should become your habit to explore them in detail, as the strategy of negative case analysis, especially when combined with member checking, is a valuable way of reducing researcher bias.
Finally, the notion of keeping an audit trail refers to monitoring and keeping a record of all the research-related activities and data, including the raw interview and journal data, the audio-recordings, the researcher’s diary (see this post about recommended software for researcher’s diary ) and the coding book.
If you adopt the above strategies skilfully, you are likely to minimize threats to validity of your study. Don’t forget to look at the resources in the reference list, if you would like to read more on this topic!
Breakwell, G. M. (2000). Interviewing. In Breakwell, G.M., Hammond, S. & Fife-Shaw, C. (eds.) Research Methods in Psychology. 2nd Ed. London: Sage. Buchbinder, E. (2011). Beyond Checking: Experiences of the Validation Interview. Qualitative Social Work, 10 (1), 106-122. Carlson, J.A. (2010). Avoiding Traps in Member Checking. The Qualitative Report, 15 (5), 1102-1113. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. 6th Ed. London: Routledge. Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, 88-94. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
There is an argument for using your identity and biases to enrich the research (see my recent blog… researcheridentity.wordpress.com) providing that the researcher seeks to fully comprehend their place in the research and is fully open, honest and clear about that in the write up. I have come to see reliability and validity more as a defence of is the research rigorous, thorough and careful therefore is it morally, ethically and accurately defensible?
Hi Nathan, thank you for your comment. I agree that being explicit about your own status and everything that you bring into the study is important – it’s a very similar issue (although seemingly it’s a different topic) to what I discussed in the blog post about grounded theory where I talked about being explicit about the influence of our previous knowledge on the data. I have also experienced this dilemma of “what to do with” my status as simultaneously a “researcher” an “insider” a “friend” and a “fellow Polish migrant” when conducting my PhD study of Polish migrants’ English Language Identity, and came to similar conclusions as the ones you reach in your article – to acknowledge these “multiple identities” and make the best of them.
I have read your blog article and really liked it – would you mind if I shared it on my Facebook page, and linked to it from my blog section on this page?
Please do share my blog by all means; I’d be delighted. Are you on twitter? I’m @Nathan_AHT_EDD I strongly believe that we cannot escape our past, including our multiple/present habitus and identities when it comes to qualitative educational research. It is therefore, arguably, logical to ethically and sensibly embrace it/them to enrich the data. Identities cannot be taken on and off like a coat, they are, “lived as deeply committed personal projects” (Clegg, 2008: p.336) and so if we embrace them we bring a unique insight into the process and have a genuine investment to make the research meaningful and worthy of notice.
Hi Nathan, I don’t have twitter… I know – somehow I still haven’t had time to get to grips with it. I do have Facebook, feel free to find me there. I also started to follow your blog so that I am notified about your content. I agree with what you said here and in your posts, and I like the topic of your blog. This is definitely something that we should pay more attention to when doing research. It would be interesting to talk some time and exchange opinions, as our research interests seem very closely related. Have a good day !
Validity vs. Reliability in Research: What's the Difference?
Introduction
What is the difference between reliability and validity in a study, what is an example of reliability and validity, how to ensure validity and reliability in your research, critiques of reliability and validity.
In research, validity and reliability are crucial for producing robust findings. They provide a foundation that assures scholars, practitioners, and readers alike that the research's insights are both accurate and consistent. However, the nuanced nature of qualitative data often blurs the lines between these concepts, making it imperative for researchers to discern their distinct roles.
This article seeks to illuminate the intricacies of reliability and validity, highlighting their significance and distinguishing their unique attributes. By understanding these critical facets, qualitative researchers can ensure their work not only resonates with authenticity but also trustworthiness.
In the domain of research, whether qualitative or quantitative , two concepts often arise when discussing the quality and rigor of a study: reliability and validity . These two terms, while interconnected, have distinct meanings that hold significant weight in the world of research.
Reliability, at its core, speaks to the consistency of a study. If a study or test measures the same concept repeatedly and yields the same results, it demonstrates a high degree of reliability. A common method for assessing reliability is through internal consistency reliability, which checks if multiple items that measure the same concept produce similar scores.
Another method often used is inter-rater reliability , which gauges the consistency of scores given by different raters. This approach is especially amenable to qualitative research , and it can help researchers assess the clarity of their code system and the consistency of their codings . For a study to be more dependable, it's imperative to ensure a sufficient measurement of reliability is achieved.
On the other hand, validity is concerned with accuracy. It looks at whether a study truly measures what it claims to. Within the realm of validity, several types exist. Construct validity, for instance, verifies that a study measures the intended abstract concept or underlying construct. If a research aims to measure self-esteem and accurately captures this abstract trait, it demonstrates strong construct validity.
Content validity ensures that a test or study comprehensively represents the entire domain of the concept it seeks to measure. For instance, if a test aims to assess mathematical ability, it should cover arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and more to showcase strong content validity.
Criterion validity is another form of validity that ensures that the scores from a test correlate well with a measure from a related outcome. A subset of this is predictive validity, which checks if the test can predict future outcomes. For instance, if an aptitude test can predict future job performance, it can be said to have high predictive validity.
The distinction between reliability and validity becomes clear when one considers the nature of their focus. While reliability is concerned with consistency and reproducibility, validity zeroes in on accuracy and truthfulness.
A research tool can be reliable without being valid. For instance, faulty instrument measures might consistently give bad readings (reliable but not valid). Conversely, in discussions about test reliability, the same test measure administered multiple times could sometimes hit the mark and at other times miss it entirely, producing different test scores each time. This would make it valid in some instances but not reliable.
For a study to be robust, it must achieve both reliability and validity. Reliability ensures the study's findings are reproducible while validity confirms that it accurately represents the phenomena it claims to. Ensuring both in a study means the results are both dependable and accurate, forming a cornerstone for high-quality research.
Efficient, easy data analysis with ATLAS.ti
Start analyzing data quickly and more deeply with ATLAS.ti. Download a free trial today.
Understanding the nuances of reliability and validity becomes clearer when contextualized within a real-world research setting. Imagine a qualitative study where a researcher aims to explore the experiences of teachers in urban schools concerning classroom management. The primary method of data collection is semi-structured interviews .
To ensure the reliability of this qualitative study, the researcher crafts a consistent list of open-ended questions for the interview. This ensures that, while each conversation might meander based on the individual’s experiences, there remains a core set of topics related to classroom management that every participant addresses.
The essence of reliability in this context isn't necessarily about garnering identical responses but rather about achieving a consistent approach to data collection and subsequent interpretation . As part of this commitment to reliability, two researchers might independently transcribe and analyze a subset of these interviews. If they identify similar themes and patterns in their independent analyses, it suggests a consistent interpretation of the data, showcasing inter-rater reliability .
Validity , on the other hand, is anchored in ensuring that the research genuinely captures and represents the lived experiences and sentiments of teachers concerning classroom management. To establish content validity, the list of interview questions is thoroughly reviewed by a panel of educational experts. Their feedback ensures that the questions encompass the breadth of issues and concerns related to classroom management in urban school settings.
As the interviews are conducted, the researcher pays close attention to the depth and authenticity of responses. After the interviews, member checking could be employed, where participants review the researcher's interpretation of their responses to ensure that their experiences and perspectives have been accurately captured. This strategy helps in affirming the study's construct validity, ensuring that the abstract concept of "experiences with classroom management" has been truthfully and adequately represented.
In this example, we can see that while the interview study is rooted in qualitative methods and subjective experiences, the principles of reliability and validity can still meaningfully inform the research process. They serve as guides to ensure the research's findings are both dependable and genuinely reflective of the participants' experiences.
Ensuring validity and reliability in research, irrespective of its qualitative or quantitative nature, is pivotal to producing results that are both trustworthy and robust. Here's how you can integrate these concepts into your study to ensure its rigor:
Reliability is about consistency. One of the most straightforward ways to gauge it in quantitative research is using test-retest reliability. It involves administering the same test to the same group of participants on two separate occasions and then comparing the results.
A high degree of similarity between the two sets of results indicates good reliability. This can often be measured using a correlation coefficient, where a value closer to 1 indicates a strong positive consistency between the two test iterations.
Validity, on the other hand, ensures that the research genuinely measures what it intends to. There are various forms of validity to consider. Convergent validity ensures that two measures of the same construct or those that should theoretically be related, are indeed correlated. For example, two different measures assessing self-esteem should show similar results for the same group, highlighting that they are measuring the same underlying construct.
Face validity is the most basic form of validity and is gauged by the sheer appearance of the measurement tool. If, at face value, a test seems like it measures what it claims to, it has face validity. This is often the first step and is usually followed by more rigorous forms of validity testing.
Criterion-related validity, a subtype of the previously discussed criterion validity, evaluates how well the outcomes of a particular test or measurement correlate with another related measure. For example, if a new tool is developed to measure reading comprehension, its results can be compared with those of an established reading comprehension test to assess its criterion-related validity. If the results show a strong correlation, it's a sign that the new tool is valid.
Ensuring both validity and reliability requires deliberate planning, meticulous testing, and constant reflection on the study's methods and results. This might involve using established scales or measures with proven validity and reliability, conducting pilot studies to refine measurement tools, and always staying cognizant of the fact that these two concepts are important considerations for research robustness.
While reliability and validity are foundational concepts in many traditional research paradigms, they have not escaped scrutiny, especially from critical and poststructuralist perspectives. These critiques often arise from the fundamental philosophical differences in how knowledge, truth, and reality are perceived and constructed.
From a poststructuralist viewpoint, the very pursuit of a singular "truth" or an objective reality is questionable. In such a perspective, multiple truths exist, each shaped by its own socio-cultural, historical, and individual contexts.
Reliability, with its emphasis on consistent replication, might then seem at odds with this understanding. If truths are multiple and shifting, how can consistency across repeated measures or observations be a valid measure of anything other than the research instrument's stability?
Validity, too, faces critique. In seeking to ensure that a study measures what it purports to measure, there's an implicit assumption of an observable, knowable reality. Poststructuralist critiques question this foundation, arguing that reality is too fluid, multifaceted, and influenced by power dynamics to be pinned down by any singular measurement or representation.
Moreover, the very act of determining "validity" often requires an external benchmark or "gold standard." This brings up the issue of who determines this standard and the power dynamics and potential biases inherent in such decisions.
Another point of contention is the way these concepts can inadvertently prioritize certain forms of knowledge over others. For instance, privileging research that meets stringent reliability and validity criteria might marginalize more exploratory, interpretive, or indigenous research methods. These methods, while offering deep insights, might not align neatly with traditional understandings of reliability and validity, potentially relegating them to the periphery of "accepted" knowledge production.
To be sure, reliability and validity serve as guiding principles in many research approaches. However, it's essential to recognize their limitations and the critiques posed by alternative epistemologies. Engaging with these critiques doesn't diminish the value of reliability and validity but rather enriches our understanding of the multifaceted nature of knowledge and the complexities of its pursuit.
A rigorous research process begins with ATLAS.ti
Download a free trial of our powerful data analysis software to make the most of your research.
- How it works
Reliability and Validity – Definitions, Types & Examples
Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 16th, 2021 , Revised On October 26, 2023
A researcher must test the collected data before making any conclusion. Every research design needs to be concerned with reliability and validity to measure the quality of the research.
What is Reliability?
Reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement. Reliability shows how trustworthy is the score of the test. If the collected data shows the same results after being tested using various methods and sample groups, the information is reliable. If your method has reliability, the results will be valid.
Example: If you weigh yourself on a weighing scale throughout the day, you’ll get the same results. These are considered reliable results obtained through repeated measures.
Example: If a teacher conducts the same math test of students and repeats it next week with the same questions. If she gets the same score, then the reliability of the test is high.
What is the Validity?
Validity refers to the accuracy of the measurement. Validity shows how a specific test is suitable for a particular situation. If the results are accurate according to the researcher’s situation, explanation, and prediction, then the research is valid.
If the method of measuring is accurate, then it’ll produce accurate results. If a method is reliable, then it’s valid. In contrast, if a method is not reliable, it’s not valid.
Example: Your weighing scale shows different results each time you weigh yourself within a day even after handling it carefully, and weighing before and after meals. Your weighing machine might be malfunctioning. It means your method had low reliability. Hence you are getting inaccurate or inconsistent results that are not valid.
Example: Suppose a questionnaire is distributed among a group of people to check the quality of a skincare product and repeated the same questionnaire with many groups. If you get the same response from various participants, it means the validity of the questionnaire and product is high as it has high reliability.
Most of the time, validity is difficult to measure even though the process of measurement is reliable. It isn’t easy to interpret the real situation.
Example: If the weighing scale shows the same result, let’s say 70 kg each time, even if your actual weight is 55 kg, then it means the weighing scale is malfunctioning. However, it was showing consistent results, but it cannot be considered as reliable. It means the method has low reliability.
Internal Vs. External Validity
One of the key features of randomised designs is that they have significantly high internal and external validity.
Internal validity is the ability to draw a causal link between your treatment and the dependent variable of interest. It means the observed changes should be due to the experiment conducted, and any external factor should not influence the variables .
Example: age, level, height, and grade.
External validity is the ability to identify and generalise your study outcomes to the population at large. The relationship between the study’s situation and the situations outside the study is considered external validity.
Also, read about Inductive vs Deductive reasoning in this article.
Looking for reliable dissertation support?
We hear you.
- Whether you want a full dissertation written or need help forming a dissertation proposal, we can help you with both.
- Get different dissertation services at ResearchProspect and score amazing grades!
Threats to Interval Validity
Threat | Definition | Example |
---|---|---|
Confounding factors | Unexpected events during the experiment that are not a part of treatment. | If you feel the increased weight of your experiment participants is due to lack of physical activity, but it was actually due to the consumption of coffee with sugar. |
Maturation | The influence on the independent variable due to passage of time. | During a long-term experiment, subjects may feel tired, bored, and hungry. |
Testing | The results of one test affect the results of another test. | Participants of the first experiment may react differently during the second experiment. |
Instrumentation | Changes in the instrument’s collaboration | Change in the may give different results instead of the expected results. |
Statistical regression | Groups selected depending on the extreme scores are not as extreme on subsequent testing. | Students who failed in the pre-final exam are likely to get passed in the final exams; they might be more confident and conscious than earlier. |
Selection bias | Choosing comparison groups without randomisation. | A group of trained and efficient teachers is selected to teach children communication skills instead of randomly selecting them. |
Experimental mortality | Due to the extension of the time of the experiment, participants may leave the experiment. | Due to multi-tasking and various competition levels, the participants may leave the competition because they are dissatisfied with the time-extension even if they were doing well. |
Threats of External Validity
Threat | Definition | Example |
---|---|---|
Reactive/interactive effects of testing | The participants of the pre-test may get awareness about the next experiment. The treatment may not be effective without the pre-test. | Students who got failed in the pre-final exam are likely to get passed in the final exams; they might be more confident and conscious than earlier. |
Selection of participants | A group of participants selected with specific characteristics and the treatment of the experiment may work only on the participants possessing those characteristics | If an experiment is conducted specifically on the health issues of pregnant women, the same treatment cannot be given to male participants. |
How to Assess Reliability and Validity?
Reliability can be measured by comparing the consistency of the procedure and its results. There are various methods to measure validity and reliability. Reliability can be measured through various statistical methods depending on the types of validity, as explained below:
Types of Reliability
Type of reliability | What does it measure? | Example |
---|---|---|
Test-Retests | It measures the consistency of the results at different points of time. It identifies whether the results are the same after repeated measures. | Suppose a questionnaire is distributed among a group of people to check the quality of a skincare product and repeated the same questionnaire with many groups. If you get the same response from a various group of participants, it means the validity of the questionnaire and product is high as it has high test-retest reliability. |
Inter-Rater | It measures the consistency of the results at the same time by different raters (researchers) | Suppose five researchers measure the academic performance of the same student by incorporating various questions from all the academic subjects and submit various results. It shows that the questionnaire has low inter-rater reliability. |
Parallel Forms | It measures Equivalence. It includes different forms of the same test performed on the same participants. | Suppose the same researcher conducts the two different forms of tests on the same topic and the same students. The tests could be written and oral tests on the same topic. If results are the same, then the parallel-forms reliability of the test is high; otherwise, it’ll be low if the results are different. |
Inter-Term | It measures the consistency of the measurement. | The results of the same tests are split into two halves and compared with each other. If there is a lot of difference in results, then the inter-term reliability of the test is low. |
Types of Validity
As we discussed above, the reliability of the measurement alone cannot determine its validity. Validity is difficult to be measured even if the method is reliable. The following type of tests is conducted for measuring validity.
Type of reliability | What does it measure? | Example |
---|---|---|
Content validity | It shows whether all the aspects of the test/measurement are covered. | A language test is designed to measure the writing and reading skills, listening, and speaking skills. It indicates that a test has high content validity. |
Face validity | It is about the validity of the appearance of a test or procedure of the test. | The type of included in the question paper, time, and marks allotted. The number of questions and their categories. Is it a good question paper to measure the academic performance of students? |
Construct validity | It shows whether the test is measuring the correct construct (ability/attribute, trait, skill) | Is the test conducted to measure communication skills is actually measuring communication skills? |
Criterion validity | It shows whether the test scores obtained are similar to other measures of the same concept. | The results obtained from a prefinal exam of graduate accurately predict the results of the later final exam. It shows that the test has high criterion validity. |
Does your Research Methodology Have the Following?
- Great Research/Sources
- Perfect Language
- Accurate Sources
If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of Research Methodology strong.
How to Increase Reliability?
- Use an appropriate questionnaire to measure the competency level.
- Ensure a consistent environment for participants
- Make the participants familiar with the criteria of assessment.
- Train the participants appropriately.
- Analyse the research items regularly to avoid poor performance.
How to Increase Validity?
Ensuring Validity is also not an easy job. A proper functioning method to ensure validity is given below:
- The reactivity should be minimised at the first concern.
- The Hawthorne effect should be reduced.
- The respondents should be motivated.
- The intervals between the pre-test and post-test should not be lengthy.
- Dropout rates should be avoided.
- The inter-rater reliability should be ensured.
- Control and experimental groups should be matched with each other.
How to Implement Reliability and Validity in your Thesis?
According to the experts, it is helpful if to implement the concept of reliability and Validity. Especially, in the thesis and the dissertation, these concepts are adopted much. The method for implementation given below:
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The starting price is $405,000, the most expensive is $970,609, and the average price of $699,000. Related boats include the following models: 50 Cantius, 42 Cantius and 420 Express. Boat Trader works with thousands of boat dealers and brokers to bring you one of the largest collections of Cruisers Yachts 38 gls boats on the market. You can ...
Find Cruisers Yachts 38 Gls boats for sale in your area & across the world on YachtWorld. Offering the best selection of Cruisers Yachts to choose from. ... 2022 Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS. US$739,000. Silver Seas Yachts - San Diego | Newport Beach, California. 2021 Cruisers Yachts 60 Cantius Flybridge. US$1,690,000. OLYMPIA YACHT GROUP | Anna ...
Cruisers Yachts 38 Gls for sale 45 Boats Available. Currency $ - USD - US Dollar Sort Sort Order List View Gallery View Submit. Advertisement. Save This Boat. Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS OB. 2024. Request Price. The 38 GLS OB for sale at your local dealer combines the unmatched performance and entertainment capabilities of the 38 GLS with powerful ...
Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS I/O. With a drop-down beach door, hydraulic swim platform, and spacious bow lounge, the 38 GLS I/O for sale near you brings your day boating to the next level. Request Information. Features. Cockpit. The open-concept cockpit was designed with entertainment in mind. You can find endless seating options between the bow ...
Find Cruisers Yachts 38 Gls Ob boats for sale in your area & across the world on YachtWorld. Offering the best selection of Cruisers Yachts to choose from. ... 2024 Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS OB. Request price. SkipperBud's Marina Del Isle | Marblehead, United States. Request Info; In-Stock; 2020 Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS OB. US$639,000. US $4,855/mo.
For Sale: 2021 Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS - Your Gateway to Luxury and Performance** If you're in the market for a yacht that combines top-tier craftsmanship, exhilarating performance, and unmatched versatility, the 2021 Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS is the vessel for you. With only 185 hours of freshwater use and meticulously maintained, this yacht is ...
2021 CRUISERS YACHTS 38 GLS. $499,995. Wilmington, North Carolina. Details. Compare. Explore this 2020 Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS for sale. is located in Miami, view photos, yacht description, priced at $639,000.
A License To Chill is a 2023 Cruisers Yachts 38' 38 GLS OB listed for sale with United Yacht Broker John Blumenthal. John can be reached at 1-772-215-2571 to answer any questions you may have on this boat. ... Our Cruisers Yachts listing is a great opportunity to purchase a 38' Bowrider for sale in Jupiter, Florida - United States. This ...
Cruisers Yachts 38 Gls I O for sale 4 Boats Available. Currency $ - USD - US Dollar Sort Sort Order List View Gallery View Submit. Advertisement. Save This Boat. Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS I/O. 2024. Request Price. With a drop-down beach door, hydraulic swim platform, and spacious bow lounge, the 38 GLS I/O for sale near you brings your day boating ...
About Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS. The 38 GLS is a versatile boat that combines a bowrider and outboard with the craftsmanship you expect from Cruisers Yachts. Its open-concept cockpit is designed for entertainment, offering endless seating options. With triple 300 Mercury Verados and a top speed of 53mph, the 38 GLS delivers impressive performance ...
Discover Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS innovative design featuring luxury amenities and triple Mercury Verados. Relax and ride in style in the 38 GLS. ... The 38 GLS OB for sale at your local dealer combines the unmatched performance and entertainment capabilities of the 38 GLS with powerful, easy-to-maintain outboards. Expand your swimming area by ...
Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS. The 38 GLS is breaking boundaries with its versatility, bringing together a bowrider and outboard with the top-notch craftsmanship you'd expect from Cruisers. The open-concept cockpit is all about entertainment, offering a variety of seating options from the bow lounge to the mid-ship dinettes and aft-facing bench.
2020 38 Cruisers GLS "Perfect Day" for sale. This 2020 38 GLS is one of the only available with triple 400 Mercury Verados. The 400's push the boat to 49 knots WOT with a 32-knot cruise at a .97 MPG. ... 2020 Cruisers Yachts 38 GLS. US$629,000. Cape Coral, Florida. 2020 Fountaine Pajot Saona 47. US$1,095,000. Saint George, Grenada. 2007 ...
The starting price is $405,000, the most expensive is $970,609, and the average price of $699,000. Related boats include the following models: 50 Cantius, 42 Cantius and 38 GLS. Boat Trader works with thousands of boat dealers and brokers to bring you one of the largest collections of Cruisers Yachts 38 boats on the market.
View a wide selection of Cruisers Yachts 38 Gls for sale in United States, explore detailed information & find your next boat on boats.com. #everythingboats ... The 38 GLS OB for sale at your local dealer combines the unmatched performance and entertainment capabilities of the 38 GLS with powerful, easy-to-maintain outboards. ...
Omsk Oblast, Russia Offline Map For Travel & Navigation is a premium, very easy to use and fast mobile application. EasyNavi has developed the Omsk Oblast, Russia Offline Map For
322. IMAGES. Sunreef Launches Second Sunreef 80 Power Catamaran. Leopard 51 Powercat Power Catamaran The Office for sale. The Best Luxury Power Catamarans Manufacturers. Horizon PC52 Power Catamaran. New power Catamaran for sale: 2019 Lagoon 630MY (63ft) Twin Vee Goes Electric: Sneak Peak Of New Electric-Powered Catamaran.
Description. 2024 38 Cruisers Yachts GLS offers an open concept with entertaining in mind. This 38 GLS features everything you love about the Cantius series with Triple Mercury engines you will arrive at your destination in no time, not to forget to mention that getting in and out of the water is easy with the lowering beach door and ...
Other fatalities: 4. Total fatalities: 178. Circumstances: Following an uneventful flight from Krasnodar, the crew started the approach to Omsk Airport in a reduced visibility due to the night and rain falls. The aircraft landed at a speed of 270 km/h and about one second later, the captain noticed the presence of vehicles on the runway.
The starting price is $679,000, the most expensive is $720,000, and the average price of $695,000. Related boats include the following models: 50 Cantius, 42 Cantius and 38 GLS. Boat Trader works with thousands of boat dealers and brokers to bring you one of the largest collections of Cruisers Yachts 38 gls ob boats on the market. You can also ...
Got a specific Cruisers Yachts 38 gls outboard in mind? There are currently 6 listings available on Boat Trader by both private sellers and professional boat dealers. The oldest boat was built in 2024 and the newest model is 2024. Related boats include the following models: 50 Cantius, 42 Cantius and 38 GLS.
Contents: Cities and Settlements The population of all cities and urban settlements in Omsk Oblast according to census results and latest official estimates. The icon links to further information about a selected place including its population structure (gender).
The starting price is $595,000, the most expensive is $599,900, and the average price of $597,450. Related boats include the following models: 50 Cantius, 42 Cantius and 38 GLS. Boat Trader works with thousands of boat dealers and brokers to bring you one of the largest collections of Cruisers Yachts 38 gls i o boats on the market.