JKSET key terms

The degree to which a test or instrument measures what it claims to measure, covering content, construct, and criterion evidence rather than mere consistency of scores.

The consistency and stability of measurements across repeated administrations, parallel forms, or raters; a necessary but not sufficient condition for validity of research instruments.

Evidence that a test reflects the theoretical trait it is meant to capture, shown through convergent and discriminant patterns with related and unrelated measures.

A precise statement of how a variable is measured or manipulated in a study, converting abstract concepts into observable procedures that others could replicate.

An internal-consistency coefficient estimating how well items on a scale measure a single underlying dimension; values near one indicate high inter-item correlation.

The extent to which two or more independent observers or judges assign consistent scores or classifications to the same behaviour or material.

A statement that no effect, difference, or relationship exists in the population; statistical tests assess how compatible observed data are with it.

The research prediction that an effect, difference, or association exists, against which the null hypothesis is tested in inferential statistics.

The probability of obtaining data at least as extreme as those observed, assuming the null hypothesis is true; it is not the probability that the null is true.

The pre-set threshold, usually 0.05 or 0.01, below which a p-value leads the researcher to reject the null hypothesis.

Rejecting a true null hypothesis, that is, reporting an effect that does not exist; its probability is controlled by the chosen significance level.

Failing to reject a false null hypothesis, thereby missing a real effect; its probability is inversely related to statistical power.

The probability that a test will correctly detect a true effect of a given size, influenced by sample size, effect size, and significance criterion.

A standardized index of the magnitude of a difference or association, independent of sample size, allowing comparison across studies.

The process of selecting a subset of a population for study, with the method chosen determining how far findings can be generalized.

Selection in which every member of a defined population has an equal and independent chance of inclusion, supporting external validity and unbiased estimation.

Systematic distortion arising when some population members are more likely than others to be selected, so the sample misrepresents the target population.

The extent to which observed changes in a dependent variable can be attributed to the manipulated independent variable rather than confounds.

The degree to which findings can be generalized to other populations, settings, times, and operationalizations beyond those actually studied.

An extraneous factor that varies systematically with the independent variable and can therefore produce a spurious apparent effect on the dependent variable.

Allocating participants to experimental conditions by chance so groups are probabilistically equivalent, a key safeguard against selection confounds.

The variable the researcher manipulates or treats as the presumed cause in an experiment, whose levels define the comparison conditions.

The outcome measure recorded by the researcher, expected to vary as a function of the independent variable and treated as the presumed effect.

A summated rating format in which respondents indicate agreement with statements along an ordered range, often from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

A structured written instrument of fixed items used to collect self-report data from respondents, administered in person, by post, or online.

A systematic method for coding and quantifying the manifest or latent content of documents, media, or transcripts into categories.

Inquiry emphasizing meanings, experiences, and context, typically using interviews, observation, or documents and analysed thematically rather than statistically.

Using multiple methods, data sources, investigators, or theories to cross-check findings and strengthen confidence in interpretations.

A quantitative synthesis that pools effect sizes from multiple studies on a question to estimate an overall effect and examine moderators.

A critical, organized survey of prior scholarship that situates a research problem, identifies gaps, and justifies the study's questions and design.

Presenting another person's words, ideas, data, or images as one's own without adequate attribution, a serious breach of research and academic integrity.

Commitment to honesty, fairness, and responsibility in scholarship, including accurate attribution, truthful reporting of data, and avoidance of fabrication or falsification.

Principles governing research conduct, including informed consent, confidentiality, minimizing harm, and voluntary participation, usually enforced by institutional review bodies.

A participant's voluntary agreement to take part after receiving understandable information about the study's purpose, procedures, risks, and right to withdraw.

The researcher's obligation to protect participants' identities and data from unauthorized disclosure, often through anonymization or secure storage.

Explicit statements of what learners should know or be able to do by the end of a course or programme, typically expressed with observable action verbs.

A hierarchical classification of cognitive learning objectives, revised to run from remembering and understanding through applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating.

Assessment conducted during instruction to give feedback and adjust teaching, as distinct from summative assessment that grades achievement at the end.

Evaluation of learning at the end of a unit or course, used to certify achievement or assign grades rather than to shape ongoing instruction.

Judging performance against fixed standards or learning outcomes rather than against the relative performance of other students in a norm group.

Interpreting a score by comparing it with the distribution of scores in a reference group, so results indicate relative standing rather than mastery.