If a measurement procedure in an experiment is valid, then it will measure what the variable claims to measure, to a certain degree. In order for there to be full validity, the measurement process must completely measure the variable it claims to measure. In other words, whatever you say will be done in the methods, must be done.
There are many different types of validity, the most common and simple one is perhaps Face validity. Face validity is demonstrated when a measure superficially appears to measure what it claims to measure. This also makes it an unscientific form of validity as well as a simple form. Another common one is Concurrent validity, which is demonstrated when scores obtained from a new measure are directly related to scores obtained from an established measure of the same variable. An example of Concurrent validity is IQ tests. If you had developed a new IQ test, you could demonstrate that your test really measures intelligence by showing that the scores from your test differentiate individuals in the same way as scores from a standardized IQ test.
If your measurement procedure matches up to the many different types of validity, and measures what you intended it to measure, then your findings will be valid. However this does not mean they will be reliable, because although validity and reliability go together, they are both concerned with different aspects of the research.
counseyyy 
Dec 09, 2011 @ 19:45:16
I think you’ve missed out an opportunity here to discuss how validity ties in with other things to generate results that are worthwhile. Whilst a test can be totally valid and produce valid results, it may not always be reliable and therefore isn’t the best one to use. I think that reliability is more important than validity almost, as if something isn’t reliable then there’s no point using it and people lose faith in it. Though I suppose the same can be said about validity. x
Dec 09, 2011 @ 19:49:03
I liked your blog 🙂 , would also like to add that it ecological validity is one of the hardest ones to overcome because of the hawthorne effect. This effect occurs when a participant knows they are being watched or experimented on and because of that modify their behaviour during the experiment. It´s very difficult to design an experiment where this effect doesn´t take place.
Dec 09, 2011 @ 20:58:59
An interesting post, you defined validity well and explained it with good use of an example; clearly demonstrating why validity is important. I think you could have furthered your ideas about reliability and how validity can be measured or even why validity is important for example effects we could have by not making experiments valid such as treating people unfairly by basing how we treat them on results which are not really a true reflection of what we were hoping to find out. Validity is a major area in psychology; we could give people a list of words: cat, rat, bat, mat, hat and ask them to remember them; if they remembered them all we could conclude that people can remember 5 3 letter words however the experiment does not truly reflect this as the words are all similar and familiar to English-speaking participants; we cannot assume that this would be the same on non-english participants or if we used a selection of words which did not relate to each other in any way. There is also the idea of the Hawthorne effect which brings in the most difficult type of validity; ecological validity. The Hawthorne effect is people behaving differently due to knowing they are taking part in research for example someone may try extra hard to get good results giving a score that does not reflect what their true result should be.
Dec 09, 2011 @ 21:31:52
Happy Christmas! 🙂
I liked you blog 🙂
How do you know well liked you said has is measured what you wanted it to measure, The findings of validity is important within the clinical psychology it is important for a clinician to ensure validity is accurate and that also relates to reliability. 🙂
Dec 09, 2011 @ 23:19:43
Ecological validity is an important form of validity although it is probably one of the most difficult to achieve simply because if participants know they are being observed then their behaviour changes, its not natural. But how can you observe someone without them knowing in the least creepy way possible. Even if you observe people in the park without them knowing they still behave different than what they do in their private spaces. But another way of looking at it is people behave differently in different situation and it still be natural so how do we differentiate between natural behaviour and non natural behaviour?
Apr 19, 2013 @ 14:16:47
What’s up every one, here every one is sharing these experience, therefore it’s pleasant to read this web site, and I used
to pay a visit this blog all the time.