Introduction
It was not till a couple of years ago that communities dealing with computer science or mainly information systems in our society have summed up the user requirements in terms of the needed information with how users tend to act under the available systems. Generally speaking, all inquests into these requirements was to find out how a user navigates to a different system coupled with their response to the data handed to them by these information systems. Human Service Research (HSR) is meant to assist individuals, organizations, or groups in which they are joined in increasing the quality of the Human Service programs they have put in place by evaluation based on the context of research (Mullen & Magnabasco, 1997). This also has the added advantage of bridging the gap between what the organization can change and the professional skill needed to carry it out.
Observation and Measurement in Human Services Research
The biggest advantage of using HSR is that it helps programs in acquiring assessment information regarding how to better attain goals, improve the programs, evaluate needs, and properly document the expected and achieved outcomes. Even more important is the way it assists others in information use that promotes the well-being of individuals within the community. In the proper context of the outcomes of measurement in human services, there is the inclusion of a clause that creates emphasis on individual and corporate accountability (Richey & Roffman 1999).
This effort is directed at all levels of service to measure performance and management with a result-oriented goal. The service recipients, movements that focus on community residents, and managed care are of crucial importance. The focus on observation and measurement would not be complete without referring to the consumer movement and the important role it plays. It has generally underscored the implication of bringing in the dimension of service recipients and the residents in an aim to measure outcomes (Mullen & Magnabasco, 1997).
In social research, reliability is the exact measure to which it provides a precise score in the measurement range. I can then be perceived as the repeatability or the consistency. In a nutshell, it can be viewed as either inter-rater which assesses different people using the same test; test-retest, that uses the same people at different times; parallel-forms which seek to apply a principle of different people, same time with a different test or the internal consistency that asks different questions in the same construct. In this paper, we shall focus on inter-rater reliability and internal consistency (Kirk, 1999).
The inter-rater reliability has it that when many persons are issuing assessments of any type or are subjected to a test, those who share some basis of similarity will most likely produce the same results in their scores. This form of reliability can be applied while calibrating people and in particular, those who have been used as the observers of an experiment being carried out. It is perceived as the best method of assessing reliability by use of observation but definitely, there is the disadvantage of observer bias coming into play. The internal consistency reliability is efficient in assessing the response of a given construct or an idea. This is at most times the purpose of any research questioning. The major characteristic of this type of reliability is the evaluation of individual questions, comparing them with one another, and checking their ability to give results appropriately and consistently (Kirk, 1999).
The two types of experiments based on validity are internal or external. In internal validity, there is certainty in the independence of a variable that comes from the outcome of the study. In a case scenario where we have a random assignment of subjects, there can be an assumption that this independent variable was the cause of the outcome observed. External validity has the distinct characteristic of generalizing the results experimented on groups not a part of the study. It creates some bit of particular concern in experiments dealing with social science (Richey & Roffman 1999).
Collecting data for managerial research can be a tedious but valuable process. The major methods of collecting data include documents such as diaries, historical, literature reviews, or meta-analyses. These methods highlight leisure research trends and practices. The other widely used method is observation where a participant will systematically observe how people behave and interact with one another especially in public places. It can be expressed as a case study, interpretive, participant-observer, or ethnographical observation. This may come in the form of questionnaires, interviews, scales/instruments, or a standardized survey. Experimental methods can be classified under either true design or a typical quasi design (Mullen & Magnabasco, 1997).
Conclusion
Since managerial research is all about procedures of measurement, it is important to exercise extra care in assessing the reliability and validity of the outcome measurements we put into use. It is also worthwhile to note that validity and reliability assessment brings on-board the qualitative and quantitative assessment by use of statistical methods of measurement. It is, therefore, crucial to consider the availability of a criterion standard and how appropriate it will be before settling on it.
References
Kirk, S. A. (1999). Good intentions are not enough: Practice guidelines for social work, Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 302-303.
Mullen, E.J. & Magnabasco, J. (Eds.) (1997). Outcomes Measurement in the Human Services, Washington, D.C.: National Association of Social Workers Press.
Richey, C. A. and Roffman, R. A. (1999) On the sidelines of guidelines: Further thoughts on the fit between clinical guidelines and social work practice, Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 311-321.