In Needs Met Ratings, how do reliability and validity differ?

• A. Reliability is accuracy in reflecting actual needs and alignment with criteria; validity is consistency across raters/time.
• B. Reliability is the speed of data collection; validity is the number of sources used.
• C. Reliability is consistency across raters/time; validity is accuracy in reflecting actual needs and alignment with criteria.
• D. Reliability is the amount of data; validity is the presence of a formal template.

Answer: (C)

Reliability means consistency in measurement across different raters and over time. In Needs Met Ratings, this means if the same situation were evaluated by different people or revisited later, the scores would be similar. Validity, on the other hand, is about accuracy: the rating should truly reflect whether a need is met and align with the predefined criteria for what counts as met. So, a valid rating accurately captures the real state of needs, not just something that happens to be consistent.

That’s why the correct distinction is that reliability is about consistency across raters and time, while validity is about accuracy in reflecting actual needs and alignment with criteria. The other options mix up these ideas or bring in unrelated factors like speed, number of sources, data quantity, or templates, which don’t define reliability or validity. In practice, you want both—ratings that are consistent and that accurately reflect needs according to the criteria.