I was going through the Study Design and was wondering whether I should just trust VCAA and stick to the information listed there. I'm currently using the Oxford Psych textbook and in the research methods chapter, it seems to mention information that aren't on the study design so now I'm starting to feel that the SD is a little vague.
My number one concern is the reliability and validity. The SD states: Validity including construct and external, and Reliability including internal consistency.
Now it doesn't seem to mention inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability and parallel form reliability (actually my textbook doesn't have 'internal consistency' but I'm assuming 'internal reliability' is the same thing), so should I not study them?
Same goes with the validity construct and external. It just seems a bit vague to me to be honest. It says external validity, but does that also include criterion-related validity (which seems to go under it)?
I know VCAA can't be specific with everything, but it just seems that in some areas they're quite broad and general and others seem to be really specific. Have there been any cases where examiners or whoever that writes it (for any subject) haven't stuck to the study design??