由于这一范式的重点是找出“真相”，可靠性是研究结果一致性的重要指标。安德森和阿瑟罗(1998),“可靠性是指乐器的程度将产生相同的结果在每次管理”(页256)这方面的一个例子,如果你要管理更大的调查数据收集的来源更多的将是可靠的结果更全面更它会给相同的结果下次你做到了。此外，诚信是保持质量的一个基本标准。诚信可以分为四个质量标准这些,可信度使用多个方法和视角和成员检查,transferablility通过提供丰富的数据和厚描述,可靠性通过详细的审计跟踪,和comformability可以通过让读者清晰的跟踪数据和解释。研究表明，同行评审的好处不仅改善了作者使用的语言和表达观点的方式，还提醒他们注意研究中的统计和科学错误、不恰当的方法或引用的准确性，以便在发表之前纠正这些错误。(Taylor and Francis Author Services, 2010)这方面的一个例子是，当一个人将他/她的作品提交给一家国际期刊，由不知名的同行进行匿名评审时，他们会批判性地阅读自己的文章，然后建议接受、拒绝，或者在发表之前对其进行修改和改进。如果没有这种外部的“认可印章”，许多科学家“会认为任何结果都是初步的，存在潜在的缺陷”。
英国留学生作业代写:可靠性
Because the focus of this paradigm is to find out the ‘truth’, reliability is an important indicator for the consistency of the research findings. Anderson and Arsenault (1998) state that “reliability refers to the extent that an instrument will yield the same results each time it is administered” (pp. 256) an example of this is, if you were to administer a survey the larger the source of the data you collect the more it will be reliable as the results become more generalised the more it will give the same results the next time you did it.Furthermore, trustworthiness is a foundational criteria to maintaining quality. Trustworthiness can be broken down into four quality standards these being, credibility using multiple methods and perspectives and member checking, transferablility by providing rich data and thick descriptions, dependability by having a detailed audit trail, and comformability can be achieved by giving readers clear track of data and interpretations.Research shows the benefits of Peer review doesn’t only improve the language that authors use and they way their ideas are presented, but also alerts them to statistical and scientific errors in their research, inappropriate methodology, or accuracies in referencing which they can then correct before the publication. (Taylor and Francis Author Services, 2010) An example of this is when one submits his/her work to an international journal for anonymous refereeing by unknown peers, they read they article critically and then suggest for it to be accepted, rejected, or most often revised and improved before it is published. Without this external ‘seal of approval’ many scientists “would consider any results as preliminary, potentially flawed”