12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Thinking twice about sum scores

      ,
      Behavior Research Methods
      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation.

          Coefficient alpha is the most popular measure of reliability (and certainly of internal consistency reliability) reported in psychological research. This is noteworthy given the numerous deficiencies of coefficient alpha documented in the psychometric literature. This mismatch between theory and practice appears to arise partly because users of psychological scales are unfamiliar with the psychometric literature on coefficient alpha and partly because alternatives to alpha are not widely known. We present a brief review of the psychometric literature on coefficient alpha, followed by a practical alternative in the form of coefficient omega. To facilitate the shift from alpha to omega, we also present a brief guide to the calculation of point and interval estimates of omega using a free, open source software environment. © 2013 The British Psychological Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Thanks Coefficient Alpha, We’ll Take It From Here.

            Empirical studies in psychology commonly report Cronbach's alpha as a measure of internal consistency reliability despite the fact that many methodological studies have shown that Cronbach's alpha is riddled with problems stemming from unrealistic assumptions. In many circumstances, violating these assumptions yields estimates of reliability that are too small, making measures look less reliable than they actually are. Although methodological critiques of Cronbach's alpha are being cited with increasing frequency in empirical studies, in this tutorial we discuss how the trend is not necessarily improving methodology used in the literature. That is, many studies continue to use Cronbach's alpha without regard for its assumptions or merely cite methodological articles advising against its use to rationalize unfavorable Cronbach's alpha estimates. This tutorial first provides evidence that recommendations against Cronbach's alpha have not appreciably changed how empirical studies report reliability. Then, we summarize the drawbacks of Cronbach's alpha conceptually without relying on mathematical or simulation-based arguments so that these arguments are accessible to a broad audience. We continue by discussing several alternative measures that make less rigid assumptions which provide justifiably higher estimates of reliability compared to Cronbach's alpha. We conclude with empirical examples to illustrate advantages of alternative measures of reliability including omega total, Revelle's omega total, the greatest lower bound, and Coefficient H. A detailed software appendix is also provided to help researchers implement alternative methods. (PsycINFO Database Record
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Behavior Research Methods
                Behav Res
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1554-3528
                April 22 2020
                Article
                10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0
                32323277
                3d01f2b2-1c52-48fe-9fbc-fb96961a42f9
                © 2020

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content3,950

                Cited by138

                Most referenced authors923