Accuracy and Sensitivity of Coefficient Alpha and Its Alternatives with Unidimensional and Contaminated Scales

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2023.2172016
Leifeng Xiao, K. Hau
{"title":"Accuracy and Sensitivity of Coefficient Alpha and Its Alternatives with Unidimensional and Contaminated Scales","authors":"Leifeng Xiao, K. Hau","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2023.2172016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We compared coefficient alpha with five alternatives (omega total, omega RT, omega h, GLB, and coefficient H) in two simulation studies. Results showed for unidimensional scales, (a) all indices except omega h performed similarly well for most conditions; (b) alpha is still good; (c) GLB and coefficient H overestimated reliability with small samples and short scales, and (d) sensitivity to scale quality reduced with longer scales. For contaminated scales, (a) all indices except omega h were reasonably unbiased with non-severe contamination; (b) alpha, omega total, and GLB were more sensitive in picking up contamination with shorter scales, whereas omega RT and omega h were not; and (c) coefficient H could not pick up contaminated items among high-quality items. For applied researchers, (a) supplementary information of scale characteristics helps choose the appropriate index; (b) comparing different scales with one golden standard is inappropriate; (c) omega h should not be used alone.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"36 1","pages":"31 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2023.2172016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT We compared coefficient alpha with five alternatives (omega total, omega RT, omega h, GLB, and coefficient H) in two simulation studies. Results showed for unidimensional scales, (a) all indices except omega h performed similarly well for most conditions; (b) alpha is still good; (c) GLB and coefficient H overestimated reliability with small samples and short scales, and (d) sensitivity to scale quality reduced with longer scales. For contaminated scales, (a) all indices except omega h were reasonably unbiased with non-severe contamination; (b) alpha, omega total, and GLB were more sensitive in picking up contamination with shorter scales, whereas omega RT and omega h were not; and (c) coefficient H could not pick up contaminated items among high-quality items. For applied researchers, (a) supplementary information of scale characteristics helps choose the appropriate index; (b) comparing different scales with one golden standard is inappropriate; (c) omega h should not be used alone.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一维和污染尺度下系数Alpha及其替代方案的精度和灵敏度
摘要:在两项模拟研究中,我们将系数α与五种备选方案(ω-总量、ω-RT、ω-h、GLB和系数h)进行了比较。结果表明,对于一维尺度,(a)除ωh外的所有指数在大多数条件下表现相似;(b) 阿尔法仍然很好;(c) GLB和系数H高估了小样本和短尺度的可靠性,以及(d)对尺度质量的敏感性随着尺度的延长而降低。对于污染量表,(a)除omega h外的所有指数在非严重污染情况下都是合理无偏的;(b) α、ω-总量和GLB在较短尺度的污染中更敏感,而ω-RT和ω-h则不敏感;以及(c)系数H不能在高质量项目中拾取被污染的项目。对于应用研究者来说,(a)量表特征的补充信息有助于选择合适的指标;(b) 用一个黄金标准来比较不同的尺度是不合适的;(c) omega h不应单独使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Because interaction between the domains of research and application is critical to the evaluation and improvement of new educational measurement practices, Applied Measurement in Education" prime objective is to improve communication between academicians and practitioners. To help bridge the gap between theory and practice, articles in this journal describe original research studies, innovative strategies for solving educational measurement problems, and integrative reviews of current approaches to contemporary measurement issues. Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.
期刊最新文献
New Tests of Rater Drift in Trend Scoring Automated Scoring of Short-Answer Questions: A Progress Report Item and Test Characteristic Curves of Rank-2PL Models for Multidimensional Forced-Choice Questionnaires Impact of violating unidimensionality on Rasch calibration for mixed-format tests Can Adaptive Testing Improve Test-Taking Experience? A Case Study on Educational Survey Assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1