重新审视量表评估中 Alpha 的使用:量表长度和样本量的影响

IF 2.7 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1111/emip.12604
Leifeng Xiao, Kit-Tai Hau, Melissa Dan Wang
{"title":"重新审视量表评估中 Alpha 的使用:量表长度和样本量的影响","authors":"Leifeng Xiao,&nbsp;Kit-Tai Hau,&nbsp;Melissa Dan Wang","doi":"10.1111/emip.12604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Short scales are time-efficient for participants and cost-effective in research. However, researchers often mistakenly expect short scales to have the same reliability as long ones without considering the effect of scale length. We argue that applying a universal benchmark for alpha is problematic as the impact of low-quality items is greater on shorter scales. In this study, we proposed simple guidelines for item reduction using the “alpha-if-item-deleted” procedure in scale construction. An item can be removed if alpha increases or decreases by less than .02, especially for short scales. Conversely, an item should be retained if alpha decreases by more than .04 upon its removal. For reliability benchmarks, .80 is relatively safe in most conditions, but higher benchmarks are recommended for longer scales and smaller sample sizes. Supplementary analyses, including item content, face validity, and content coverage, are critical to ensure scale quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":47345,"journal":{"name":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","volume":"43 2","pages":"74-81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/emip.12604","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the Usage of Alpha in Scale Evaluation: Effects of Scale Length and Sample Size\",\"authors\":\"Leifeng Xiao,&nbsp;Kit-Tai Hau,&nbsp;Melissa Dan Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/emip.12604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Short scales are time-efficient for participants and cost-effective in research. However, researchers often mistakenly expect short scales to have the same reliability as long ones without considering the effect of scale length. We argue that applying a universal benchmark for alpha is problematic as the impact of low-quality items is greater on shorter scales. In this study, we proposed simple guidelines for item reduction using the “alpha-if-item-deleted” procedure in scale construction. An item can be removed if alpha increases or decreases by less than .02, especially for short scales. Conversely, an item should be retained if alpha decreases by more than .04 upon its removal. For reliability benchmarks, .80 is relatively safe in most conditions, but higher benchmarks are recommended for longer scales and smaller sample sizes. Supplementary analyses, including item content, face validity, and content coverage, are critical to ensure scale quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"volume\":\"43 2\",\"pages\":\"74-81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/emip.12604\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12604\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12604","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于参与者来说,短量表节省时间,在研究中也具有成本效益。然而,研究人员往往错误地认为短量表与长量表具有相同的信度,而没有考虑量表长度的影响。我们认为,采用一个通用的阿尔法基准是有问题的,因为低质量项目对短量表的影响更大。在本研究中,我们提出了在量表构建过程中使用 "如果α-项目-删除 "程序来减少项目的简单指导原则。如果 alpha 的增减小于 0.02,就可以删除一个项目,尤其是短量表。反之,如果删除一个项目后 alpha 下降超过 0.04,则应保留该项目。在大多数情况下,0.80 是相对安全的信度基准,但对于较长的量表和较小的样本量,建议采用更高的信度基准。补充分析,包括项目内容、表面效度和内容覆盖率,对于确保量表质量至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Revisiting the Usage of Alpha in Scale Evaluation: Effects of Scale Length and Sample Size

Short scales are time-efficient for participants and cost-effective in research. However, researchers often mistakenly expect short scales to have the same reliability as long ones without considering the effect of scale length. We argue that applying a universal benchmark for alpha is problematic as the impact of low-quality items is greater on shorter scales. In this study, we proposed simple guidelines for item reduction using the “alpha-if-item-deleted” procedure in scale construction. An item can be removed if alpha increases or decreases by less than .02, especially for short scales. Conversely, an item should be retained if alpha decreases by more than .04 upon its removal. For reliability benchmarks, .80 is relatively safe in most conditions, but higher benchmarks are recommended for longer scales and smaller sample sizes. Supplementary analyses, including item content, face validity, and content coverage, are critical to ensure scale quality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
47
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Editorial Issue Cover On the Cover: Gendered Trajectories of Digital Literacy Development: Insights from a Longitudinal Cohort Study Digital Module 36: Applying Intersectionality Theory to Educational Measurement
×
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