Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 2009 - Sayı: 36

The comparison of four different coefficient alphas from a psychometric point of view

Dört farklı alfa katsayısının psikometrik açıdan karşılaştırılması

Pages
327–339
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The coefficient $alpha_M$ is found to be non-optimum in all the stages.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the properties of four different coefficient alphas in reliability were compared.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Those were a) unstandardized alpha ($alpha_{VK}$) based on variance-covariance matrix, b) standardized alpha ($alpha_{VK}$) based on correlation matrix, c) maximum alpha $alpha_{Max}$) based on first eigenvalues by Armor (1974) and d) $alpha_M$ defined by McDonald (1985) and based on confirmatory factor analysis The comparisons made to determine the best coefficient conducted on Monte-Carlo simulations and received priority consideration were carried out in three stages: a) investigation of robust estimator properties according to root mean square error (RMSE) for four coefficient alphas, b) comparison of coefficient alphas’ values in unidimensional data sets and multidimensional data sets, and c) comparison of coefficient alphas’ behaviors in parallel, tau-equivalent, and congeneric data sets.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The coefficient $alpha_M$ is found to be non-optimum in all the stages.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the properties of four different coefficient alphas in reliability were compared. Those were a) unstandardized alpha ($alpha_{VK}$) based on variance-covariance matrix, b) standardized alpha ($alpha_{VK}$) based on correlation matrix, c) maximum alpha $alpha_{Max}$) based on first eigenvalues by Armor (1974) and d) $alpha_M$ defined by McDonald (1985) and based on confirmatory factor analysis The comparisons made to determine the best coefficient conducted on Monte-Carlo simulations and received priority consideration were carried out in three stages: a) investigation of robust estimator properties according to root mean square error (RMSE) for four coefficient alphas, b) comparison of coefficient alphas’ values in unidimensional data sets and multidimensional data sets, and c) comparison of coefficient alphas’ behaviors in parallel, tau-equivalent, and congeneric data sets. As a result, the coefficient $alpha_{Max}$ is found to be the optimum coefficient among those three stages. The coefficient $alpha_M$ is found to be non-optimum in all the stages.

Özet

Bu araştırmada ölçme araçlarının içtutarlılığını belirlerken kullanılan dört farklı alfa katsayısının psikometrik özellikleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu katsayılar sırasıyla; a) ölçmelerin varyans-kovaryans terimlerinden elde edilen standartlaştırılmamış alfa ($alpha_{VK}$) katsayısı, b) ölçmeler arasındaki korelasyon terimlerinden elde edilen standartlaştırılmış alfa ($alpha_{STD}$) katsayısı, c) temel bileşenler analizinden elde edilen enbüyük özdeğer üzerine kurulu olan ve Armor (1974) tarafından önerilen $alpha_{Max}$ katsayısı ve d) doğrulayıcı faktör analizinden elde edilen faktör yükleri üzerine kurulu olan ve McDonald (1985) tarafından tanımlanan $alpha_M$ katsayısının özellikleri Monte-Carlo simulasyonu ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Karşılaştırmalar 3 aşamada gerçekleşmiştir. Bunlar sırasıyla; a) bu katsayıların örneklem karşılıklarının hata kareler ortalaması karekökü (RMSE) değerlerine göre sağlam kestirici özellikleri, b) tekboyutlu ve çokboyutlu veri kümelerindeki değerleri ve c) paralel, eşdeğer ve konjenerik veri kümelerindeki davranışları karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda; $alpha_{Max}$ katsayısı her üç aşamada da diğer katsayılara göre üstün özelliklere sahiptir. Yine her üç aşamada en olumsuz özellik ise $alpha_M$ katsayısında gözlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YURDUGÜL, H. (2022). The comparison of four different coefficient alphas from a psychometric point of view. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2009 - Sayı: 36, 327–339. https://ajindex.com/articles/532358

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Armor, D. J. (1974). Theta reliability and factor scaling. In Costner, H. L. (ed.), Sociological Methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 17−50. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979).
  2. Reliability and validity assessment, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
  3. Crano, W D., & Brewer, M. B. (1973). Principles of research in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
  4. Cronbach, L. J. & Shavelson R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 391-418.
  5. Cronbach, L. J., Schonemann, P., & McKie, D. (1965). Alpha coefficients for stratified-parallel tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25,29 1-3 12. Feldt, L. S. & Qualls, A. L. (1996). Bias in coefficient alpha arising from heterogeneity of test content. Applied Measurement in Education. 9(3), 277-286.
  6. Gorusch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of text unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827–839.
  7. Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10, 255-282.
  8. Iacobucci, D., & Duhachek, A. (2003). Advancing alpha: Measuring reliability with confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 478-487.
  9. Jackson, P. H., & Agunwamba, C. C. (1977). Lower bounds for the reliability of total scores on a test composed of nonhomogeneous items: I. Algebraic lower bounds. Psychometrika, 42, 567-578.
  10. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109-133.
  11. Komaroff, E. (1997). Effect of simultaneous violations of essential tau-equivalence and uncorrelated error on coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 337-348.
  12. Liu, Y., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). The Impact of Outliers on Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha Estimate of Reliability: Visual Analogue Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 620-634.
  13. Lucke, J. F. (2005). The $alpha$ and $omega$ of congeneric test theory: An extension of reliability and internal consistency to heterogeneous tests. Applied Psychological Measurements. 29(1), 65-81.
  14. McDonald, R. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hil