Further discussion on reliability

The art of reliability estimation

Yanyun Yang, Samuel B. Green

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Sijtsma and van der Ark (2015) focused in their lead article on three frameworks for reliability estimation in nursing research: classical test theory (CTT), factor analysis (FA), and generalizability theory. We extend their presentation with particular attention to CTT and FA methods. We first consider the potential of yielding an overly negative or an overly positive assessment of reliability based on coefficient alpha. Next, we discuss other CTT methods for estimating reliability and how the choice of methods affects the interpretation of the reliability coefficient. Finally, we describe FA methods, which not only permit an understanding of a measure's underlying structure but also yield a variety of reliability coefficients with different interpretations. On a more general note, we discourage reporting reliability as a two-choice outcome - unsatisfactory or satisfactory; rather, we recommend that nursing researchers make a conceptual and empirical argument about when a measure might be more or less reliable, depending on its use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)146-151
Number of pages6
JournalNursing Research
Volume64
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 25 2015

Fingerprint

Art
Statistical Factor Analysis
Nursing Research
Nursing
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • classical test theory
  • coefficient alpha
  • factor analysis
  • reliability
  • structural equation modeling
  • transient error

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Further discussion on reliability : The art of reliability estimation. / Yang, Yanyun; Green, Samuel B.

In: Nursing Research, Vol. 64, No. 2, 25.03.2015, p. 146-151.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yang, Yanyun ; Green, Samuel B. / Further discussion on reliability : The art of reliability estimation. In: Nursing Research. 2015 ; Vol. 64, No. 2. pp. 146-151.
@article{05b8601db30148fe96a70f02545ef891,
title = "Further discussion on reliability: The art of reliability estimation",
abstract = "Sijtsma and van der Ark (2015) focused in their lead article on three frameworks for reliability estimation in nursing research: classical test theory (CTT), factor analysis (FA), and generalizability theory. We extend their presentation with particular attention to CTT and FA methods. We first consider the potential of yielding an overly negative or an overly positive assessment of reliability based on coefficient alpha. Next, we discuss other CTT methods for estimating reliability and how the choice of methods affects the interpretation of the reliability coefficient. Finally, we describe FA methods, which not only permit an understanding of a measure's underlying structure but also yield a variety of reliability coefficients with different interpretations. On a more general note, we discourage reporting reliability as a two-choice outcome - unsatisfactory or satisfactory; rather, we recommend that nursing researchers make a conceptual and empirical argument about when a measure might be more or less reliable, depending on its use.",
keywords = "classical test theory, coefficient alpha, factor analysis, reliability, structural equation modeling, transient error",
author = "Yanyun Yang and Green, {Samuel B.}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1097/NNR.0000000000000080",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "146--151",
journal = "Nursing Research",
issn = "0029-6562",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Further discussion on reliability

T2 - The art of reliability estimation

AU - Yang, Yanyun

AU - Green, Samuel B.

PY - 2015/3/25

Y1 - 2015/3/25

N2 - Sijtsma and van der Ark (2015) focused in their lead article on three frameworks for reliability estimation in nursing research: classical test theory (CTT), factor analysis (FA), and generalizability theory. We extend their presentation with particular attention to CTT and FA methods. We first consider the potential of yielding an overly negative or an overly positive assessment of reliability based on coefficient alpha. Next, we discuss other CTT methods for estimating reliability and how the choice of methods affects the interpretation of the reliability coefficient. Finally, we describe FA methods, which not only permit an understanding of a measure's underlying structure but also yield a variety of reliability coefficients with different interpretations. On a more general note, we discourage reporting reliability as a two-choice outcome - unsatisfactory or satisfactory; rather, we recommend that nursing researchers make a conceptual and empirical argument about when a measure might be more or less reliable, depending on its use.

AB - Sijtsma and van der Ark (2015) focused in their lead article on three frameworks for reliability estimation in nursing research: classical test theory (CTT), factor analysis (FA), and generalizability theory. We extend their presentation with particular attention to CTT and FA methods. We first consider the potential of yielding an overly negative or an overly positive assessment of reliability based on coefficient alpha. Next, we discuss other CTT methods for estimating reliability and how the choice of methods affects the interpretation of the reliability coefficient. Finally, we describe FA methods, which not only permit an understanding of a measure's underlying structure but also yield a variety of reliability coefficients with different interpretations. On a more general note, we discourage reporting reliability as a two-choice outcome - unsatisfactory or satisfactory; rather, we recommend that nursing researchers make a conceptual and empirical argument about when a measure might be more or less reliable, depending on its use.

KW - classical test theory

KW - coefficient alpha

KW - factor analysis

KW - reliability

KW - structural equation modeling

KW - transient error

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925635374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925635374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000080

DO - 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000080

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 146

EP - 151

JO - Nursing Research

JF - Nursing Research

SN - 0029-6562

IS - 2

ER -