Thanks coefficient alpha, We'll take it from here

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

145 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)412-433
Number of pages22
JournalPsychological Methods
Volume23
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Software
Research Personnel
Psychology

Keywords

  • Cronbach's alpha
  • Internal consistency
  • Psychometrics
  • Reliability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Thanks coefficient alpha, We'll take it from here. / McNeish, Daniel.

In: Psychological Methods, Vol. 23, No. 3, 01.09.2018, p. 412-433.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3b47bd5f4613484e9f01160637b1cc2d,
title = "Thanks coefficient alpha, We'll take it from here",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Cronbach's alpha, Internal consistency, Psychometrics, Reliability",
author = "Daniel McNeish",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/met0000144",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "412--433",
journal = "Psychological Methods",
issn = "1082-989X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Thanks coefficient alpha, We'll take it from here

AU - McNeish, Daniel

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Cronbach's alpha

KW - Internal consistency

KW - Psychometrics

KW - Reliability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047268244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047268244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/met0000144

DO - 10.1037/met0000144

M3 - Article

C2 - 28557467

AN - SCOPUS:85047268244

VL - 23

SP - 412

EP - 433

JO - Psychological Methods

JF - Psychological Methods

SN - 1082-989X

IS - 3

ER -