The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Basis for Analyzing Test-Retest Reliability
Abstract
Three sources of variation in experimental results for a test are distinguished: trials, persons, and items. Unreliability is defined only in terms of variation over trials. This definition leads to a more complete analysis than does the conventional one; Spearman's contention is verified that the conventional approach—which was formulated by Yule—introduces unnecessary hypotheses. It is emphasized that at least two trials are necessary to estimate the reliability coefficient. This paper is devoted largely to developing lower bounds to the reliability coefficient that can be computed from but a single trial; these avoid the experimental difficulties of making two independent trials. Six different lower bounds are established, appropriate for different situations. Some of the bounds are easier to compute than are conventional formulas, and all the bounds assume less than do conventional formulas. The terminology used is that of psychological and sociological testing, but the discussion actually provides a general analysis of the reliability of the sum of n variables.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
The Theory of the Estimation of Test Reliability
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288391 · Cited by 2,002
A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data
Guttman, L. (1944) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2086306 · Cited by 1,317
Self-citationCORRELATION CALCULATED FROM FAULTY DATA
SPEARMAN, C. (1910) · British Journal of Psychology, 1904-1920 · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00206.x · Cited by 1,144
(1921) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/xxx.119.375 · Cited by 867
Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance
Hoyt, C. (1941) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289270 · Cited by 513
Multiple Rectilinear Prediction and the Resolution into Components
Guttman, L. (1940) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02287866 · Cited by 75
Self-citationMultiple Rectilinear Prediction and the Resolution into Components: II
Guttman, L., & Cohen, J. (1943) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288701 · Cited by 67
Self-citation
Cited by
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication
Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249577 · Cited by 3,084
On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha
Sijtsma, K. (2009) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0 · Cited by 2,814
Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629 · Cited by 2,675
Metadata
- Authors
- Guttman, L.
- Venue
- Psychometrika
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1945-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 255-282
- ISSN
- 0033-3123 (ISSN-L)
- 1860-0980
- OpenAlex
- W1992984099
- Cited by
- 1,122
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 4.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Basis for Analyzing Test-Retest Reliability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02288892
- The paper
- Guttman, L. (1945). A Basis for Analyzing Test-Retest Reliability. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02288892
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
