Cronbach’s α , Revelle’s β , and Mcdonald’s ω H : their Relations with Each Other and Two Alternative Conceptualizations of Reliability
Abstract
We make theoretical comparisons among five coefficients—Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, McDonald’s ω h , and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Though many end users and psychometricians alike may not distinguish among these five coefficients, we demonstrate formally their nonequivalence. Specifically, whereas there are conditions under which α, β, and ω h are equivalent to each other and to one of the two conceptualizations of reliability considered here, we show that equality with this conceptualization of reliability and between α and ω h holds only under a highly restrictive set of conditions and that the conditions under which β equals ω h are only somewhat more general. The nonequivalence of α, β, and ω h suggests that important information about the psychometric properties of a scale may be missing when scale developers and users only report α as is almost always the case.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Omega hierarchical (h) is a more appropriate measure of second-order reliability than omega total (T) because it considers both residual variance and group-specific error as comprising the error term.
“we agree with those viewing h as being a more appropriate measure of second-order reliability (Kelley & Pornprasertmanit, 2016;Zinbarg et al., 2005) because it considers both 2 and group-specific error as comprising the error term.”
From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Zinbarg et al., 2005
Omega total represents the reliability of the combined first-order factors, whereas omega hierarchical is the reliability of the second-order factor.
“Omega total ( T ) represents the reliability of the combined first-order factors, whereas omega hierarchical ( h ) is the reliability of the second-order factor (Kelley & Pornprasertmanit, 2016;Zinbarg et al., 2005)”
From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Zinbarg et al., 2005
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 35 · Cited by 1,439
- Authors
- Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zinbarg, Richard E.
- Venue
- Psychometrika
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 123-133
- ISSN
- 0033-3123 (ISSN-L)
- 1860-0980
- OpenAlex
- W2123478340
- Cited by
- 1,439
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 92 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 162 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 100 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 39
- FWCI
- 16.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychometrika (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- Cronbach's alpha, reliability coefficients, scale development
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