The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability from α to ω: A tutorial.
Open accessAbstract
Reliability is a fundamental problem for measurement in all of science. Although defined in multiple ways, and estimated in even more ways, the basic concepts seem straightforward and need to be understood by practitioners as well as methodologists. Reliability theory is not just for the psychometrician estimating latent variables, it is for everyone who wants to make inferences from measures of individuals or of groups. For the case of a single test administration, we consider multiple measures of reliability, ranging from the worst (β) to average (α, λ3) to best (λ4) split half reliabilities, and consider why model-based estimates (ωh, ωt) should be reported. We also address the utility of test-retest and alternate form reliabilities. The advantages of immediate versus delayed retests to decompose observed score variance into specific, state, and trait scores are discussed. But reliability is not just for test scores, it is also important when evaluating the use of ratings. Estimates that may be applied to continuous data include a set of intraclass correlations while discrete categorical data needs to take advantage of the family of κ statistics. Examples of these various reliability estimates are given using state and trait measures of anxiety given with different delays and under different conditions. An online supplemental materials is provided with more detail and elaboration. The online supplemental materials is also used to demonstrate applications of open source software to examples of real data, and comparisons are made between the many types of reliability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
lavaan : An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling
Rosseel, Y. (2012) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · Cited by 27,955
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
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
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202 · cited 3×
“That superior performance is partly due to good luck is hard for high performers to accept and that poor performance is partly due to bad luck leads to false beliefs about the lack of effect for rewards and the strong effect of punishment (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973).”
The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models
Reise, S. P. (2012) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 · Cited by 2,112 · cited 1×
“One method uses a bifactor solution (Holzinger & Swineford, 1937; Reise, 2012; Rodriguez, Reise, & Haviland, 2016) using structural equation modeling software (e.”
MethodEvaluating Bifactor Models: Calculating and Interpreting Statistical Indices
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000045 · Cited by 1,599
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7 · Cited by 1,439 · cited 3×
“Following Zinbarg et al. (2005) we designate the Schmid-Leiman solution as ωh recognizing the hierarchical nature of the solution.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
Cited by
Flora, D. B. (2020) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245920951747 · Cited by 561
Development and Initial Validation of the Duke Misophonia Questionnaire
Rosenthal, M. Z., Anand, D., Cassiello-Robbins, C., Williams, Z. J., Guetta, R. E., Trumbull, J., & Kelley, L. D. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.709928 · Cited by 117
Algorithm exploitation: Humans are keen to exploit benevolent AI
Karpus, J., Krüger, A., Verba, J. T., Bahrami, B., & Deroy, O. (2021) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102679 · Cited by 76
Eagly, A. H., & Revelle, W. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916211046006 · Cited by 60
Self-citationOu, Y., Belzer, C., Smidt, H., & de Weerth, C. (2022) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2022.2038853 · Cited by 54
“To check the internal consistency of the questionnaires, we calculated ωtotal estimates by using the R package psych.(92,93) Given ωtotal estimates were incalculable for the CBCL, we computed Cronbach’s α values for this questionnaire instead.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M.
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1395-1411
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2966091252
- Cited by
- 506
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 32.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Reliability from α to ω: A tutorial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/pas0000754
- The paper
- Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M. (2019). Reliability from α to ω: A tutorial. Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000754
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.