Cited by 5,300Psychometric Methodologies and TestingReliability and Agreement in MeasurementHealth Education and Validation

Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha: Table 1

Open access
Bland, J Martin, Altman, Douglas G·1997·BMJ

Abstract

Many quantities of interest in medicine, such as anxiety or degree of handicap, are impossible to measure explicitly. Instead, we ask a series of questions and combine the answers into a single numerical value. Often this is done by simply adding a score from each answer. For example, the mini-HAQ is a measure of impairment developed for patients with cervical myelopathy.1 This has 10 items (table 1)) recording the degree of difficulty experienced in carrying out daily activities. Each item is scored from 1 (no difficulty) to 4 (can't do). The scores on the 10 items are summed to give the mini-HAQ score. View this table: Table 1 Mini-HAQ scale in 249 severely impaired subjects When items are used to form a scale they need to have internal consistency. The …

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The Cronbach's alpha values for each measured variable were above 0.7, indicating the survey questions' internal reliability.

    “The Cronbach's alpha values [69] for each measured variable were above 0.7, indicating the survey questions' internal reliability.”

    From Integrating AI in engineering education: A comprehensive review and student-informed module design for U.K. students (2025) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Statistics notes section (p. 1) identifies Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency, supporting the reliability interpretation. It does not report alpha values for the citing study’s measured variables or establish that each exceeded 0.7. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The alpha value of 0.9 found in the present study may be acceptable to some sources, while others may deem it problematic.

    “The alpha value found in the present study (α = 0.9) may thus be acceptable to some sources, while others may deem it problematic [42,59]”

    From The Psychological Flexibility in Epilepsy Questionnaire (PFEQ): Psychometric properties of the Persian version (2022) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Cronbach’s alpha discussion (p. 1) says that α = 0.90 is desirable for clinical applications, supporting the claim that some sources may accept it. It does not say that 0.90 is problematic or identify a reason another source would deem it so. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Higher alpha values may suggest redundancies on item level, meaning that the items may test the same construct.

    “the higher alpha values may suggest redundancies on item level, which means that the items may test the same construct.”
  • The internal consistency of the instrument was satisfactory, with all alpha coefficients above 0.7.

    “The internal consistency of this instrument was measured with the alpha coefficient for each division of use of AI in the writing process.All alpha coefficients were above 0.7 which is considered satisfactory (Bland & Altman, 1997).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 1 Casey ATH, Crockard HA, Bland JM, Stevens J, Moskovich R, Ransford AO. Development of a functional scoring system for rheumatoid arthritis patients with cervical myelopathy Ann Rheum Dis (in press).
  2. 3 McKinley RK, Manku-Scott T, Hastings AM, French DP, Baker R. hours primary medical care in the United Kingdom: development of a patient questionnaire. BMJ 1997;314:193-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
St George's Hospital (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1997-02-22
Volume
314
Issue
7080
Pages
572
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2140739497
Cited by
5,300
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 200 · 2025: 310 · 2024: 373 · 2023: 399 · 2022: 437 · 2021: 376 · 2020: 388 · 2019: 314 · 2018: 306 · 2017: 247 · 2016: 243 · 2015: 214 · 2014: 222 · 2013: 216 · 2012: 177
FWCI
33.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Cronbach's alpha, internal consistency, scale reliability, cervical myelopathy, disability assessment, questionnaire scoring, inter-item correlation
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Statistics as Topic

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