The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability Generalization: Exploring Variance in Measurement Error Affecting Score Reliability Across Studies
Abstract
Because tests are not reliable, it is important to explore score reliability in virtually all studies. The present article proposes and illustrates a new method-reliability generalization-that can be used in a meta-analysis application similar to validity generalization. Reliability generalization characterizes (a) the typical reliability of scores for a given test across studies, (b) the amount of variability in reliability coefficients for given measures, and (c) the sources of variability in reliability coefficients across studies. The use of reliability generalization is illustrated here by analyzing 87 reliability coefficients reported for the two scales of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI).
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 measurement of psychological androgyny
Bem, S. L. (1974) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0036215 · Cited by 8,522
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Stepwise Regression and Stepwise Discriminant Analysis Need Not Apply here: A Guidelines Editorial
Thompson, B. (1995) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164495055004001 · Cited by 434
Cited by
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications.
Thompson, B. (2004) · doi:10.1037/10694-000 · Cited by 3,469
Reliability Generalization of Scores on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
Barnes, L. L. B., Harp, D., & Jung, W. S. (2002) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164402062004005 · Cited by 947
Barnette, J. J. (2000) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/00131640021970592 · Cited by 529
Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa
Sun, S. (2011) · Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology · doi:10.1007/s10742-011-0077-3 · Cited by 282
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014331 · Cited by 231
“To include ICC and r into one single analysis, we followed Thompson and Vacha-Haase [84] and used the square root of the ICC as a kind of correlation coefficient.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Vacha-Haase, T.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-02
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-20
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W2160538295
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 30.47
- 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: Reliability Generalization: Exploring Variance in Measurement Error Affecting Score Reliability Across Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0013164498058001002
- The paper
- Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability Generalization: Exploring Variance in Measurement Error Affecting Score Reliability Across Studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058001002
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.
