CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 422Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research TopicsPsychological Testing and Assessment

Estimating Generalizability to a Latent Variable Common to All of a Scale's Indicators: A Comparison of Estimators for ω h

Zinbarg, Richard E., Yovel, Iftah, Revelle, William, McDonald, Roderick P.·2006·Applied Psychological Measurement
DOI 10.1177/0146621605278814
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The extent to which a scale score generalizes to a latent variable common to all of the scale's indicators is indexed by the scale's general factor saturation. Seven techniques for estimating this parameter—omega hierarchical (ω h )—are compared in a series of simulated data sets. Primary comparisons were based on 160 artificial data sets simulating perfectly simple and symmetric structures that contained four group factors, and an additional 200 artificial data sets confirmed large standard deviations for two methods in these simulations when a general factor was absent. Major findings were replicated in a series of 40 additional artificial data sets based on the structure of a real scale widely believed to contain three group factors of unequal size and less than perfectly simple structure. The results suggest that alpha and methods based on either the first unrotated principal factor or component should be rejected as estimates of ω h .

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146621605278814

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 omega estimate for the full Eyes Test is most likely inflated because of the test's length, given that many items are unrelated to one another and in many instances negatively related.

    “However, given that many of the items are unrelated to one another, and in many instances, negatively related, this estimate is most likely inflated because of the test's length (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Zinbarg et al., 2006).”

    From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Zinbarg et al., 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
ORCID
Venue
Applied Psychological Measurement
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-03
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
121-144
ISSN
  • 0146-6216 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3497
DOI
10.1177/0146621605278814
OpenAlex
W2154125672
Cited by
422
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 13
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Applied Psychological Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
omega hierarchical, hierarchical factor structure, Cronbach's alpha, simple structure

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