Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,021

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ordinal Versions of Coefficients Alpha and Theta for Likert Rating Scales

Open access
Zumbo, Bruno D., Gadermann, Anne M., Zeisser, Cornelia·2007·Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods

Abstract

Two new reliability indices, ordinal coefficient alpha and ordinal coefficient theta, are introduced. A simulation study was conducted in order to compare the new ordinal reliability estimates to each other and to coefficient alpha with Likert data. Results indicate that ordinal coefficients alpha and theta are consistently suitable estimates of the theoretical reliability, regardless of the magnitude of the theoretical reliability, the number of scale points, and the skewness of the scale point distributions. In contrast, coefficient alpha is in general a negatively biased estimate of reliability. The use of ordinal coefficients alpha and theta as alternatives to coefficient alpha when estimating the reliability based on Likert response items are recommended. The choice between the two ordinal coefficients depends on whether one is assuming a factor analysis model (ordinal coefficient alpha) or a principal components analysis model (ordinal coefficient theta).

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22237/jmasm/1177992180

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 1,021

Metadata

Authors
Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C.
Venue
Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods
Published
2007-05-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
21-29
ISSN
1538-9472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2612259620
Cited by
1,021
References
2
FWCI
11.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

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.