CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 380Psychometric Methodologies and TestingReliability and Agreement in MeasurementJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating the Reliability of a Single-Item Measure

Wanous, John P., Reichers, Arnon E.·1996·Psychological Reports
DOI 10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Single-item measures of employees' attitudes and beliefs are generally discouraged because their (internal consistency) reliability cannot be estimated. This results in the concern that reliability may be unacceptably low, particularly when compared to scales used to measure the same construct. A method for estimating the reliability of a single-item measure is demonstrated on original data that included both a single-item and a multiple-item measure of three constructs, namely, Over-all Job Satisfaction, Perceived Amount of Participation, and Desired Amount of Participation in decision-making. The average minimum estimated reliability for these single-item measures is .57; however, a realistic yet conservative estimate of their likely minimum reliability is at least .70.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 7 references

1 of the 7 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cook J. D., 1981, The experience of work.
  2. Dawis R. V., 1984, A psychological theory of work adjustment.
  3. Nunnally J. C., 1978, Psychometric theory.
  4. Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–379 of 379

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E.
Affiliations
The Ohio Slate University
Venue
Psychological Reports
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1996-04
Volume
78
Issue
2
Pages
631-634
ISSN
  • 0033-2941 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-691X
DOI
10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631
OpenAlex
W1979597058
Cited by
380
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Psychological Reports (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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
single-item measures, reliability estimation, internal consistency, employee attitudes, job satisfaction, employee participation, decision-making participation, construct measurement

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