Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T12:09:47.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: their Relations with Each Other and Two Alternative Conceptualizations of Reliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Richard E. Zinbarg ,
William Revelle ,
Iftah Yovel  and
Wen Li
Richard E. Zinbarg*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, The Family Institute at Northwestern University
William Revelle
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Iftah Yovel
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Wen Li
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard Zinbarg, 102 Swift Hall, 2029 Sheridan Rd., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2710, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We make theoretical comparisons among five coefficients—Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, McDonald’s ωh, and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Though many end users and psychometricians alike may not distinguish among these five coefficients, we demonstrate formally their nonequivalence. Specifically, whereas there are conditions under which α, β, and ωh are equivalent to each other and to one of the two conceptualizations of reliability considered here, we show that equality with this conceptualization of reliability and between α and ωh holds only under a highly restrictive set of conditions and that the conditions under which β equals ωh are only somewhat more general. The nonequivalence of α, β, and ωh suggests that important information about the psychometric properties of a scale may be missing when scale developers and users only report α as is almost always the case.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 123 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Preparation of this article was supported by the Patricia M Nielsen Research Chair of the Family Institute at Northwestern University

We thank Lewis R. Goldberg, Win Hill, Dan McAdams, Tony Z. Tang and especially Roderick P. McDonald for their comments on earlier drafts of portions of this article

References

Blalock, H. M. (1970). Estimating measurement error using multiple indicators and several points in time. American Sociological Review, 35, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural Equations With Latent Variables. New York: Wiley Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, S. B., & Hershberger, S. L. (2000). Correlated errors in true score models and their effect on coefficient alpha. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, D. R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test-retest correlation. American Sociological Review, 34, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G. (1974). Analyzing psychological data by structural analysis of covariance matrices. In Atkinson, R. C., Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology (pp. 1–56). San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Komaroff, E. (1997). Effect of simultaneous violations of essential tau—equvalence and uncorrelated error on coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1955). Sampling fluctuations resulting from the sampling of test items. Psychometrika, 20, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores (with contributions by A. Birnbaum). Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 23, 1–21.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1978). Generalizability in factorable domains: “Domain validity and generalizability.”. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor Analysis and Related Methods. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R., & Lewis, C. (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika, 32, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raykov, T. (1997). Scale reliability, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 329–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raykov, T. (1998a). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raykov, T. (1998b). A method for obtaining standard errors and confidence intervals of composite reliability for congeneric items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raykov, T. (2001a). Bias of coefficient alpha for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raykov, T. (2001b). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raykov, T. (2002). Analytic estimation of standard error and confidence interval for scale reliability. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raykov, T., & Shrout, P. E. (2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation using a structured equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelle, W. (1979). Hierarchical cluster analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, D. E., & Wiley, J. A. (1970). The estimation of measurement error in panel data. American Sociological Review, 35, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. (1940). The role of correlated factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 5, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wherry, R. J. (1959). Hierarchical factor solutions without rotation. Psychometrika, 24, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar