Congeneric and (Essentially) Tau-Equivalent Estimates of Score Reliability

By J. Graham. 2006

712 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4479919394f24fe93c31ef7369adb8415e2673e8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Cronbach's Alpha: Review of Limitations and Associated Recommendations (2010, methodology): “Reliability, under CTT, is therefore defined as “the proportion of observed score (X) variance accounted for by the true score (T) variance” (Graham, 2006, p. 931), and could be expressed in the population as the ratio of T and X: xx = Var(T) / Var(X) (2) where xx denotes population reliability,…”
Scoring and Modeling Psychological Measures in the Presence of Multidimensionality (2013, background): “It is analogous to coefficient alpha in that its value is affected by all sources of common variance; however, the interpretation of the model-based omega coefficient as a reliability estimate does not depend on the assumption of tau equivalence (see Graham, 2006).”
Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But… (2020, methodology): “But the meaningfulness of Cronbach’s α as an estimate of reliability assumes unidimensionality (Graham, 2006).”
The “sociotype” construct: Gauging the structure and dynamics of human sociality (2017, neutral): “In order to reach parsimony, we chose the more restrictive model that fit good enough with the data, applying the ULS method [100].”
Comparison of Reliability Measures Under Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory (2012, background): “Meanwhile, the relationship between traditional reliability measures under classical test theory such as a, and those originated from factor analysis, such as o and r, are well studied (e.g., Graham, 2006; Raykov, 1997).”
Item Parceling in Structural Equation Modeling: A Primer (2008, background): “In addition, Graham, Tatterson, and Widaman (2000) point out that, because most existing scales contain a large number of items, analyzing even just a few latent constructs in SEM can easily bring to researchers “a logistical nightmare””
The measurement of guanxi: Introducing the GRX scale (2011, methodology): “75), which indicate an acceptable level of reliability for each of the constructs to further ensure the reliability of the measurement model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Graham, 2006).”
Why start a higher degree by research? An exploratory factor analysis of motivations to undertake doctoral studies (2015, background): “If the test length (number of questions) is small, the reliability will be underestimated (Graham, 2006; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).”
A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability (2017, background): “Our proposal is aligned with those of other authors that suggest always performing Phase 2 and deriving from it the reliability estimation in Phase 3 of the analysis (e.g., Crutzen & Peters, 2015; Graham, 2006; Green & Yang, 2015).”
Evaluating Measurement Invariance of TALIS 2013 Complex Scales: Comparison between Continuous and Categorical Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses (2014, methodology): “To evaluate what was modelled from the observed variables, the fit of the baseline model (i.e., the congeneric model as defined in Graham, 2006) and each model of invariance, we used the following acceptable criteria: non-significant chi-square test with p degrees of freedom ( ); Comparative Fit…”
Differentiation of Self: A Validation Study of the Bowen Theory Construct (2012, methodology): “Reliability coefficient was deemed to be the more precise indicator of reliability in this study (Brown, 2006; Fan, 2003; Graham, 2006; Raykov & Shrout, 2002).”
Construct Validation in Social and Personality Research (2017, methodology): “We referred readers to Graham (2006), Sijtsma, (2009), and Yang and Green (2011) for details on how to test these assumptions in classical test theory and structural equation modeling framework.”
Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (2015, background): “The SEM-based congeneric reliability, presented by Jöreskog (1971) and McDonald (1999, p.”
Best Alternatives to Cronbach's Alpha Reliability in Realistic Conditions: Congeneric and Asymmetrical Measurements (2016, background): “In this more realistic condition therefore (Green and Yang, 2009a; Yang and Green, 2011), α becomes a negatively biased reliability estimator (Graham, 2006; Sijtsma, 2009; Cho and Kim, 2015) and ω is always preferable to α (Dunn et al., 2014).”