Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability

By Richard E. Zinbarg, William Revelle, Iftah Yovel, Wen Li. 2005

1,455 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/93cce57fcf03f449686204f63088d9b1f5a9de15

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability (2017, methodology): “As reasonable as it sounds, this is only one of the two conceptualizations of internal consistency reliability based on SEM (Zinbarg et al., 2005).”
Estimating ω h for Structures Containing Two Group Factors: Perils and Prospects (2007, methodology): “…PF and higherorder CF methods of estimating ωh would perform better than coefficient α and the 1st PF method of estimating ωh, the results from this study replicated the main findings from Zinbarg et al. (2006) and are consistent with the theoretical developments by Zinbarg et al. (2005).”
Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma (2009, methodology): “We have previously discussed the many situations where it is very important to estimate ω h Zinbarg et al. (2005, 2006, 2007). ω t and ω h are easy to calculate from any factor analysis output in either commercial programs (e.g., SPSS or SAS) or packages (e.g., psych, Revelle (2008)) contributed to…”
Making Reliability Reliable (2016, methodology): “…level; however, they used the term to denote the ratio of the variances due to group factors to test score variances (i.e., % group factor in Table 8), which is different from the way Zinbarg et al. (2005) defined hierarchical omega at the test reliability level (i.e., % general factor).”
Applying Bifactor Statistical Indices in the Evaluation of Psychological Measures (2016, methodology): “For more details, we refer readers to the original sources as well as to reviews (e.g., McDonald, 1999; Reise, Moore, & Haviland, 2013; Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009; Zinbarg et al., 2005; Zinbarg, Yovel, Revelle, & McDonald, 2006).”
From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. (2014, background): “…many researchers to be a more sensible index of internal consistency – both in relation to alpha and also when compared to other alternatives (Graham, 2006; Raykov, 1997a,b; Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009; Zinbarg, Revelle, & Yovel, 2007; Zinbarg, Yovel, Revelle, & McDonald, 2006; Zinbarg et al., 2005).”
An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity (2020, background): “This more general formulation seems to open the option of using hierarchical omega (Cho, 2016; Zinbarg et al., 2005), which assumes that the scale measures one main construct (main factor) but may also contain a number of minor factors that are assumed to be uncorrelated with the main factor.”
Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (2015, methodology): “Drawing on work by McDonald (1970, 1999), Zinbarg et al. (2005) explicitly presented a multidimensional version of o: o ¼ 1 0cc01þ 10AA01 s2X : ð13Þ McDonald (1999) also identified the proportion of variance in the test scores that is accounted for by a general factor, called the hierarchical omega…”
The development and psychometric properties evaluation of the Indonesian version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) (2018, background): “Coefficient ωh represents the unique internal consistency reliability associated with total scale composite scores (Zinbarg et al., 2005), while ωs represents the unique internal consistency reliability associated with the subscale scores (Reise et al.”