A Reliability Induction and Reliability Generalization Study of the Cage Questionnaire

114 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) (2007, result): “…reported in published studies confirms prior speculations that because higher quality studies may be more likely to be published, journal editors tend to be less receptive of low-quality studies, such as those studies reporting low reliability coefficients (Caruso, 2000; Shields & Caruso, 2004).”
A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis of Coefficient Alpha for the Maslach Burnout Inventory (2011, unknown): “…meta-analytic studies reveals that researchers use a variety of methods to analyze reliability scores across studies including fixed-effects models (Shields & Caruso, 2004; Vacha-Haase, 1998), and random-effects or mixed-effects models (Beretvas, Meyers, & Leite, 2002; Beretvas & Pastor, 2003).”
The Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (2015, methodology): “In particular, it was expected that characteristics such as the mean and the standard deviation of the test scores, the mean age, the target population of the participants (clinical vs. nonclinical), and the test version (original vs. adapted), would affect the score reliability.”
Score Reliability: A Retrospective Look Back at 12 Years of Reliability Generalization Studies (2011, background): “Unfortunately, doctoral curricula in recent years have allocated less and less space for psychometric training (Capraro & Thompson, 2008), so practices may not have improved since the time of Willson’s (1980) report.”