Psychometrics is Datametrics: the Test is not Reliable

By B. Thompson, T. Vacha-haase. 2000

378 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce1046a943bfdd0df4d80c83d79b1cd8c91da41b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Variability and Prediction of Measurement Error in Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory Scores a Reliability Generalization Study (2002, background): “The variability of the Figure 1 distributions underscores the point that reliability should be examined for the data in hand in almost all cases (Henson, 2001; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991; Reinhardt, 1996; Thompson, 1994; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000).”
The Impact of Missing Data on Sample Reliability Estimates: Implications for Reliability Reporting Practices (2004, background): “Reliability Reporting Practices Because reliability is not an indelible property of a test, Thompson and Vacha-Haase (2000) argued that “scholars conducting either substantive (i.e., nonmeasurement focused) or measurement research should be expected to report explicit and direct evidence of score…”
A note on the score reliability for the Satisfaction With Life Scale: an RG study (2007, background): “These sample specific properties of reliability are foundational to Thompson and Vacha-Haase’s (2000) discussion of reliability in terms of score reliability rather than test reliability.”
Score Reliability: A Retrospective Look Back at 12 Years of Reliability Generalization Studies (2011, background): “Reliability inures as a property to scores, and not to tests (Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000).”
Reliability Generalization of Working Alliance Inventory Scale Scores (2002, neutral): “These 25 studies were, from a percentage standpoint, comparable to, if not slightly higher than, those reported in other published RG studies (Thompson, 1994; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000; Vacha-Haase et al., 1999).”
Measurement Error of Scores on the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale across Studies (2001, methodology): “Therefore, researchers ought to both report and interpret their obtained reliabilities in practically all studies (cf. Henson et al., in press; Thompson, 1994; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000; Vacha-Haase, 1998; Wilkinson & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999).”
A Framework for Reporting and Interpreting Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (2002, background): “As advocated by an increasing number of researchers (e.g., Simmelink & Vacha-Haase, 1999; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000; Vacha-Haase, 1998), it is essential that researchers estimate and report coefficients of internal consistency for their own data.”
Variability in Pretest-Posttest Correlation Coefficients by Student Achievement Level. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (2011, background): “Pretest-posttest correlation coefficients are positively related to the total variability in test scores and hence to the heterogeneity of students in the sample (Thompson and Vacha-Haase 2000).”
Reliability of Scores from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: A Reliability Generalization Study (2001, methodology): “Therefore, depending on one’s interpretation of the issues raised by Sawilowsky (2000) and Thompson and Vacha-Haase (2000), either could be appropriately employed as criterion variables in parametric statistical analyses.”
Assessing the Reliability of the Beck Anxiety Inventory Scores (2005, background): “The issue of whether reliability is a property of the instrument or a property of the instrument’s scores has been discussed for a substantial part of the 20th century as well as more recently in Educational and Psychological Measurement (e.g., Sawilowsky, 2000; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000).”
Sample Compositions and Variabilities in Published Studies versus Those in Test Manuals: Validity of Score Reliability Inductions (2000, background): “Once this mind-set has been communicated, measurement training becomes less relevant for doctoral curriculum (Aiken et al., 1990; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000).”
Preservice Teachers' Educational Beliefs and Their Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective Teachers (2002, background): “As recommended by many researchers (e.g., Onwueg buzie, in press; Onwuegbuzie & Daniel, 2000; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000), reliability coefficients always should be reported for the data at hand.”
Reliability Methods: A Note on the Frequency of Use of Various Types (2000, background): “Thompson and Vacha-Haase (2000) explained these issues in detail.”
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis (2006, methodology): “It should be noted that reliability is a property of test scores and not measurement instruments themselves; that is, to say that tests are not reliable and data are reliable (Gronlund & Linn, 1990; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000).”
From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. (2014, background): “This signifies that reliability is not a property of a test per se, but rather a property of a scale applied in a given context to a particular population (Miller, 1995; Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000).”