The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria

By C. Lance, M. Butts, Lawrence C. Michels. 2006

2,158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Public Administration, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e36595d32c49ba9c0de1757ef389178f8f5c98ff

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 Public Administration

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Multitasking Preference Inventory: Toward an Improved Measure of Individual Differences in Polychronicity (2010, background): “80 for alpha (see Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006 , for an examination of the typically accepted .”
The Latent Structure of Spatial Skills and Mathematics: A Replication of the Two-Factor Model (2017, background): “Most of the reliabilities approached or reached α ¼ .70, which is the generally accepted cutoff, though not a hard and fast rule (Lance et al., 2006; Nunnally, 1978).”
Measuring Tourists’ Emotional Experiences (2015, background): “Although what constitutes adequate reliability is dependent on the measurement situation (Lance, Butts, and Michels 2006), Nunnally (1978) recommends a minimum value of 0.70 for early stages of research (e.g., scale development) and 0.80 for basic or applied research as adequate.”
Justifying Aggregation With Consensus-Based Constructs (2015, methodology): “70 rule of thumb for rwg(J) (Lance et al., 2006), Burke and Dunlap (2002) derived a critical value of 0.”
Why start a higher degree by research? An exploratory factor analysis of motivations to undertake doctoral studies (2015, methodology): “In recent research, PA is often recommended as the best method to assess the number of factors (Lance, 2006; O’Connor, 2000).”
Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. (2012, methodology): “Furthermore, the third example ignores the group-level effects due to a mean rWG value below the “traditional cutoff” (an invalid assumption; Lance et al., 2006), and despite a statistically significant ANOVA F-statistic and ICC(1) and ICC(2) values that were in line with the others' research.”