Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Coefficient Alpha and Beyond: Issues and Alternatives for Educational Research

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha has been widely known and used in educational research. Many education research practitioners, however, may not be aware of the potential issues when the main assumptions for coefficient alpha are violated in research practice. This paper provides a brief discussion about two assumptions that may make the use and interpretation of coefficient alpha less appropriate in education research: violations of the tau-equivalence model assumption and the error independence assumption. Violation of either or both of these assumptions will have negative effects on the precision of coefficient alpha as reliability estimate. The paper further presents two alternative reliability estimates without the assumptions of tau-equivalence or error independence. Research practitioners may consider these and other alternatives, when measurement data may not satisfy the assumptions for coefficient alpha.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Armor, D. J. (1974). Theta reliability and factor scaling. In H. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 17–50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, I. H., & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1982). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Fort Worth: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., Nageswari, R., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberation of reliability theory. The British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gignac, G. E. (2009). Psychometrics and the measurement of emotional intelligence. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 9–40). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gignac, G. E., Bates, T. C., & Lang, K. (2007a). Implications relevant to CFA model misfit, reliability, and the five factor model as measured by the NEO–FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1051–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gignac, G. E., Palmer, B., & Stough, C. (2007b). A confirmatory factor analytic investigation of the TAS-20: Corroboration of a five-factor model and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Exploratory factor analysis. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 231–258). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. B., & Hershberger, S. L. (2000). Correlated errors in true score models and their effect on coefficient alpha. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. A., & Yang, Y. (2009). Commentary on coefficient alpha: a cautionary tale. Psychometrika, 74, 121–135. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9098-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. A. (1945). A basis for analyzing test–retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10, 255–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorebom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future: A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamata, A., Turhan, A., & Darandari, E. (2003). Estimating Reliability for Multidimensional Composite Scale Scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April, 2003.

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall, M. (2011). Moving beyond the nuts and bolts of score reliability in medical education: Some valuable lessons from measurement theory. Advances and Applications in Statistical Sciences, 6(7), 643–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsueda, R. L. (2012). Key advances in the history of structural equation modelling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical and Mathematical Psychology, 23, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unifed treatment. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, L. D., Swygert, K. A., & Thissen, D. (2001). Factor analysis for items scored in two categories. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 189–216). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, P. (2010). Reliability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnaly, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paro, H. B. M. S., Morales, N. M. O., Silva, C. H. M., Rezende, C. H. A., Pinto, R. M. C., Morales, R. R., et al. (2010). Health-related quality of life of medical students. Medical Education, 44, 227–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raju, N. S. (1970). New formula for estimating total test reliability from parts of unequal lengths. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 5(Pt. 1), 143–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T. (2001). Bias in coefficient alpha for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(1), 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Shrout, P. (2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation using a structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuterberg, S. E., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (1992). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability: Testing measurement model assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 795–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2009a). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2009b). Reliability beyond theory and into practice. Psychometrika, 74, 169–173. doi:10.1007/S11336-008-9103-Y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, L. (2001). The consequences of pairing questions: Context effects in personality measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 332–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2010). Development and validation of the E-learning acceptance measure (ElAM). The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 148–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinbarg, R., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β and McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6, 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Teo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Teo, T., Fan, X. Coefficient Alpha and Beyond: Issues and Alternatives for Educational Research. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 22, 209–213 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0075-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0075-z

Keywords

Navigation