Advertisement

On Cronbach’s Alpha as the Mean of All Split-Half Reliabilities

  • Matthijs J. WarrensEmail author
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 89)

Abstract

A famous description of Cronbach’s alpha is that it is the mean of all (Flanagan–Rulon) split-half reliabilities. The result is exact if the test is split into two halves that are equal in size. This requires that the number of items is even, since odd numbers cannot be split into two groups of equal size. In this chapter it is shown that alpha is approximately identical to the mean of all split-half reliabilities, if a test consists of an odd number of items and has at least eleven items.

Keywords

Split-half reliability Spearman–Brown prophecy formula Flanagan–Rulon split-half 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was done while the author was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Veni project 451-11-026.

References

  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1970) Handbook of mathematical functions (with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables). Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown W (1910) Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. Br J Psychol 3:296–322Google Scholar
  3. Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  6. Flanagan JC (1937) A proposed procedure for increasing the efficiency of objective tests. J Educ Psychol 28:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Furr RM, Bacharach VR (2008) Psychometrics. an introduction. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham JM (2006) Congeneric and (essential) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 66:930–944CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Grayson D (2004) Some myths and legends in quantitative psychology. Underst Stat 3:101–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green SB, Hershberger SL (2000) Correlated errors in true score models and their effect on coefficient alpha. Struct Equ Model 7:251–270 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green SB, Yang Y (2009) Commentary on coefficient alpha: a cautionary tale. Psychometrika 74:121–135CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Guttman L (1945) A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika 10:255–282CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Lord FM, Novick MR (1968) Statistical theories of mental test scores (with contributions by A. Birnbaum). Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  14. McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: a unified treatment. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  15. Osburn HG (2000) Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychol Methods 5:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raju NS (1977) A generalization of coefficient alpha. Psychometrika 42:549–565CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Revelle W, Zinbarg RE (2009) Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the GLB: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika 74:145–154CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Rulon PJ (1939) A simplified procedure for determining the reliability of a test by split-halves. Harvard Educ Rev 9:99–103Google Scholar
  19. Sheng Y, Sheng Z (2012) Is coefficient alpha robust to non-normal data? Front Psychol 3:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sijtsma K (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74:107–120CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Spearman C (1910) Correlation calculated from faulty data. Br J Psychol 3:271–295Google Scholar
  22. Thorndike RL (1971) Educational measurement. American Council on Education, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations