Advertisement

An Empirical Assessment of Guttman’s Lambda 4 Reliability Coefficient

  • Tom BentonEmail author
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 89)

Abstract

Numerous alternative indices for test reliability have been proposed as being superior to Cronbach’s alpha. One such alternative is Guttman’s L4. This is calculated by dividing the items in a test into two halves such that the covariance between scores on the two halves is as high as possible. However, although simple to understand and intuitively appealing, the method can potentially be severely positively biased if the sample size is small or the number of items in the test is large.

To begin with this paper compares a number of available algorithms for calculating L4. We then empirically evaluate the bias of L4 for 51 separate upper secondary school examinations taken in the UK in June 2012. For each of these tests we have evaluated the likely bias of L4 for a range of different sample sizes. The results show that the positive bias of L4 is likely to be small if the estimated reliability is larger than 0.85, if there are less than 25 items and if a sample size of more than 3,000 is available. A sample size of 1,000 may be sufficient if the estimate of L4 is above 0.9.

Keywords

Assessment Reliability Split-half Lambda 4 Bias Sample size 

References

  1. Brennan R (2001) An essay on the history and future of reliability from the perspective of replications. J Educ Meas 38:295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callender J, Osburn H (1977) A method for maximizing and cross-validating split-half reliability coefficients. Educ Psychol Meas 37:819–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cronbach L (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feldt L (1975) Estimation of the reliability of a test divided into two parts of unequal length. Psychometrika 40:557–561CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Guttman L (1945) A basis for analysing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika 10:255–282CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Hunt T (2013) Lambda4: collection of internal consistency reliability coefficients. R package version 3.0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Lambda4
  7. Lumley T (2004) Analysis of complex survey samples. J Statist Softw 9:1–19Google Scholar
  8. Raju N (1977) A generalization of coefficient alpha. Psychometrika 42:549–565CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Revelle W (2013) Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University, Evanston. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
  10. Revelle W, Zinbarg R (2009) Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika 74:145–154CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Rulon P (1939) A simplified procedure for determining the reliability of a test by split-halves. Harv Educ Rev 9:99–103Google Scholar
  12. Sijtsma K (2009) On the use, the misuse and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74:107–120CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Ten Berge J, Socan G (2004) The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika 69:613–625CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Verhelst N (2000) Estimating the reliability of a test from a single test administration. CITO, Arnhem. http://www.cito.com/en/research_and_development/psychometrics/~/media/cito_com/research_and_development/publications/cito_report98_2.ashx

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cambridge AssessmentCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations