Skip to main content
Log in

Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Following a general approach due to Guttman, coefficientα is rederived as a lower bound on the reliability of a test. A necessary and sufficient condition under which equality is attained in this inequality and hence thatα is equal to the reliability of the test is derived and shown to be closely related to the recent redefinition of the concept of parallel measurements due to Novick. This condition is then also shown to be closely related to the unit rank assumption originally adopted by Kuder and Richardson in the derivation of their formula 20. The assumption later adopted by Jackson and Ferguson and the one adopted by Gulliksen are shown to be related to the necessary and sufficient condition derived here. It is then pointed out that the statement that “coefficientα is equal to the mean of the split-half reliabilities” is true only under the restricted condition assumed by Cronbach in the body of his derivation of this result. Finally some limitations on the uses of any function ofα as a measure of internal consistency are noted.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, Nageswari, & Gleser, Goldine C. Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory.Brit. J. Statist. Psychol., 1963,16, 137–163.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cureton, E. E. The definition and estimation of test reliability.Educ. Psychol. Measmt., 1958,18, 715–738.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dressel, P. L. Some remarks on the Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient.Psychometrika, 1940,5, 305–310.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gulliksen, H.Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Guttman, L. Reliability formulas that do not assume experimental independence.Psychometrika, 1953,18, 225–239.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hoyt, C. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance.Psychometrika, 1941,6, 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jackson, R. W. B., & Ferguson, G. A. Studies on the reliability of tests. Bulletin 12, Department of Educational Research, University of Toronto, 1941.

  9. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. The theory of the estimation of test reliability.Psychometrika, 1937,2, 151–160.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lord, F. M. Statistical inferences about true scores.Psychometrika, 1959,24, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lyerly, S.B. The Kuder-Richardson formula (21) as a split-half coefficient and some remarks on its basic assumption.Psychometrika, 1958,23, 267–270.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Novick, M. R. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory.J. Math. Psychol., 1966,3, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rulon, P. J. A simplified procedure for determining the reliability of a test by splithalves.Harvard Educ. Rev., 1939,9, 99–103.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Research reported herein was supported in part by the Logistics and Mathematical Statistics Branch of the Office of Naval Research under contract Nonr-4866(00), NR 042-249, Melvin R. Novick, principal investigator. Reproduction, translation, publication, use and disposal in whole or in part by or for the United States Government is permitted. The authors are indebted to Frederic M. Lord, Michael Browne and an unknown referee for constructive criticism of earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Novick, M.R., Lewis, C. Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika 32, 1–13 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289400

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289400

Keywords

Navigation