, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 167–188 | Cite as

Time-limit tests: Estimating their reliability and degree of speeding

  • Lee J. Cronbach
  • W. G. Warrington


Non-spurious methods are needed for estimating the coefficient of equivalence for speeded tests from single-trial data. Spuriousness in a split-half estimate depends on three conditions; the split-half method may be used if any of these is demonstrated to be absent. A lower-bounds formula,rc, is developed. An empirical trial of this coefficient and other bounds proposed by Gulliksen demonstrates that, for moderately speeded tests, the coefficient of equivalence can be determined approximately from single-trial data. It is proposed that the degree to which tests are speeded be investigated explicitly, and an indexτ is advanced to define this concept.


Public Policy Statistical Theory Speed Test Empirical Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adkins, D. C. Construction and analysis of achievement tests. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1947.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baxter, B. An experimental analysis of the contribution of speed and level in an intelligence test.J. educ. Psychol., 1941,32, 285–296.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buros, O. K. (Ed.) The third mental measurements yearbook. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conrad, H. Information which should be provided by test publishers and testing agencies on the validity and use of their tests. Proceedings, 1949 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, pp. 63–68. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1950.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient “alpha” and the internal structure of tests. To be published.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cronbach, L. J. Test “reliability”: its meaning and determination.Psychometrika, 1947,12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davidson, W. M., and Carroll, J. B. Speed and level components in time-limit scores, a factor analysis.Educ. psychol. Meas., 1945,5, 411–427.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gulliksen, H. The reliability of speeded tests.Psychometrika, 1950,15, 259–269.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guttman, L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability.Psychometrika, 1945,10, 255–282.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iowa Silent Reading Test, Manual. Yonkers: World Book Co., 1943.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paterson, D. G., and Tinker, M. A. Time-limitvs. work-limit methods.Amer. J. Psychol., 1930,42, 101–104.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tate, M. W. Individual differences in speed of response in mental test materials of varying degrees of difficulty.Educ. psychol. Meas., 1948,8, 353–374.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thurstone, T. G., and Thurstone, L. L. Mechanical aptitude III: Description of group tests. Psychometric Laboratory Reports, No. 55, 1949.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thorndike, R. L. Personnel selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychometric Society 1951

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee J. Cronbach
    • 1
  • W. G. Warrington
    • 1
  1. 1.University of IllinoisUSA

Personalised recommendations