Psychometrika

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 219–231 | Cite as

A k-sample significance test for independent alpha coefficients

  • A. Ralph Hakstian
  • Thomas E. Whalen
Article

Abstract

The earlier two-sample procedure of Feldt [1969] for comparing independent alpha reliability coefficients is extended to the case ofK ≥ 2 independent samples. Details of a normalization of the statistic under consideration are presented, leading to computational procedures for the overallK-group significance test and accompanying multiple comparisons. Results based on computer simulation methods are presented, demonstrating that the procedures control Type I error adequately. The results of a power comparison of the case ofK=2 with Feldt's [1969]F test are also presented. The differences in power were negligible. Some final observations, along with suggestions for further research, are noted.

Key words

reliability internal consistency comparison of reliability coefficients 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Note

  1. 1.
    Nitko, A. J.The power functions of some proposed tests for significance of coefficient alpha in the one-sample and two-sample cases. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1968.Google Scholar

References

  1. 2.
    Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika, 1951,16, 297–334.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Feldt, L. S. The approximate sampling distribution of Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient twenty.Psychometrika, 1965,30, 357–370.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Feldt, L. S. A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach's alpha or Kuder-Richardson coefficient twenty is the same for two tests.Psychometrika, 1969,34, 363–373.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Hays, W. L.Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Koehler, R. A. A comparison of the validities of conventional choice testing and various confidence marking procedures.Journal of Educational Measurement, 1971,8, 297–303.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Kristof, W. The statistical theory of stepped-up reliability coefficients when a test has been divided into several equivalent parts.Psychometrika, 1963,28, 221–238.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Li, C. C.Introduction to experimental statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Lord, F. M. Sampling fluctuations resulting from the sampling of test items.Psychometrika, 1955,20, 1–22.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Lord, F. M., and Novick, M.Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Marascuilo, L. A. Large-sample multiple comparisons.Psychological Bulletin, 1966,65, 280–290.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Paulson, E. An approximate normalization of the analysis of variance distribution.Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1942,13, 233–235.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Rao, C. R.Linear statistical inference and its applications. New York: Wiley, 1965.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Scheffé, H.The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Wilson, E. B., and Hilferty, M. M. The distribution of chi-square.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1931,17, 684–688.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychometric Society 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ralph Hakstian
    • 1
  • Thomas E. Whalen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations