, 74:137

Alpha, Dimension-Free, and Model-Based Internal Consistency Reliability

Theory and Methods


As pointed out by Sijtsma (in press), coefficient alpha is inappropriate as a single summary of the internal consistency of a composite score. Better estimators of internal consistency are available. In addition to those mentioned by Sijtsma, an old dimension-free coefficient and structural equation model based coefficients are proposed to improve the routine reporting of psychometric internal consistency. The various ways to measure internal consistency are also shown to be appropriate to binary and polytomous items.


common unique true error scores 


  1. Bentler, P. M. (1964). Generalized classical test theory error variance. American Psychologist, 19, 548. Google Scholar
  2. Bentler, P. M. (1968). Alpha-maximized factor analysis (Alphamax): Its relation to alpha and canonical factor analysis. Psychometrika, 33, 335–345. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M. (1972). A lower-bound method for the dimension-free measurement of internal consistency. Social Science Research, 1, 343–357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (2003, July). Should coefficient alpha be replaced by model-based reliability coefficients? Invited paper presented at International Meetings of the Psychometric Society, Cagliari, IT. Google Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M. (2007). Covariance structure models for maximal reliability of unit-weighted composites. In S.-Y. Lee (Ed.), Handbook of latent variable and related models (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: North-Holland. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler, P. M. (in press). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software.
  7. Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1990). On the equivalence of factors and components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 67–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. M., & Woodward, J. A. (1980). Inequalities among lower bounds to reliability: With applications to test construction and factor analysis. Psychometrika, 45, 249–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bollen, K. A. (1980). Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review, 45, 370–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. della Riccia, G., & Shapiro, A. (1982). Minimum rank and minimum trace of covariance matrices. Psychometrika, 47, 443–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heise, D. R., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1970). Validity, invalidity, and reliability. In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1970 (pp. 104–129). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
  12. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kano, Y., & Azuma, Y. (2003). Use of SEM programs to precisely measure scale reliability. In H. Yanai, A. Okada, K. Shigemasu, & Y. Kano (Eds.), New developments in psychometrics (pp. 141–148). Tokyo: Springer. Google Scholar
  14. Lee, S.-Y., Poon, W.-Y., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). A two-stage estimation of structural equation models with continuous and polytomous variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 48, 339–358. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, L., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). The greatest lower bound to reliability: Corrected and resampling estimators. Paper presented at Symposium on Recent Developments in Latent Variables Modeling. Tokyo: Japanese Statistical Association and Japanese Behaviormetric Society. Google Scholar
  16. McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  17. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  18. Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raykov, T. (2001). Bias of coefficient α for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 69–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shapiro, A. (1982). Rank reducibility of a symmetric matrix and sampling theory of minimum trace factor analysis. Psychometrika, 47, 187–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shapiro, A., & ten Berge, J. M. F. (2000). The asymptotic bias of minimum trace factor analysis, with applications to the greatest lower bound to reliability. Psychometrika, 65, 413–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sijtsma, K. (in press). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.
  23. ten Berge, J. M. F., & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613–625. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ten Berge, J. M. F., Snijders, T. A. B., & Zegers, F. E. (1981). Computational aspects of the greatest lower bound to reliability and constrained minimum trace factor analysis. Psychometrika, 46, 201–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Woodhouse, B., & Jackson, P. H. (1977). Lower bounds for the reliability of a test composed of nonhomogeneous items II: A search procedure to locate the greatest lower bound. Psychometrika, 42, 579–591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Woodward, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1978). A statistical lower-bound to population reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1323–1326. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternate conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Psychology and StatisticsUCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations