Skip to main content
Log in

The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality

  • Theory And Methods
  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To assess the reliability of congeneric tests, specifically designed reliability measures have been proposed. This paper emphasizes that such measures rely on a unidimensionality hypothesis, which can neither be confirmed nor rejected when there are only three test parts, and will invariably be rejected when there are more than three test parts. Jackson and Agunwamba's (1977) greatest lower bound to reliability is proposed instead. Although this bound has a reputation for overestimating the population value when the sample size is small, this is no reason to prefer the unidimensionality-based reliability. Firstly, the sampling bias problem of the glb does not play a role when the number of test parts is small, as is often the case with congeneric measures. Secondly, glb and unidimensionality based reliability are often equal when there are three test parts, and when there are more test parts, their numerical values are still very similar. To the extent that the bias problem of the greatest lower bound does play a role, unidimensionality-based reliability is equally affected. Although unidimensionality and reliability are often thought of as unrelated, this paper shows that, from at least two perspectives, they act as antagonistic concepts. A measure, based on the same framework that led to the greatest lower bound, is discussed for assessing how close is a set of variables to unidimensionality. It is the percentage of common variance that can be explained by a single factor. An empirical example is given to demonstrate the main points of the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bekker, P.A., & De Leeuw, J. (1987). The rank of reduced dispersion matrices.Psychometrika, 52, 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P.M. (1972). A lower-bound method for the dimension-free measurement of reliability.Social Science Research, 1, 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. (1988). Internal consistency of tests.Psychometrika, 53, 63–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, J. (1983). Models and methods for the analysis of correlation coefficients.Journal of Econometrics, 22, 113–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldt, L.S., Woodruff, D.J., & Salih, F.A. (1987). Statistical inference for coefficient alpha.Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability.Psychometrika, 10, 255–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. (1958). To what extent can communalities reduce rank.Psychometrika, 23, 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P.H., & Agunwamba, C.C. (1977). Lower bounds for the reliability of the total score on a test composed of nonhomogeneous items: I. Algebraic lower bounds.Psychometrika, 42, 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, W. (1974). Estimation of reliability and true score variance from a split of the test into three arbitrary parts.Psychometrika, 39, 245–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledermann, W. (1937). On the rank of reduced correlation matrices in multiple factor analysis.Psychometrika, 2, 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R.P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicewander, W.A. (1990). A latent-trait based reliability estimate and upper bound.Psychometrika, 55, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, M.R., & Lewis, C. (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements.Psychometrika, 32, 1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osburn, H.G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients.Psychological Methods, 5, 343–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A. (1982a). Rank reducibility of a symmetric matrix and sampling theory of minimum trace factor analysis.Psychometrika, 47, 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A. (1982b). Weighted minimum trace factor analysis.Psychometrika, 47, 243–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., & Ten Berge, J.M.F. (2002). Statistical inference of minimum rank factor analysis.Psychometrika, 67, 79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spearman, C.E. (1927).The abilities of man. London: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Berge, J.M.F. (1998). Some recent developments in factor analysis and the search for proper communalities. In A. Rizzi, M. Vichi, and H.-H. Bock (Eds.):Advances in data science and classification (pp. 325–334). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Berge, J.M.F., & Kiers, H.A.L. (1991). A numerical approach to the exact and the approximate minimum rank of a covariance matrix.Psychometrika, 56, 309–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zijl, J.M., Neudecker, H., & Nel, D.G. (2000). On the distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator of Cronbach's alpha.Psychometrika, 65, 271–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhelst, N.D. (1998).Estimating the reliability of a test from a single test administration (Measurement and Research Department Report No. 98-2). Arnhem: CITO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E.B., & Worcester, J. (1939). The resolution of six tests into three general factors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 25, 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P.M. (2002). On robustness of the normal-theory based asymptotic distributions of three reliability coefficient estimates.Psychometrika, 67, 251–259.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jos M. F. Ten Berge.

Additional information

The authors are obliged to Henk Kiers for commenting on a previous version. Gregor Sočan is now at the University of Ljubljana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ten Berge, J.M.F., Sočan, G. The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika 69, 613–625 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289858

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289858

Key words

Navigation