DEAR FRIEND HAMID

INTERPRETATION AND MORE CROMBACH´S ALPHA

Interpretation of Cronbach's alpha

The minimum acceptable value for Cronbach's alpha ca 0.70; Below this value the internal consistency of the common range is low. Meanwhile, the maximum expected value is 0.90; Above this value is perceived as redundancy or duplication. Several products that are exactly measuring the same construct element of the United Nations; at the both, the redundant elements must be removed. Alpha values between 0.80 and 0.90 is usually preferred. But yeah When you not have a better instrument can accept CORRECT Lower values of Cronbach's alpha, bearing in mind that limitation.

It is necessary to note that the value of alpha is Directly affected by the number of items that make up a scale. As the number of items increases, the variance systematically placed in the numerator, in such a way that you get from the United Nations overestimated value of the consistency of the scale is increased. Similarly, consider the value of Cronbach be overestimated if it does not consider the Sample Size: a mayor, number of individuals who complete a level, the mayor is expected variance.

Using Cronbach's alpha

Cronbach's alpha coefficient is both an inherent property of the response pattern of the population studied, without a characteristic ladder itself; it is feasible, the alpha value changes depending on the population in the scale (20) is applied. : Therefore, in studies where a scale is used to quantify a feature, however popular and validated that the scale should be informed always the alpha value is esta Population without we must settle That just showed is said a good consistency in other studies.

Cronbach's alpha has great utility F when US to determine S. Consistency Of A UN internal test scam Single domain or dimension, because if US on scales with items that explore two or more distinct dimensions, although the UN Hagan same construct, there is a business risk underestimating the internal consistency. In these cases, it is best A Calculate value of Cronbach's alpha paragraph Each group of items forming a dimension or subscale Calculate the UN or stratified alpha coefficient, which is What does this ratio should be • used to know the internal consistency in one-dimensional scales, not multidimensional scaling.

It is important to note that the Cronbach's alpha is not suitable for measuring the dimensionality of a ladder; : Therefore the use of esta coefficient is not recommended when a single view is sensed Que esta A scale consists of more UN Domain or the Y dimension factor analysis corroborates the scale. As shown, to know each other on a scale dimensionality recommends using factor analysis.

Cronbach's alpha coefficient is more reliable when calculated on a scale from twenty items or less. Major scales that measure a single construct may give the false impression of a great internal consistency when they do not possess.

Also, You can not go so far Design Scales of UN Single article. It measures the unreliable THIS ago, because due to high error due to chance is that improbable UN Single item covering the breadth of the UN complex concept ,: also has the limitation that it can only classify into two categories Individuals, feasible of, it is unable to show different degrees or nuances UN spectrum or dimension. It is considered to be the minimum number three items for a scale factor explore the UN alone or domain.

Likewise, the Cronbach's alpha No may apply tools to assess prior knowledge or training, although being scanned a way to pre-test of knowledge or behavior What has input into a single, limited area of study.

Knowing the internal consistency of a scale is a step (perhaps the first and simplest) Process Validation UN the UN Instrument Reference Standard scam and for some adj constructs is the only possible way to La Validation lack of valid UN Standard gold, secure, easy of use and low Cos

Best regards.

Jorge Carrillo

Dear Hamid Sharifnia,

You can use Best and Kahn's (2006) crude criterion, and in your case, the correlation coefficient is very high because it is between 80 and 100 denoting that a strong relationship exists between the targeted variables. You can also use the determination of correlation coefficient, which is actually equal to r squared. Again in your case, the relationship between the variables is very high and is not  affected by random factors.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Dear Biria

Thank you so much for your reply

Dear Hamid Sharif Nia,

When interpreting Cronbach’s Alpha (α), it ranges from 0 to 1. A value of ≥0.70 reflects good reliability.

Article Psychometric Validation of the Bangla Version of the Patient...

However, just very recently found out that very high Cronbach's alpha MAY indicate multidimensionality....

Shevlin, M., Miles, J. N. V., Davies, M. N. O., &Walker, S. (2000). Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of

reliability? Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 229-237.

Regards

Cronbach's alpha is often misinterpreted, as noted in the reference Witold provides. Rather than asking how to interpret alpha, if you tell us what construct you want to measure, it might be that there are more appropriate statistics.  If you wanted something like how associated all the variables are, you would not use alpha.

DEAR FRIEND HAMID

INTERPRETATION AND MORE CROMBACH´S ALPHA

Interpretation of Cronbach's alpha

The minimum acceptable value for Cronbach's alpha ca 0.70; Below this value the internal consistency of the common range is low. Meanwhile, the maximum expected value is 0.90; Above this value is perceived as redundancy or duplication. Several products that are exactly measuring the same construct element of the United Nations; at the both, the redundant elements must be removed. Alpha values between 0.80 and 0.90 is usually preferred. But yeah When you not have a better instrument can accept CORRECT Lower values of Cronbach's alpha, bearing in mind that limitation.

It is necessary to note that the value of alpha is Directly affected by the number of items that make up a scale. As the number of items increases, the variance systematically placed in the numerator, in such a way that you get from the United Nations overestimated value of the consistency of the scale is increased. Similarly, consider the value of Cronbach be overestimated if it does not consider the Sample Size: a mayor, number of individuals who complete a level, the mayor is expected variance.

Using Cronbach's alpha

Cronbach's alpha coefficient is both an inherent property of the response pattern of the population studied, without a characteristic ladder itself; it is feasible, the alpha value changes depending on the population in the scale (20) is applied. : Therefore, in studies where a scale is used to quantify a feature, however popular and validated that the scale should be informed always the alpha value is esta Population without we must settle That just showed is said a good consistency in other studies.

Cronbach's alpha has great utility F when US to determine S. Consistency Of A UN internal test scam Single domain or dimension, because if US on scales with items that explore two or more distinct dimensions, although the UN Hagan same construct, there is a business risk underestimating the internal consistency. In these cases, it is best A Calculate value of Cronbach's alpha paragraph Each group of items forming a dimension or subscale Calculate the UN or stratified alpha coefficient, which is What does this ratio should be • used to know the internal consistency in one-dimensional scales, not multidimensional scaling.

It is important to note that the Cronbach's alpha is not suitable for measuring the dimensionality of a ladder; : Therefore the use of esta coefficient is not recommended when a single view is sensed Que esta A scale consists of more UN Domain or the Y dimension factor analysis corroborates the scale. As shown, to know each other on a scale dimensionality recommends using factor analysis.

Cronbach's alpha coefficient is more reliable when calculated on a scale from twenty items or less. Major scales that measure a single construct may give the false impression of a great internal consistency when they do not possess.

Also, You can not go so far Design Scales of UN Single article. It measures the unreliable THIS ago, because due to high error due to chance is that improbable UN Single item covering the breadth of the UN complex concept ,: also has the limitation that it can only classify into two categories Individuals, feasible of, it is unable to show different degrees or nuances UN spectrum or dimension. It is considered to be the minimum number three items for a scale factor explore the UN alone or domain.

Likewise, the Cronbach's alpha No may apply tools to assess prior knowledge or training, although being scanned a way to pre-test of knowledge or behavior What has input into a single, limited area of study.

Knowing the internal consistency of a scale is a step (perhaps the first and simplest) Process Validation UN the UN Instrument Reference Standard scam and for some adj constructs is the only possible way to La Validation lack of valid UN Standard gold, secure, easy of use and low Cos

Best regards.

Jorge Carrillo

Cronbach's alpha is affected by the number of variables you include in the scale, and 50 is quite high, so that will influence your results.

As Jorge notes, redundancy could also be an issue. In this case, that would mean that you have a number of correlations that are nearly 1.0, indicating that there is no variation in how people respond to those two items.

dear Dr Jorge Wilfredo Carrillo Flores and Dear Dr David L Morgan

thank you so much for your help

Exactly, Cronbach's alpha indicates whether the items measure the same construct.

Regards, Witold

Dear Meryem

INTERPRETATION AND MORE Cronbach's Alpha

Interpretation of Cronbach's Alpha

The minimum acceptable value for Cronbach's alpha ca 0.70; Below this value the internal consistency of the common range is low. Meanwhile, the maximum expected value is 0.90; Above this value is perceived as redundancy or duplication. Several Items are exactly measuring the same construct element of the United Nations; at the both, the redundant elements must be removed. Alpha values ​​between 0.80 and 0.90 is usually preferred. But yeah When you not have a better instrument can accept CORRECT Lower values ​​of Cronbach's alpha, bearing in mind that limitation.

It is necessary to note that the value of alpha is Directly affected by the number of items that make up a scale. As the number of items increases, the variance systematically placed in the numerator, in such a way that you get from the United Nations overestimated value of the consistency of the scale is increased. Similarly, consider the value of Cronbach be overestimated if it does not consider the Sample Size: a mayor, number of individuals who complete a level, the mayor is the expected variance.

Using Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is both an inherent property of the response pattern of the population studied, without a characteristic ladder itself; it is feasible, the Alpha value changes according to the population in which the scale is applied. : Therefore, in studies where a scale is used to quantify a feature, however popular and validated that the scale should be informed always the alpha value is esta Population without we must settle That just showed is said a good consistency in other studies.

Cronbach's Alpha has great utility F when US to determine S. Consistency Of A UN internal test scam Single domain or dimension, because if US on scales with items that explore two or more distinct dimensions, although the UN Hagan same construct, there is a business risk underestimating the internal consistency. In these cases, it is best A Calculate value of Cronbach's alpha paragraph Each group of items forming a dimension or subscale or Calculate UN stratified alpha coefficient, which is what does this ratio should • used to know the internal consistency in one-dimensional scales, not multidimensional scaling.

It is important to note that the Cronbach's Alpha is not suitable for measuring the dimensionality of a ladder; : Therefore the use of esta coefficient is not recommended when a single view is sensed Que esta A scale consists of more UN domain or dimension and scale factor analysis corroborated. As shown, to know each other on a scale dimensionality recommends using factor analysis.

Cronbach's alpha coefficient is more reliable when calculated on a scale from twenty items or less. Major scales that measure a single construct may give the false impression of a great internal consistency when they do not possess.

Also, You can not go so far Design Scales of UN Single article. It measures the unreliable THIS ago, because due to high error due to chance is that improbable UN Single item covering the breadth of the UN complex concept ,: also has the limitation that it can only classify into two categories Individuals, feasible of, it is unable to show different degrees or nuances UN spectrum or dimension. It is considered to be the minimum number three items for a scale factor explore the UN alone or domain.

Likewise, the Cronbach's alpha No may apply tools to assess prior knowledge or training, although being scanned a way to pre-test of knowledge or behavior input What has a unique and limited study area.

Knowing the internal consistency of a scale is a step (perhaps the first and simplest) Process Validation UN the UN Instrument Reference Standard scam and for some adj constructs is the only kind of validation to the lack of valid UN Standard gold, secure, easy of use and low cost.

Google Traductor para empresas:Translator ToolkitTraductor de sitios webGlobal Market Finder

I feel my translation from Spanish into English is poor. I hope your understanding. Sincerely George.

P.D: As already mentioned above, the reliability of an instrument

expressed by a correlation coefficient: rtt, which theoretically means correlation

Test yourself. Its values ​​range between zero (0) and one (1.00). A practical way

to interpret the magnitude of a reliability coefficient it can be guided by the scale

following:

Magnitude ranges

0.81 to 1.00 Very High

0.61 to 0.80 High

0.41 to 0.60 Medium

0.21 to 0.40 Low

0.01 to 0.20 Very Low

Usually, a reliability coefficient is considered acceptable when

at least at the upper limit (0.80) of the category "High". However, there is no

fixed rule for all cases. Everything will depend on the type of instrument under study, of

its purpose and the type of reliability in question. For example, a coefficient of

Internal consistency reliability for attitude scale should never fall

below the lower limit of the "very high" or category, the RTT value = 0.81 to be

considered acceptable. However, in the case of a performance test

academic literature reports coefficients ranging from 0.61 to 0.80 (see Thorndike,

1989; Magnusson, 1983).

Alpha is very often used as a measure of internal consistency  (scale reliability).. However, there are problems with this statistic. In fact, it presupposes that all items in the scale have the same 'loading' on the measured construct, meaning that all items are equally well measures of the construct (also called a 'Rasch model' in statistics). If this is the case, alpha is often underestimating the scale reliability. If this is not the case, alpha can be under- or overestimating the reliability.

 A better alternative to using alpha is analyzing the items of the scale using confirmatory factor analysis. A very good tool for doing this is the software program Mplus (see www.statmodel.com).

Literature:

Bollen: Structural equations with latent variables (1989), and some of the works of Tenko Raykov

 Best

Jan Ivanouw

Jan is right that alpha assumes equal loadings for each item in the scale, which makes it a "conservative" estimate of reliability. This means that alpha is a "lower bound" for reliability -- so that more sophisticated approaches such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis might give higher values.

In practice, this means that if alpha is indeed .70 or above, there is no need to conduct the more complex analyses because they will only give higher values for what is already an adequate score.

A Cronbach's alpha of .98 indicates a very high degree of internal consistency, to the point where one begins to suspect that the items might be redundant, testing the same construct over and over.  Streiner (2003) suggested a maximum of .90 for alpha.  My professors recommend .80 to .90 for my research (social sciences).

Dear all,

I have a Cronbach's alpha of 1

103 items and 17 constructs

You should link to the analysis of the coefficient an analysis based on what it tries to calculate, based on the data. There's an indication somewhere else that every kind of research can take one value as of significant reliability. So, for an exploratory research, .70 is fine. For basic research, .80 . For applied research, in a controlled group of focal subjects chosen based on previous researches, .90 is a great value.

You should also look after the equation of the Cronbach's calculation. The number of items takes big importance in this calculation, so you should be careful to also look to every item correlation to the total value. Sometimes we can get high coefficients due to the number of items, but low correlations - which is a huge caveat when using Cronbach's alpha.

Also it's very important to not take this alpha value as a measure of unidimensionality or homogenity - it's just a measure of consistence. Remember: Cronbach's alpha is a measure of reliability, which says that your results really measures what happens in the real world, that they aren't a measure of some error, some random effect. If you want to know more about the dimensionality or the homogenity of the data, you should look for other tests - by the way, the unidimensionality of the data is an assumption when calculating Cronbach's alpha.

Your scale is highly reliable based on the internal consistency analysis.

Dear Hamid

I need reference for the threshold to a good alpha cronbach value.

Would you help on that please

Thanks

Nunnaly (1978) has indicated 0.7 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient .

George and Mallery (2003) provide the following rules of thumb: “_ > .9 – Excellent, _ > .8 – Good, _ > .7 – Acceptable, _ > .6 – Questionable, _ > .5 – Poor, and _ < .5 – Unacceptable” (p. 231)

Minimum of .65 will be acceptable.

The acceptable alpha is 0.7 as per Cronbach. Hence, the answer is that this alpha coefficient is excellent. This is not something to be proud of, since alpha is also sensitive to the number of items.

The Cronbach's alpha is an index of the “consistency” of a scale, ie an aspect its reliability. This means that it refers to the degree to which all the items of the scale really measure the same concept. It a way to synthesize of the correlations between the different items that make up the scale.

To discuss the value you have, you must take in account the following rule:

- Between 0 and .50: Insufficient values.

- Between .50 and .70: Limit Values.

- Between .70 and 99: High or very high values.

What to do if Alpha is 0.4. Should one change the scale?

Mohamed Benhima When alpha is that low, you should first check the distributions of your variables to make sure there is not a problem with missing data. Then use the option in most alpha programs to examine "alpha if item deleted" to determine whether there are any variables that are dragging down your overall alpha.

In addition, you may want to conduct an exploratory factor analysis to find out if your scale is "uni-dimensional." If so, I recommend that you use Principal Factors as your extraction method with an oblique rotation.