Sentences with phrase «alpha coefficient for»

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for masculinity was.80 and for femininity was.73.

Alpha coefficient for the full scale was found to be 0.83 and 0.72, and 0.78 for media and peer influence respectively.

The alpha coefficient for the ACS was.86 in the present study.

Given the relatively low Cronbach alpha coefficient for mothers, we examined the overall pattern of correlations between the five questions asking about mothers.

In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the RSES was 0.84.

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total scale was good in the present study (0.97; Duan et al., 2015).

Alpha coefficient for the total MLQ, the Presence factor and the Search factor were.76,.85, and.86 respectively.

Alpha coefficients for the composite

Cronbach's alphas coefficients for depression, anxiety and stress in this study were 0.902, 0.850 and 0.891, respectively.

The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the total questionnaire and the relationship, vitality, and conscientiousness subscales were good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.96, 0.93, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively).

Reported alpha coefficients for «Partner can not change» and «Disagreement is destructive» were.72 and.81 respectively (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982).

In Egypt, the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the same measure of communal strength were.82 for marriage,.54 for mothers, and.89 for best friends.

In the United States, the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the five items measuring communal strength were.85 for spouses,.92 for mothers, and.90 for best friends.

Cronbach standardized alpha coefficients for friends support, family support and significant others support were.86,.86 and.89, respectively.

In Egypt, the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the same communal strength measures were.71 for marriage,.88 for mothers, and.91 for best friends.

In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients for both dimensions were good (0.92 for the 18 attachment anxiety items and 0.85 for the 18 attachment avoidance items).

Results revealed good construct validity and alpha coefficients for the assessment instruments such as the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI), the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS - A), the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNES) and the Social Avoidance Distress Scale (SADS).

Another point may be the low alpha coefficients for the FES.

Not exact matches

The reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) of the three family functioning FES subscale measures were slightly lower than reported by Moos (α =.62 for Family Cohesion, α =.59 for Family Expressiveness, and α =.63 for Family Conflict)(Saucier, Wilson, & Warka, 2007).

While Cronbach's alpha coefficients are reported between 0.55 - 0.95 for subscales, only the one subscale was below.70 with many showing very good to excellent reliability.

Cronbach's alpha coefficients are reported between 0.70 - 0.90 for most of the subscales (also see pdf under availability of the scale below).

The internal consistency of Italian PANAS, using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, was satisfactory for positive affect scale (α = 0.74) and negative affect scale (α = 0.79).

Results yielded Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.44 for VLT - I, 0.46 for VLT - D, 0.50 for VMT, 0.71 for VFT, and 0.50 for WMT.

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

As was the case with the internalizing and externalizing measures, some of the subscales for some measures had low alpha coefficients [Behavior Assessment System for Children, BASC; the 1991 version of the CBCL; certain subscales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Adolescent version (MMPI - A)-RSB-.

For the total score of Greek UCLA the results showed a high satisfactory and adequate psychometrically Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.91, which is comparable to alphas reported in previous studies ranging from 0.89 to 0.97.

The alpha reliability coefficients are relatively high for all scales (Md = 91).

Alpha coefficients obtained for each subscales were as follows: Agents of Change (α =.79 for 7 items), Inevitable Change (α =.60 for 5 items), Managing Change (α =.62 for 3 items).

↵ ii For the Empathy construct, the «alpha if item removed» value indicated improvement of the α - coefficient following removal of one of the four items.

Steger et al. (2006) reported internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) ranging between.81 and.86 for Presence and between.84 and.92 for Search subscale.

Alpha coefficients of (reliability) questions about the subscales of secure, avoidant and ambivalent attachment styles regarding a student sample (1480 people) were calculated to be respectively 0.86, 0.84 and 0.85 for all the subjects, which indicate good internal consistency of Adult Attachment Scale.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted; Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were calculated for each subscale; and... intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated for each item.

In the construction study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged between.81 and.86 for Presence and.84 and.92 for Search.

Scheier and Carver found that this measure has a mean Cronbach's alpha coefficient of.76 and a test — retest correlation of.79 for a period of 4 weeks.

In the present sample, the Cronbach alpha (internal reliability) coefficient for the anxiety scale was.90 and for the avoidance scale,.91.

Thus, the correlation coefficients between the two variables are smaller than the Cronbach's alpha values for the two variables themselves, indicating discriminant validity among the eleven variables (Gaski and Nevin, 1985)[47].

The measure has an alpha coefficient of.93 for the parent domain and an overall reliability index of.80.

The coefficient alpha was.81 for boys and.80 for girls.

Coefficient alpha for the 7 items =.82.

The application of Cronbach's alpha coefficient, to all the three periods considered, reported good reliability for EA maternal scales (0.85 ≤ α ≤ 0.89), for the EA child's scales (0.73 ≤ α ≤ 0.80) and for all the six scales considered globally (0.87 ≤ α ≤ 0.90).

The developers reported Cronbach's coefficient alpha values of 0.86 for authoritative parenting, 0.82 for authoritarian parenting, and 0.64 for permissive parenting.

However, an exception could possibly be made for the hyperactivity / inattention problem scale of the SDQ - T; this subscale demonstrated both the highest reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.88) and highest validity (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.72) in our study.

Standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficients (α) were computed for the SDQ scales (emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity / inattention, peer problems, prosocial behavior) impact score and total difficulties score.

In this study, the Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of this measure is 0.64 for mothers and 0.6 for fathers.

Regarding couple adjustment, Cronbach's alpha coefficient reported good internal consistency for the DAS total score (0.77) and for the subscales concerning Dyadic Consensus (0.69) and Dyadic Satisfaction (0.68).

The coefficient alpha was.85 for mother report and.94 for adolescent report.

An alpha coefficient of.80 was obtained for the present sample.

Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from.70 (for Child problems scale) to.89 (Total score).

The questionnaire reliability expressed as Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from.68 (for Self - Rating Scale) to.80 (for Dyadic Relationships scale).

The Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed to compute descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alphas) for various questionnaires.