Sentences with phrase «alpha coefficient reported»

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 Emotional Literacy Checklist has good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient reported of 0.94 [32].

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).

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 impulsiReport (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 impulsireport 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).

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.

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.

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

Results reported in Table 2 shows high level of Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient on the scores of Urdu Passionate Love Scale (α =.90) which is quite good and high.

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.

Other (psycho - oncology) studies [11, 15, 32] have reported alpha coefficients similar to those in the present study, which ranged from 0.42 (cohesion) to 0.69 (conflict).

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