Sentences with phrase «alpha reliability for»

Cronbach's alpha reliability for parental ADHD measures ranged from 0.91 to 0.94.

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).

Table 2.4.1 reports the means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities (Cronbach «s alpha) of variables for this sub-study.

We have no firm explanation for this surprising result, but the marginal reliability of the scale used to measure classroom conditions (alpha =.60) may provide part of the answer.

The Cronbach Alpha for the assessment instrument shows reliability with a.931 score.

We used SPSS to calculate means, standard deviations, and reliabilities (Cronbach «s alpha) for scales measuring the four variables.

As evidence of inter-subjectivity and reliability, the students agreed on coding decisions 72 percent of the time, with this test correcting for chance agreement (K - alpha =.72).

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.

Test - retest reliability (1 month) and alpha reliability are both satisfactory, with median correlations of.81 and.70, respectively, for the nine categories.

Reliability will be assessed using Cronbach's alpha, with a minimum acceptable cut - off at α = 0.70, but preferably at α = 0.80 or higher, particularly for the key variables86 and individual items will be checked to ensure that there are no problematic items for this patient population.

Internal consistency reliability was satisfactory with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.82 to 0.92 for all subscales.

For the individual subscales, test - retest and alpha reliabilities range from.45 to.92.

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).

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

In the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was 0.96, and the test - retest reliability correlation was 0.90.

The scale obtained in earlier studies an internal reliability of alpha 0.95 and 0.93 for anxiety and avoidance sub-scales respectively (Fraley et al., 2000).

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.

Internal consistency reliability was reported α =.97 for adults of the general population (Henry & Crawford, 2005), and for each factor alphas ranged between.81 and.97 (McDowell, 2006 cited in Yusoff, 2013).

For scales that consisted of more than three items, results of previously conducted factor analyses and reliability assessments (i.e., factor loadings, Cronbach's alpha after an item is deleted) were used to guide data reduction, in order to shorten scales to a maximum of three to five items.

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.

For the chaos scale, mothers were asked for their agreement with four items (Cronbach alpha = 0.63, indicating acceptable reliability): «It's really disorganised in our home», «You can't hear yourself think in our home», «The atmosphere in our home is calm» and «First thing in the day, we have a regular routine at home&raquFor the chaos scale, mothers were asked for their agreement with four items (Cronbach alpha = 0.63, indicating acceptable reliability): «It's really disorganised in our home», «You can't hear yourself think in our home», «The atmosphere in our home is calm» and «First thing in the day, we have a regular routine at home&raqufor their agreement with four items (Cronbach alpha = 0.63, indicating acceptable reliability): «It's really disorganised in our home», «You can't hear yourself think in our home», «The atmosphere in our home is calm» and «First thing in the day, we have a regular routine at home».

Scores had excellent internal reliability (Cronbach alpha for the father - child relationship was 0.90, and for the mother - child relationship was 0.84).

Item factor loadings were greater than.62 and significant (see Table 5 for retained items) and Cronbach's alphas remained robust after the removal of items in the fearfulness (α =.83) and dismissive scales (α =.78); the reliability of the secure - preoccupied subscale was satisfactory in the second sample (α =.88).

Reliability alphas for this sample were robust for both heritage (α =.88) and mainstream culture dimensions (α =.89).

Self - Perception Profile for Children: Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0.71 - 0.86, suggesting acceptable to good reliability for all domains.

In the validation study (Olson, Gorall & Tiesel, 2007), scale reliabilities were reported to be acceptable for research purposes and applicable for clinical purposes only if combined with other methods of assessment, ranging from alpha =.77 to alpha =.89 (Olson et al., 2007).

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

Respondents were asked for their agreement with three items (Cronbach alpha = 0.65, indicating acceptable reliability):

Test - retest reliability established by the authors showed that the scale is sufficiently reliable (r ≥ 0.728) and Cronbach alpha ranges from 0.63 to 0.77 for different dimensions.

To ensure that the LAS short form was reliable for both samples reliability analysis was conducted for each and overall, the Cronbach Alpha for each and overall is shown below in Table 2.

The results (Table 1) show that the Cronbach's alpha for both unitary constructs and dimensions of multi-dimensional constructs exceed 0.7, indicating fairly high reliability.

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

Good internal reliability (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.73 to 0.95) and test — retest reliability (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.81 to 0.84; Reynolds and Kamphaus 2004) has been reported for the BASC - 2.

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).

Katsuki et al15, 16 report reasonable reliability and validity for the measure in a large Japanese sample, with Cronbach's alphas for subscales >.65 and predicted correlations with burnout.15, 16 One - month test re-test reliabilities for subscales were.65 for criticism,.77 for hostility, but as low as.44 for positive remarks.15 The psychometrics have also not been investigated in the West.

The PSI - SF is a 36 - item self - report instrument for parents of children ages 1 month to 12 years containing three subscales (Parent Distress, Parent — child Dysfunctional Interaction, Difficult Child) with Cronbach's alphas of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.85, respectively, and 6 - month test - retest reliabilities of 0.85, 0.68, and 0.78, respectively (Abidin 1983).

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.

Good internal reliability and convergent validity is reported for the FQoL survey (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.88 to 0.95; Pozo et al. 2013).

The 10 - item CD - RISC scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) and test - retest reliability (r = 0.89 for a six - week interval).

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

When this item was excluded the alpha value of this subscale (here referred to as IA - 4) increased to α =.70.64; test - retest reliability was calculated for this 4 - item subscale.

For the examination of reliability, Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire.

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

The RSQ's internal reliabilities by Cronbach's alpha were greater than.83 for all factors and.86 for the total scale.

For inter-rater reliability, 20 % of the articles were double coded (cronbach alpha =.967); differences between coders were discussed and a consensus reached.

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