Sentences with phrase «alpha reliability of»

The Cronbach Alpha reliability of that scale is α = 0.870.

Reliability is high (alpha reliability of.80 — .85).

Test - retest and Cronbach alpha reliabilities of VIEW are in the mid to high.

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.

This portion of the survey demonstrated good reliability with a Cronbach's alpha level of 0.88, with only one item exhibiting an item - rest correlation of less than 0.3 («Eliciting misconceptions from students only reinforces bad math habits»).

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).

The report detailing the psychometric properties of the SCS - R states that the internal reliability alpha is 0.92 which reflects an excellent level of reliability.

Cronbach's alpha (α) was used to test internal reliability of subscales.

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

Internal consistency of the UCLA was determined by calculating Cronbach (α) alpha coefficient (with α = 0.7 indicating sufficient reliability).

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).

Indeed, coefficient alphas often underestimate the reliability (Sijtsma, 2009) and they are influenced by the number of items as well as other factors (e.g., duplicated items, the number of dimensions in the scale; Huysamen, 2006).

Results CFA and reliability analysis revealed factor structures and the Cronbach alpha values of the subscales were consistent with original versions.

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).

Cronbach's alpha was calculated to examine the reliability of the scale.

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).

We use SPSS18.0 to analyze the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, and the result shows that all variables» Cronbach's alpha coefficient is above 0.7, which suggests the internal consistency of the variables is good, and the scales have a high reliability.

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.

Scales had good to excellent reliability with the exception of one scale that had acceptable reliability (as measured by Cronbach's Alpha).

The internal consistency reliability (alpha) of the About My Teen scales is the following: Scale 1 — Parent Observation of Child Behavior -.4180 Scale 2 — Parent Attitudes and Beliefs -.6535 Scale 3 — Parent Behaviors -.7553

The internal consistency reliability (alpha) of the About My Child scales is the following: Scale 1 - Parent Observation of Child Behavior -.7884 Scale 2 - Parent Attitudes and Beliefs -.8549 Scale 3 — Parent Behaviors -.8346

The scales of the MDI (with their associated alpha reliabilities in the general population) are:

Results showed high level of Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient α = 0.90, test retest reliability ranged from r =.73 to r =.96 (ps <.01), item total correlation varying from r =.50 to r =.74 (ps <.01) and factor loading ranged from.39 to.73.

In phase II, internal consistency of the Urdu translated version of PLS was determined through test re-test reliability / cross language validation, Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient and item total correlation.

Value of Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient on scores of Urdu Passionate Love Scale was found quite high i.e. α =.90 which considered the best (Tezbasaran, 1997).

Results indicated the good level of internal consistency in form of Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient (α =.89).

She has technical expertise in a wide range of statistical techniques used in the social sciences, including structural equation modeling, confirmatory factor analysis and MIMIC approaches to measurement, path modeling, regression analysis (e.g., linear, logistic, Poisson), latent class analysis, hierarchical linear models (including growth curve modeling), latent transition analysis, mixture modeling, item response theory, as well as more commonly used techniques drawing from classical test theory (e.g., reliability analysis through Cronbach's alpha, exploratory factor analysis, uni - and multivariate regression, correlation, ANOVA, etc).

The warmth of mother - child relationship was measured at sweep 5 using seven items from the Pianta scale (Pianta 1992)(reliability acceptable, Cronbach alpha = 0.67).

The errors of manifest variables were set as the calculation of one minus the measurement's reliability, and the path between the manifest variables and latent variables were set by using the square root of the measures» alpha reliabilities.

When children were almost eight years old they were invited to report on positive parenting behaviours by their parents (engagement, monitoring and use of positive reinforcement), using five items from the short form Alabama Scale (Elgar, Waschbusch, Dadds & Sigvaldason, 2007), reliability Cronbach alpha 0.67.

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.

Mean, Standard Deviation and Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient of the Urdu Passionate Love Scale (N = 300)

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).

λ1 considers that all of an item variance is error and that only the inter-item covariances reflect true variability; λ2 is a modification of λ1 that considers the square root of the sums of squares of the off diagonal elements; λ3 is equivalent with Cronbach's alpha; λ4 is the greatest split - half reliability; λ5 is a modification of λ1 that replaces the diagonal values with twice the square root of the maximum (across items) of the sums of squared inter-item covariances; λ6 considers the variance of errors (Revelle and Zinbarg 2009, pp. 147 — 149)

A shorter version of the scale using two items per subscale reports less than satisfactory reliability with alphas ranging from 0.33 to 0.56.

Like the STAI trait, the CES - D is a reliable assessment with alpha coefficients of internal consistency ranging from.80 to.90 and a 2 - week to 1 - year test — retest reliability ranging from.40 to.70 (Eaton et al.).

This measure was found to have a mean alpha coefficient of.90 and test — retest reliability coefficients ranging from.73 to.86 (Spielberger).

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).

Negative feelings about parenting were measured via four items taken from the Condon Maternal Attachment Scale (Condon and Corkindale, 1998) relating to feelings of incompetence, resentment, annoyance and impatience (Cronbach alpha = 0.54, indicating moderate reliability).

To assess the reliability of the SOI - R, we examined the values of Cronbach's alphas.

Methods: The psychometric properties of the CCI - D were tested via item analysis and reliability analysis... (Cronbach's coefficient alpha).

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.

We tested the reliability of the construct measures using Cronbach's alpha.

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

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).

We assessed the reliability of the scales using Cronbach's alpha and the item - total correlation.

The alpha reliability coefficient of this scale with the current sample was 0.70.