Sentences with phrase «consistency reliability ranged»

Internal consistency reliability ranged from.74 to.93; evidence for construct validity with other measures of family and parental functioning has also been demonstrated (Brannan & Heflinger, 1997).

Lyubomirsky and Lepper reported internal consistency reliability ranging from.79 to.94 (M =.86).

Not exact matches

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

Cross-informant correlations tended to be lower than internal consistency or test — retest reliability correlations, with r's ranging from.15 to.47 (median =.32).

The results showed that UCLA was highly reliable, with internal consistency ranging from 0.89 to 0.94, and test retest reliability over a year period (r = 0.73).

Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was satisfactory ranging from.79 to.89 (Pavot & Diener, 1993; Adler & Fagley, 2005; Steger, et al., 2006; Alfonso & Allison, 1992a).

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).

The consistency coefficients ranged from 0.75 to 0.90; reliability was highest regarding «affective well - being» and lowest regarding the coping subscales.

Internal consistency for the measure is reported to range from.78 and.91 and test - retest reliability to range from.78 and.88 (Connor & Davidson, 2003).

Using the neuroticism scale of the EPQS - R in order to examine the psychometric properties of the extremely similar N - Questionnaire revealed internal consistencies ranging from.71 to.87 (Alexopoulos & Kalaitzidis, 2004; Aluja, García, & García, 2003; Hosokawa & Ohyama, 1993) and a 6 - month test — retest reliability of.79 (Hosokawa & Ohyama).

A range of studies have reported strong internal consistency and test - retest reliability for this measure.

Internal consistency ratings range from 0.93 - 0.95, constituting an excellent level of reliability.

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.).

Internal consistency ratings range from 0.75 - 0.92, constituting an acceptable to excellent level of reliability.

Good validity, reliability and internal consistency have been previously established (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.87 to 0.92; Abidin 1995; Kayfitz et al. 2010; Manning et al. 2011).

The CDI has good internal consistency (alphas ranging from 0.71 (outpatient group) to 0.89) and acceptable test - retest reliability (correlation of 0.75).

Previous research has shown that this scale demonstrates acceptable internal consistency, ranging from.7 to.8, and high test — retest reliability (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999), including a study of adolescents with diabetes (Helgeson & Fritz, 1996).

Internal consistency for Attention, Externalizing and Internalizing problems ranges from α =.80 to.95 for the YSR, CBCL and TRF, and test — retest reliability ranges from r =.82 to.94 (Achenbach and Rescorla 2001).