Sentences with phrase «reliability coefficient on»

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.

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).

Not exact matches

This is particularly pertinent when high - stakes decisions are to be based on (or in large part on) such scores, especially given some researchers are calling for reliability coefficients of.85 or higher to make such decisions (Haertel, 2013; Wasserman & Bracken, 2003).

Based on the amount of reliability coefficient, Cronbach's Alfa of all factors is also with reliability 67.0 (Table 2).

Lead assessors (K.A.C. and A.M.M.) were trained on interview measures by the instrument developers or by an approved trainer, and then trained, supervised, and evaluated for reliability across assessors (κ statistic or intraclass correlation coefficient for all ratings ranged from 0.74 to 1.00).

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).

Research on the PTSC reports a free marginal multirater kappa at.82 and an intraclass correlation coefficient at.95 indicating strong interrater reliability on the instrument.

The WAI - S is a 12 - item, self - report questionnaire consisting of three subscales designed to assess three primary components of the working alliance: (1) how closely client and therapist agree on and are mutually engaged in the goals of treatment (goal subscale reliability coefficient in this study: α =.79), (2) how closely client and therapist agree on how to reach the treatment goals (task subscale reliability coefficient in this study: α =.70), and (3) the degree of mutual trust, acceptance, and confidence between client and therapist (bond subscale reliability coefficient in this study: α =.75).

Diagnostic decisions were reviewed by the clinical rating team, with best - estimate judgments based on all available information.26 Orvaschel25 reported excellent κ value reliability coefficients for major depression and dysthymia in childeren.

Interrater reliability was assessed by computing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each component scales of EE on 8 randomly selected interviews.

A high degree of inter-rater reliability was established on primary diagnoses and subthreshold diagnoses (kappa coefficient = 0.92; range: 0.62 to 1.00; Göttken et al., 2014).