Cargando…
A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency
Three measures of internal consistency – Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR20), Cronbach’s alpha (α), and person separation reliability (R) – are considered. KR20 and α are common measures in classical test theory, whereas R is developed in modern test theory and, more precisely, in Rasch measurement....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6904350/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31866905 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02714 |
_version_ | 1783477986396209152 |
---|---|
author | Anselmi, Pasquale Colledani, Daiana Robusto, Egidio |
author_facet | Anselmi, Pasquale Colledani, Daiana Robusto, Egidio |
author_sort | Anselmi, Pasquale |
collection | PubMed |
description | Three measures of internal consistency – Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR20), Cronbach’s alpha (α), and person separation reliability (R) – are considered. KR20 and α are common measures in classical test theory, whereas R is developed in modern test theory and, more precisely, in Rasch measurement. These three measures specify the observed variance as the sum of true variance and error variance. However, they differ for the way in which these quantities are obtained. KR20 uses the error variance of an “average” respondent from the sample, which overestimates the error variance of respondents with high or low scores. Conversely, R uses the actual average error variance of the sample. KR20 and α use respondents’ test scores in calculating the observed variance. This is potentially misleading because test scores are not linear representations of the underlying variable, whereas calculation of variance requires linearity. Contrariwise, if the data fit the Rasch model, the measures estimated for each respondent are on a linear scale, thus being numerically suitable for calculating the observed variance. Given these differences, R is expected to be a better index of internal consistency than KR20 and α. The present work compares the three measures on simulated data sets with dichotomous and polytomous items. It is shown that all the estimates of internal consistency decrease with the increasing of the skewness of the score distribution, with R decreasing to a larger extent. Thus, R is more conservative than KR20 and α, and prevents test users from believing a test has better measurement characteristics than it actually has. In addition, it is shown that Rasch-based infit and outfit person statistics can be used for handling data sets with random responses. Two options are described. The first one implies computing a more conservative estimate of internal consistency. The second one implies detecting individuals with random responses. When there are a few individuals with a consistent number of random responses, infit and outfit allow for correctly detecting almost all of them. Once these individuals are removed, a “cleaned” data set is obtained that can be used for computing a less biased estimate of internal consistency. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6904350 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69043502019-12-20 A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency Anselmi, Pasquale Colledani, Daiana Robusto, Egidio Front Psychol Psychology Three measures of internal consistency – Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR20), Cronbach’s alpha (α), and person separation reliability (R) – are considered. KR20 and α are common measures in classical test theory, whereas R is developed in modern test theory and, more precisely, in Rasch measurement. These three measures specify the observed variance as the sum of true variance and error variance. However, they differ for the way in which these quantities are obtained. KR20 uses the error variance of an “average” respondent from the sample, which overestimates the error variance of respondents with high or low scores. Conversely, R uses the actual average error variance of the sample. KR20 and α use respondents’ test scores in calculating the observed variance. This is potentially misleading because test scores are not linear representations of the underlying variable, whereas calculation of variance requires linearity. Contrariwise, if the data fit the Rasch model, the measures estimated for each respondent are on a linear scale, thus being numerically suitable for calculating the observed variance. Given these differences, R is expected to be a better index of internal consistency than KR20 and α. The present work compares the three measures on simulated data sets with dichotomous and polytomous items. It is shown that all the estimates of internal consistency decrease with the increasing of the skewness of the score distribution, with R decreasing to a larger extent. Thus, R is more conservative than KR20 and α, and prevents test users from believing a test has better measurement characteristics than it actually has. In addition, it is shown that Rasch-based infit and outfit person statistics can be used for handling data sets with random responses. Two options are described. The first one implies computing a more conservative estimate of internal consistency. The second one implies detecting individuals with random responses. When there are a few individuals with a consistent number of random responses, infit and outfit allow for correctly detecting almost all of them. Once these individuals are removed, a “cleaned” data set is obtained that can be used for computing a less biased estimate of internal consistency. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6904350/ /pubmed/31866905 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02714 Text en Copyright © 2019 Anselmi, Colledani and Robusto. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Anselmi, Pasquale Colledani, Daiana Robusto, Egidio A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency |
title | A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency |
title_full | A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency |
title_short | A Comparison of Classical and Modern Measures of Internal Consistency |
title_sort | comparison of classical and modern measures of internal consistency |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6904350/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31866905 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02714 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT anselmipasquale acomparisonofclassicalandmodernmeasuresofinternalconsistency AT colledanidaiana acomparisonofclassicalandmodernmeasuresofinternalconsistency AT robustoegidio acomparisonofclassicalandmodernmeasuresofinternalconsistency AT anselmipasquale comparisonofclassicalandmodernmeasuresofinternalconsistency AT colledanidaiana comparisonofclassicalandmodernmeasuresofinternalconsistency AT robustoegidio comparisonofclassicalandmodernmeasuresofinternalconsistency |