Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability

A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability Abstract Three sources of variation in experimental results for a test are distinguished: trials, persons, and items. Unreliability is defined only in terms of variation over trials. This definition leads to a more complete analysis than does the conventional one; Spearman's contention is verified that the conventional approach—which was formulated by Yule—introduces unnecessary hypotheses. It is emphasized that at least two trials are necessary to estimate the reliability coefficient. This paper is devoted largely to developinglower bounds to the reliability coefficient that can be computed from but asingle trial; these avoid the experimental difficulties of making two independent trials. Six different lower bounds are established, appropriate for different situations. Some of the bounds are easier to compute than are conventional formulas, and all the bounds assume less than do conventional formulas. The terminology used is that of psychological and sociological testing, but the discussion actually provides a general analysis of the reliability of the sum ofn variables. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Psychometrika Springer Journals

A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability

Psychometrika , Volume 10 (4): 28 – Dec 1, 1945

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-basis-for-analyzing-test-retest-reliability-WuF3nAHJhw

References (8)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
1945 Psychometric Society
ISSN
0033-3123
eISSN
1860-0980
DOI
10.1007/BF02288892
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Three sources of variation in experimental results for a test are distinguished: trials, persons, and items. Unreliability is defined only in terms of variation over trials. This definition leads to a more complete analysis than does the conventional one; Spearman's contention is verified that the conventional approach—which was formulated by Yule—introduces unnecessary hypotheses. It is emphasized that at least two trials are necessary to estimate the reliability coefficient. This paper is devoted largely to developinglower bounds to the reliability coefficient that can be computed from but asingle trial; these avoid the experimental difficulties of making two independent trials. Six different lower bounds are established, appropriate for different situations. Some of the bounds are easier to compute than are conventional formulas, and all the bounds assume less than do conventional formulas. The terminology used is that of psychological and sociological testing, but the discussion actually provides a general analysis of the reliability of the sum ofn variables.

Journal

PsychometrikaSpringer Journals

Published: Dec 1, 1945

Keywords: Psychometrics; Assessment, Testing and Evaluation; Statistics for Social Sciences, Humanities, Law; Statistical Theory and Methods

There are no references for this article.