Inconsistencies Across Three Contextual Meanings of Reliability

Inconsistencies Across Three Contextual Meanings of Reliability The purpose of this article is to assess the nature of reliability and its inconsistent definitions across three contextual (conceptual, measurement and statistical) levels under the traditional true score theory. Due to such inconsistencies, two existing quantitative approaches (using r and covariance) are not uniformly understood in Psychology and other disciplines; consequently, their applications to measurements and testings are limited to ambiguous interpretations at the conceptual and measurement levels. To examine the extent of this problem, a questionnaire including various contextual definitions and interpretations of reliability in the literature was distributed in a nationwide survey. Results from six groups of experts representing editors, professors and advanced graduate students in both quantitative and clinical areas indicate that all subject groups generally agreed that a reliable instrument possesses the characteristics of the repeatability of responses of all test-takers at the conceptual level, and the reproducibility of the instrument with little or no variations from the underlying true scores at the measurement level. However, between the editors and noneditors, the endorsements of the common definition at the measurement level show obvious discrepancies. Further, at the statistical level, significant differences were found not only between but also within subject-groups in their interpretations of product-moment correlations and Alpha coefficients for the assessment of reliability at the conceptual and measurement levels. The causes of such inconsistencies were discussed in terms of the inherent limitations of the two statistical approaches used and their insufficiencies for indexing the conceptual and measurement meanings of reliability. Finally, this paper called for developing new statistical indices that are coherent with conceptual and measurement definitions. Before such development, the capacities of existing reliability indices shall be redefined and their application qualifications shall be proportionally re-established for educational, research and clinical purposes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Inconsistencies Across Three Contextual Meanings of Reliability

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/inconsistencies-across-three-contextual-meanings-of-reliability-yXEYoK8F3P
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Social Sciences; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1004301622645
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to assess the nature of reliability and its inconsistent definitions across three contextual (conceptual, measurement and statistical) levels under the traditional true score theory. Due to such inconsistencies, two existing quantitative approaches (using r and covariance) are not uniformly understood in Psychology and other disciplines; consequently, their applications to measurements and testings are limited to ambiguous interpretations at the conceptual and measurement levels. To examine the extent of this problem, a questionnaire including various contextual definitions and interpretations of reliability in the literature was distributed in a nationwide survey. Results from six groups of experts representing editors, professors and advanced graduate students in both quantitative and clinical areas indicate that all subject groups generally agreed that a reliable instrument possesses the characteristics of the repeatability of responses of all test-takers at the conceptual level, and the reproducibility of the instrument with little or no variations from the underlying true scores at the measurement level. However, between the editors and noneditors, the endorsements of the common definition at the measurement level show obvious discrepancies. Further, at the statistical level, significant differences were found not only between but also within subject-groups in their interpretations of product-moment correlations and Alpha coefficients for the assessment of reliability at the conceptual and measurement levels. The causes of such inconsistencies were discussed in terms of the inherent limitations of the two statistical approaches used and their insufficiencies for indexing the conceptual and measurement meanings of reliability. Finally, this paper called for developing new statistical indices that are coherent with conceptual and measurement definitions. Before such development, the capacities of existing reliability indices shall be redefined and their application qualifications shall be proportionally re-established for educational, research and clinical purposes.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Oct 16, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off