Confidence Intervals for the Coefficient Alpha Difference from Two Independent Samples (Groups)

IF 1.3
M. A. Padilla
{"title":"Confidence Intervals for the Coefficient Alpha Difference from Two Independent Samples (Groups)","authors":"M. A. Padilla","doi":"10.20982/tqmp.19.2.p194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Four different bootstrap methods for estimating confidence intervals (CIs) for a coeffi-cient alpha difference from two independent samples (groups) were examined. These four CIs were compared to the most promising non-bootstrap CI alternatives in the literature. All CIs were assessed with a Monte Carlo simulation with conditions similar to previous research. The results indicate that there is a clear order in coverage performance of the CIs. The bootstrapped highest density interval had the best coverage performance across all simulation conditions. Yet, it was impacted by unequal sample sizes when one of the groups had the smallest sample size investigated of 50, or when items came from a compound symmetric correlation matrix with ρ = 0 . 64 . Regardless of the simulation condition, the percentile bootstrap is a good alternative as long as both group sample sizes were 200 or more.","PeriodicalId":93055,"journal":{"name":"The quantitative methods for psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The quantitative methods for psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.19.2.p194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Four different bootstrap methods for estimating confidence intervals (CIs) for a coeffi-cient alpha difference from two independent samples (groups) were examined. These four CIs were compared to the most promising non-bootstrap CI alternatives in the literature. All CIs were assessed with a Monte Carlo simulation with conditions similar to previous research. The results indicate that there is a clear order in coverage performance of the CIs. The bootstrapped highest density interval had the best coverage performance across all simulation conditions. Yet, it was impacted by unequal sample sizes when one of the groups had the smallest sample size investigated of 50, or when items came from a compound symmetric correlation matrix with ρ = 0 . 64 . Regardless of the simulation condition, the percentile bootstrap is a good alternative as long as both group sample sizes were 200 or more.
两个独立样本(组)间Alpha差系数的置信区间
研究了四种不同的自举方法,用于估计来自两个独立样本(组)的系数α差异的置信区间(CI)。将这四种CI与文献中最有前途的非自举CI替代方案进行了比较。所有CI均通过蒙特卡洛模拟进行评估,条件与之前的研究类似。结果表明,CI的覆盖性能有一个明确的顺序。自举的最高密度区间在所有模拟条件下都具有最佳的覆盖性能。然而,当其中一组的最小样本量为50时,或者当项目来自ρ=0的复合对称相关矩阵时,它会受到不相等样本量的影响。64。无论模拟条件如何,只要两组样本量都是200或更多,百分位自举都是一个很好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信