超越阿尔法和欧米茄:单维连续数据中单次测试可靠性估计的准确性。

IF 5.4 3区 材料科学 Q2 CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL
ACS Applied Energy Materials Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-21 DOI:10.3758/s13428-024-02361-z
Eunseong Cho
{"title":"超越阿尔法和欧米茄:单维连续数据中单次测试可靠性估计的准确性。","authors":"Eunseong Cho","doi":"10.3758/s13428-024-02361-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Coefficient alpha is commonly used as a reliability estimator. However, several estimators are believed to be more accurate than alpha, with factor analysis (FA) estimators being the most commonly recommended. Furthermore, unstandardized estimators are considered more accurate than standardized estimators. In other words, the existing literature suggests that unstandardized FA estimators are the most accurate regardless of data characteristics. To test whether this conventional knowledge is appropriate, this study examines the accuracy of 12 estimators using a Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that several estimators are more accurate than alpha, including both FA and non-FA estimators. The most accurate on average is a standardized FA estimator. Unstandardized estimators (e.g., alpha) are less accurate on average than the corresponding standardized estimators (e.g., standardized alpha). However, the accuracy of estimators is affected to varying degrees by data characteristics (e.g., sample size, number of items, outliers). For example, standardized estimators are more accurate than unstandardized estimators with a small sample size and many outliers, and vice versa. The greatest lower bound is the most accurate when the number of items is 3 but severely overestimates reliability when the number of items is more than 3. In conclusion, estimators have their advantageous data characteristics, and no estimator is the most accurate for all data characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":4,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond alpha and omega: The accuracy of single-test reliability estimators in unidimensional continuous data.\",\"authors\":\"Eunseong Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13428-024-02361-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Coefficient alpha is commonly used as a reliability estimator. However, several estimators are believed to be more accurate than alpha, with factor analysis (FA) estimators being the most commonly recommended. Furthermore, unstandardized estimators are considered more accurate than standardized estimators. In other words, the existing literature suggests that unstandardized FA estimators are the most accurate regardless of data characteristics. To test whether this conventional knowledge is appropriate, this study examines the accuracy of 12 estimators using a Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that several estimators are more accurate than alpha, including both FA and non-FA estimators. The most accurate on average is a standardized FA estimator. Unstandardized estimators (e.g., alpha) are less accurate on average than the corresponding standardized estimators (e.g., standardized alpha). However, the accuracy of estimators is affected to varying degrees by data characteristics (e.g., sample size, number of items, outliers). For example, standardized estimators are more accurate than unstandardized estimators with a small sample size and many outliers, and vice versa. The greatest lower bound is the most accurate when the number of items is 3 but severely overestimates reliability when the number of items is more than 3. In conclusion, estimators have their advantageous data characteristics, and no estimator is the most accurate for all data characteristics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":4,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Energy Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Energy Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02361-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02361-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

系数 α 通常被用作可靠性估计指标。然而,有几种估计因子被认为比 alpha 更准确,其中因子分析(FA)估计因子是最常推荐的。此外,非标准化估计值被认为比标准化估计值更准确。换句话说,现有文献表明,无论数据特征如何,非标准化的 FA 估计器都是最准确的。为了检验这一传统认识是否恰当,本研究使用蒙特卡罗模拟法检验了 12 个估计器的准确性。结果表明,有几种估计器比阿尔法更准确,包括 FA 和非 FA 估计器。平均准确度最高的是标准化 FA 估计器。非标准化估计器(如 alpha)的平均准确度低于相应的标准化估计器(如标准化 alpha)。然而,估计器的准确性在不同程度上受到数据特征(如样本大小、项目数量、异常值)的影响。例如,在样本量小、异常值多的情况下,标准化估计值比非标准化估计值更准确,反之亦然。当项目数为 3 时,最大下限是最准确的,但当项目数超过 3 时,则严重高估了可靠性。 总之,估计器有其有利的数据特征,没有一种估计器对所有数据特征都是最准确的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Beyond alpha and omega: The accuracy of single-test reliability estimators in unidimensional continuous data.

Beyond alpha and omega: The accuracy of single-test reliability estimators in unidimensional continuous data.

Coefficient alpha is commonly used as a reliability estimator. However, several estimators are believed to be more accurate than alpha, with factor analysis (FA) estimators being the most commonly recommended. Furthermore, unstandardized estimators are considered more accurate than standardized estimators. In other words, the existing literature suggests that unstandardized FA estimators are the most accurate regardless of data characteristics. To test whether this conventional knowledge is appropriate, this study examines the accuracy of 12 estimators using a Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that several estimators are more accurate than alpha, including both FA and non-FA estimators. The most accurate on average is a standardized FA estimator. Unstandardized estimators (e.g., alpha) are less accurate on average than the corresponding standardized estimators (e.g., standardized alpha). However, the accuracy of estimators is affected to varying degrees by data characteristics (e.g., sample size, number of items, outliers). For example, standardized estimators are more accurate than unstandardized estimators with a small sample size and many outliers, and vice versa. The greatest lower bound is the most accurate when the number of items is 3 but severely overestimates reliability when the number of items is more than 3. In conclusion, estimators have their advantageous data characteristics, and no estimator is the most accurate for all data characteristics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Energy Materials
ACS Applied Energy Materials Materials Science-Materials Chemistry
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
1368
期刊介绍: ACS Applied Energy Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of materials, engineering, chemistry, physics and biology relevant to energy conversion and storage. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important energy applications.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信