Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 930-944

  Graham, James M ^a  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Congeneric; Reliability; Structural equation modeling; Tau equivalent

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750685292     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164406288165     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., Sechrest, L., & Reno, R. R. (with Roediger, H. L., Scarr, S., Kazdin, A. E., & Sherman, S. J.). (1990). The training in statistics, methodology, and measurement in psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 721-734.
2. Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos (Version 5.0.1) [Computer software]. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.
3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
4. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
5. Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105-146). Phoenix, AZ: Ornyx.
6. Graham, J. M., & Conoley, C. W. (2006). The role of marital attributions in the relationship between life stressors and marital quality. Personal Relationships, 13, 231-244.
7. Graham, J. M., Liu, Y. J., & Jeziorski, J. L. (in press). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A reliability generalizability meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family.
8. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI user's guide (3rd ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
9. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 255-273.
11. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 195, 430-445.
12. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Raykov, T. (1997a). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173-184.
14. Raykov, T. (1997b). Scale reliability, Cronbach's coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tauequivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 329-353.
15. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 15-28.
16. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, June). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Iowa City, IA.
17. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18. Thompson, B., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2000). Psychometrics is datametrics: The test is not reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 174-195.
19. Vacha-Haase, T., Kogan, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2000). Sample compositions and variabilities in published studies versus those in test manuals: Validity of score reliability inductions. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 60, 509-522.
20. Whittington, D. (1998). How well do researchers report their measures? An evaluation of measurement in published educational research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 21-37.
21. Wilcox, R. R. (1998). How many discoveries have been lost by ignoring modern statistical methods? American Psychologist, 53, 300-314.
22. Wilkinson, L., & American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.