IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v9y1984i2p151-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Improved Internal Consistency Reliability Estimate

Author

Listed:
  • Norman Cliff

Abstract

Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was derived on the assumption that the average covariance between items on different forms is the same as the average covariance on the same form. This formula is considered an underestimate of the parallel form reliability because the average covariance of items with identical difficulty is expected to be higher than the average covariance of items of different difficulty. The proposed coefficient is derived by assuming instead that the average Goodman-Kruskal gamma between items of identical difficulty would be the same as the average for items of different difficulty. Given the average gamma for the present items, this permits an estimate of the covariance between items of identical difficulty. This leads directly to an estimate of the correlation between scores on the present test and those on a form that had an identical distribution of difficulty. Some examples are given.

Suggested Citation

  • Norman Cliff, 1984. "An Improved Internal Consistency Reliability Estimate," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 9(2), pages 151-161, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:9:y:1984:i:2:p:151-161
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986009002151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986009002151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986009002151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Klaas Sijtsma & Ivo Molenaar, 1987. "Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 79-97, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:9:y:1984:i:2:p:151-161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.