Correction for attenuation and the coefficient of reliability.

2011 ◽  
pp. 337-344
Author(s):  
Herbert Sorenson
Keyword(s):  
Correction For Attenuation

scholarly journals Test-Retest Reliability is not a Measure of Reliability or Stability: A Friendly Reminder

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Röseler ◽  
Daniel Wolf ◽  
Johannes Leder ◽  
Astrid Schütz
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Simulation Study ◽  
Repeated Measurement ◽  
Reliability Coefficient ◽  
Diagnostic Instrument ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Cronbach's Alpha ◽  
Correction For Attenuation ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

We argue that the test-retest reliability coefficient, which is the correlation between a measurement and a repeated measurement using the same diagnostic instrument in the same sample (sometimes referred to as repeatability or falsely referred to as stability), is by itself not an appropriate measure of the reliability of the diagnostic instrument or of the stability of the construct in question. In combination with an actual coefficient of reliability such as Cronbach’s alpha, the test-retest reliability coefficient can be used to estimate and compare the stabilities of constructs using a procedure based on the correction for attenuation. However, results from a simulation study showed that classically constructed confidence intervals for the estimator exhibit under-coverage and thus cannot be interpreted correctly.

Adjustments to the correction for attenuation.

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra Wetcher-Hendricks
Keyword(s):  
Correction For Attenuation

A multivariate correction for attenuation

Biometrika ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 673-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. DARRELL BOCK ◽  
ANNE C. PETERSEN
Keyword(s):  
Correction For Attenuation

Relationship between Two Measures of Verbal Relatedness: Preliminary Report

1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-18
Author(s):  
Bertram Garskof ◽  
George R. Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Report ◽  
Word Associations ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Direct Association ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Correction For Attenuation ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Single Response ◽  
Free Word

Two measures of associative overlap between word pairs, the Mutual Relatedness Index (MR) and the Relatedness Coefficient (RC), computed from group single response free word associations and continued word associations from individual Ss, respectively, were computed from norms obtained from the same Ss for two samples of word pairs. The correlation between MR and RC for the two samples, was .540 and .504. With correction for attenuation, the correlation between MR and RC is .76. MR was highly correlated with direct association ( r = .88) while RC was not ( r = .43). It is tenable that MR and RC do not reflect the same aspects of verbal relatedness even though they are both considered measures of the associative overlap between a pair of words.

Reaction Time, Response Errors, and G

1991 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 1035-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Kranzler
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Cognitive Tasks ◽  
Average Correlation ◽  
Correction For Attenuation ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Reaction Time Response ◽  
Psychometric G ◽  
Elementary Cognitive Tasks ◽  
Response Errors

Humphreys (1989) hypothesized that psychometric g is more highly correlated with the number of response errors on elementary cognitive tasks than with the reaction time (RT) measures themselves. Although Humphreys' hypothesis may well hold for relatively complex RT tasks, results of a recent study do not substantiate his hypothesis with regard to some of the simplest tasks. In this study, the average correlation ( r) between g and number of response errors was .05, compared to -.20 for median RT and -.23 for intraindividual differences in RT (measured as the standard deviation of RTs over trials). Even after correction for attenuation, the average r between g and errors is lower (.02) than the average correlations between g and the RT measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document