Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Will Hauser" <whauseriii@gmail.com> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>, "xueliansharon" <xuelianstata@gmail.com> |

Subject |
Re: st: Does there exist measurement error when I got high Cronbach's alpha? |

Date |
Sun, 17 Jul 2011 01:04:10 +0000 |

Hi Sharon, Your .6 alpha is correct, the .9 is artificially inflated by your inclusion of missing values. Respondents who didn't answer one question also tended not to answer others. Unless they are coded as missing (.) Stata assumes they are valid responses. Additionally, the .6 score is only borderline acceptable. This is my opinion here but I would say that the index is only acceptable at .6 if you have strong theoretical reasons to expect unidimensionality and it sounds like you do not. Have you used the -item suffix on the alpha command? It would be nice to know what items are driving the index... I suspect some are possibly even detracting from it. Lastly, remember that Stata will reverse code variables automatically if they fit with the index better that way. So be sure to check that as well. Have you tried including the variables in your model as is? Do you encounter colinearity? Will Hauser ------Original Message------ From: xueliansharon <xuelianstata@gmail.com> To: <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> Date: Saturday, July 16, 2011 5:46:50 AM GMT-0700 Subject: st: Does there exist measurement error when I got high Cronbach's alpha? Dear all: I got quite high Cronbach's alphas (0.9) for five-factor personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellect). With such high values, can I argue that there may still exist measurement errors in the measures for five-factor personality traits? Another question is about the computation of Cronbach's alpha. I got different values of alpha when using different computation procedure: the key difference happened when I recoded the responses of five factors personality to "missing values" when the original responses were "-3" (i.e. no questions answered) or "-2" (i.e. information incomplete). For example, for the extraversion measure, the range of the score should be 5 to 50 points, when I recoded the response "-3" or "-2" to "missing value", the sample size was reduced by around 680, since the number of observations who didn't answer the questions about extraversion or didn't provide complete information for each item were 680, and the alpha coefficient fell from 0.9 to 0.6. So is it correct to do such recoding when computing alpha coefficients? Your response is greatly appreciated. Thanks & Regards, Sharon -- View this message in context: http://statalist.1588530.n2.nabble.com/Does-there-exist-measurement-error-when-I-got-high-Cronbach-s-alpha-tp6589508p6589508.html Sent from the Statalist mailing list archive at Nabble.com. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**st: How do I interpret random coefficient parameters (SD) using xtmixed** - Next by Date:
**st: posting results after qreg** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Does there exist measurement error when I got high Cronbach's alpha?** - Next by thread:
**st: How do I interpret random coefficient parameters (SD) using xtmixed** - Index(es):