+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: More Cronbach alpha

  1. #1
    TS Contributor
    Points: 4,330, Level: 41
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 20

    Location
    MD
    Posts
    388
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

    More Cronbach alpha




    If a subscale shows cronbach alpha < 0.7, should I remove it from all analysis. Why or why not?

    Why is 0.7 the magic number? Are there other magic numbers?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Beep
    Points: 63,245, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Discussion EnderPosting AwardCommunity AwardMaster TaggerFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Ames, IA
    Posts
    11,314
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 2,202 Times in 1,881 Posts

    Re: More Cronbach alpha

    I don't know much about Cronbach alpha but my guess is that there's no mathematical reason that .7 is the cutoff. There are a lot of 'rules of thumb' when it comes to cutoff values and there's no reason for most of them except that at some point somebody decided it was a decent value to use.

    Alpha of .05: We get this because Fisher one time said that an observation that is more extreme than what we'd see in one out of twenty cases should be considered significant.

    VIF > 10 means multicollinearity (some people use other values): Totally empirically based (and the fact that variables giving an R^2 > .9 can give us a VIF > 10). You can do whatever you want with this but it suggests there might be some issues with correlation among the independent variables.

    Sample size greater than 30 to use a t-test on nonnormal data: Slight application of the CLT but 30 is nowhere near infinity. Mainly based on observations that for data that is even somewhat skewed the sampling distribution of the mean is approximately normal.

    So I highly doubt that .7 is truly a magic number. But even though I don't know much about Cronbach's alpha my guess is that it's a decent rule of thumb that has been probably studied empirically.

  3. #3
    Points: 2,895, Level: 32
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 5

    Posts
    219
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More Cronbach alpha

    I've seen .6 and I think .5 for "exploratory" research. I don't have reference but will check.

    If you want to try and keep your scale and alpha is borderline 1) you can run factor analysis and report unidimensionality etc, if found, 2) if not found, throw out non-loading items and re-run, and/or 3) try to explain the low alpha. If there is little variance in the data, alpha will be small.

  4. #4
    TS Contributor
    Points: 4,330, Level: 41
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 20

    Location
    MD
    Posts
    388
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

    Re: More Cronbach alpha

    Thanks for all the feed back. I want to elaborate a little on the problem.

    I have subscales of a larger total scale that have small cronbach alpha. I am afraid that removing the subscale will grossly alter, or make it difficult for others too interpret the meaning of the total scale.

    Any thoughts.

  5. #5
    TS Contributor
    Points: 11,262, Level: 70
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 388
    CowboyBear's Avatar
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 273 Times in 203 Posts

    Re: More Cronbach alpha


    AFAIK the 0.7 criterion was first (or at least most famously) suggested in: Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    I don't know of any particular strong empirical basis for the number - it's really just the recommendation of someone famous in the field. Given that the interpretation of alpha is somewhat dubious anyway (see here) it's hard to justify slavish adherence to a particular rule of thumb. Whether or not you keep the subscale has to be a decision made in the context of information from other sources - e.g. factor analysis results, the theoretical basis for the subscale and its use in your study, evidence for validity, psychometric results from other studies using the scale, the length of the subscale (short scales will have lower alphas), etc etc.

    It could be useful to know the length of the subscale(s) of concern, and the nature of the response scale (Likert with x response options, dichotomous, etc?)

+ Reply to Thread

           




Similar Threads

  1. Cronbach Alpha reliability
    By Humphrey in forum Statistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-27-2011, 06:17 PM
  2. carrying out cronbach alpha?
    By lmay0001 in forum Statistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2011, 06:09 PM
  3. Cronbach Alpha Alternative?
    By dham in forum Statistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2009, 02:18 PM
  4. Help! my cronbach value is too high
    By rhilo in forum SPSS
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 02:01 PM
  5. Cronbach or reliability index
    By Susanbwh in forum Psychology Statistics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2006, 03:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats