
doi: 10.1007/bf02289196
pmid: 15430514
Evidence is cited to show that specificity, or lack of equivalence, in the comparable forms of tests has a tendency to lower the value of reliability coefficients but has no tendency to lower the value of observed trait coefficients. This implies that the greater the lack of equivalence, the higher will be coefficients corrected for attenuation. Errors of measurement are supposed to reduce the magnitude of observed trait coefficients. Since specificity does not lower the correlation between two tests and since the split-half and equivalent-form reliability coefficients treat specificity as error, it follows that these two coefficients cannot legitimately be used in Spearman's correction-for-attenuation formula.
Psychometrics, Humans, Reproducibility of Results
Psychometrics, Humans, Reproducibility of Results
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 8 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
