Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T05:56:04.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Klaas Sijtsma
Klaas Sijtsma*
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Klaas Sijtsma, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mail: k.sijtsma@uvt.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This discussion paper argues that both the use of Cronbach’s alpha as a reliability estimate and as a measure of internal consistency suffer from major problems. First, alpha always has a value, which cannot be equal to the test score’s reliability given the interitem covariance matrix and the usual assumptions about measurement error. Second, in practice, alpha is used more often as a measure of the test’s internal consistency than as an estimate of reliability. However, it can be shown easily that alpha is unrelated to the internal structure of the test. It is further discussed that statistics based on a single test administration do not convey much information about the accuracy of individuals’ test performance. The paper ends with a list of conclusions about the usefulness of alpha.

Keywords

Cronbach’s alphainternal consistencyreliabilityunidimensionality

Information

Type
Theory and Methods
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 107 - 120
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 The Author(s)

References

Bentler, P. A., Woodward, J. A. (1980). Inequalities among lower bounds to reliability: With applications to test construction and factor analysis. Psychometrika, 45, 249–267.10.1007/BF02294079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind. Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511490026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425–440.10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA tests regarding construct, trait or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546–553.10.1037/h0048255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavalini, P. M. (1992). It’s an ill wind that brings no good. Studies on odour annoyance and the dispersion of odorant concentrations from industries. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.10.1007/BF02310555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Internal consistency of tests: Analyses old and new. Psychometrika, 53, 63–70.10.1007/BF02294194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., Breugelmans, S. M. (2007). Moral sentiments and cooperation: Differential influences of shame and guilt. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1025–1042.10.1080/02699930600980874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. L., Van den Wollenberg, A. L. (1993). Local homogeneity in latent trait models. A characterization of the homogeneous monotone IRT model. Psychometrica, 58, 417–429.10.1007/BF02294649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emons, W. H. M., Sijtsma, K., Meijer, R. R. (2007). On the consistency of individual classification using short scales. Psychological Methods, 12, 105–120.10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldt, L. S., Woodruff, D. J., Salih, F. A. (1987). Statistical inference for coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 93–103.10.1177/014662168701100107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827–838.10.1177/001316447703700403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10, 255–282.10.1007/BF02288892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayashi, K., Kamata, A. (2005). A note on the estimator of the alpha coefficient for standardized variables under normality. Psychometrika, 70, 579–586.10.1007/s11336-001-0888-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1990). On the sampling theory foundations of item response theory models. Psychometrika, 55, 577–601.10.1007/BF02294609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyt, C. (1941). Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. Psychometrika, 6, 153–160.10.1007/BF02289270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. H., Agunwamba, C. C. (1977). Lower bounds for the reliability of the total score on a test composed of non-homogeneous items: I: Algebraic lower bounds. Psychometrika, 42, 567–578.10.1007/BF02295979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kistner, E. O., Muller, K. E. (2004). Exact distributions of intraclass correlation and Cronbach’s alpha with Gaussian data and general covariance. Psychometrika, 69, 459–474.10.1007/BF02295646CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuder, G. F., Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–160.10.1007/BF02288391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1960). An empirical study of the normality and independence of errors of measurement in test scores. Psychometrika, 25, 91–104.10.1007/BF02288936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology—This time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R. (1966). The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 3, 1–18.10.1016/0022-2496(66)90002-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M. R., Lewis, C. (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika, 32, 1–13.10.1007/BF02289400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Raykov, T. (2001). Bias of coefficient alpha for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 69–76.10.1177/01466216010251005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G. (1993). Traitedness and the assessment of response pattern scalability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 143–151.10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, M. C., Maeda, Y. (2006). Meta-Analysis of coefficient alpha. Psychological Methods, 11, 306–322.10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, A., Ten Berge, J. M. F. (2000). The asymptotic bias of minimum trace factor analysis, with applications to the greatest lower bound to reliability. Psychometrika, 65, 413–425.10.1007/BF02296154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS 14.0 for Windows (computer software). Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
Takane, Y., De Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393–408.10.1007/BF02294363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality assessment. Journal of Personality, 56, 621–663.10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00905.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Berge, J. M. F., Kiers, H. A. L. (1991). A numerical approach to the exact and the approximate minimum rank of a covariance matrix. Psychometrika, 56, 309–315.10.1007/BF02294464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Berge, J. M. F., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2003). The minimum rank factor analysis program MRFA (Internal report). Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ten Berge, J. M. F., Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613–625.10.1007/BF02289858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Berge, J. M. F., Zegers, F. E. (1978). A series of lower bounds to the reliability of a test. Psychometrika, 43, 575–579.10.1007/BF02293815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Berge, J.M.F., Snijders, T.A.B., Zegers, F.E. (1981). Computational aspects of the greatest lower bound to the reliability and constrained minimum trace factor analysis. Psychometrika, 46, 201–213.10.1007/BF02293900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Zyl, J. M., Neudecker, H., Nel, D. G. (2000). On the distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 65, 271–280.10.1007/BF02296146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhelst, N. D. (1998). Estimating the reliability of a test from a single test administration (Measurement and Research Department Report 98-2). Arnhem, The Netherlands, CITO National Institute for Educational Measurement.Google Scholar
Watson, J. D., Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nuclied acids—a structure for deoxyribose nucleid acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.10.1038/171737a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, B., Jackson, P. H. (1977). Lower bounds for the reliability of the total score on a test composed of non-homogeneous items: II: A search procedure to locate the greatest lower bound. Psychometrika, 42, 579–591.10.1007/BF02295980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133.10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar