Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-qmkzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-26T15:52:45.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Relations between Guttman's Principal Components of Scale Analysis and Other Psychometric Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Frederic M. Lord
Frederic M. Lord*
Affiliation:
Educational Testing Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Guttman's principal components for the weighting system are the item scoring weights that maximize the generalized Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient. The principal component for any item is effectively the same as the factor loading of the item divided by the item standard deviation, the factor loadings being obtained from an ordinary factor analysis of the item intercorrelation matrix.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1958 , pp. 291 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © 1958 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297–334.10.1007/BF02310555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressel, P. L. Some remarks on the Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient. Psychometrika, 1940, 5, 305–310.10.1007/BF02287978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgerton, H. A. and Kolbe, L. E. The method of minimum variation for the combination of criteria. Psychometrika, 1936, 1, 183–187.10.1007/BF02288364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Theory of mental tests, New York: Wiley, 1950.10.1037/13240-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. The quantification of a class of attributes: a theory and method of scale construction. In Horst, P. (Ed.), The prediction of personal adjustment. Soc. Sci. Res. Council, Bull. 48, 1941. Pp. 321–345.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 1945, 10, 225–282.10.1007/BF02288892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horst, P. Obtaining a composite measure from a number of different measures of the same attribute. Psychometrika, 1936, 1, 53–60.10.1007/BF02287924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyt, C. J. and Stunkard, C. L. Estimation of test reliability for unrestricted item scoring methods. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1952, 12, 756–758.10.1177/001316445201200423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouffer, S. A. Measurement and prediction. Studies in social psychology in World War II, Vol. IV, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1950.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Multiple-factor analysis, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1947.Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. Reliability and behavior domain validity: reformulation and historical critique. Psychol. Bull., 1957, 54, 229–249.10.1037/h0047980CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, H. W. and Aitken, A. C. An introduction to the theory of canonical matrices, Toronto: Blackie, 1950.Google Scholar
Wilks, S. S. Weighting systems for linear functions of correlated variables when there is no dependent variable. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 23–40.10.1007/BF02287917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, M. A. and Lord, F. M. The most reliable composite with a specified true score. Brit. J. statist. Psychol., 1956, 9, 21–28.10.1111/j.2044-8317.1956.tb00165.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

A correction has been issued for this article:

Errata