Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T11:24:41.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Basis for Analyzing Test-Retest Reliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Louis Guttman
Louis Guttman*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three sources of variation in experimental results for a test are distinguished: trials, persons, and items. Unreliability is defined only in terms of variation over trials. This definition leads to a more complete analysis than does the conventional one; Spearman's contention is verified that the conventional approach—which was formulated by Yule—introduces unnecessary hypotheses. It is emphasized that at least two trials are necessary to estimate the reliability coefficient. This paper is devoted largely to developing lower bounds to the reliability coefficient that can be computed from but a single trial; these avoid the experimental difficulties of making two independent trials. Six different lower bounds are established, appropriate for different situations. Some of the bounds are easier to compute than are conventional formulas, and all the bounds assume less than do conventional formulas. The terminology used is that of psychological and sociological testing, but the discussion actually provides a general analysis of the reliability of the sum of n variables.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1945 , pp. 255 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © 1945 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

Footnotes

*

The writer is indebted to the members of his statistical seminar, to Professor Mark Kac, and to Professor Samuel A. Stouffer and his staff in the Research Branch, Information and Education Division, War Department, for their helpful comments on this paper.

References

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.Google Scholar
Guttman, Loui. A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 1944, 9, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, Loui. Multiple rectilinear prediction and the resolution into components. Psychometrika, 1940, 5, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyt, Cyri. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. Psychometrika, 1941, 6, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuder, G. F., and Richardson, M. W. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, Charle. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 1904, 15, 72–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, Charle. Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 1910, 3, 271–295.Google Scholar