Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

97.7K
Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value. 
97.7K
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

13.8K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
13.8K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

5.5K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
5.5K
Reliability and Validity01:29

Reliability and Validity

13.3K
Reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. In the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways.
13.3K
Estimating Population Standard Deviation01:26

Estimating Population Standard Deviation

3.1K
When the population standard deviation is unknown and the sample size is large, the sample standard deviation s is commonly used as a point estimate of σ. However, it can sometimes under or overestimate the population standard deviation. To overcome this drawback, confidence intervals are determined to estimate population parameters and eliminate any calculation bias accurately. However, this only applies to random samples from normally distributed populations. Knowing the sample mean and...
3.1K
Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

181
Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
181

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

On Estimating the Precision of Individual Test Scores: A Note on Pfadt, Molenaar, Hurks, and Sijtsma.

Psychometrika·2026
Same author

An omnibus test for several dependent correlations.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same author

Proportion Explained Component Variance in Second-Order Scales: A Note on a Latent Variable Modeling Approach.

Educational and psychological measurement·2025
Same author

The One-Parameter Logistic Model Can Be True With Zero Probability for a Unidimensional Measuring Instrument: How One Could Go Wrong Removing Items Not Satisfying the Model.

Educational and psychological measurement·2025
Same author

Evaluating Change in Adjusted <i>R</i>-Square and <i>R</i>-Square Indices: A Latent Variable Method Application.

Educational and psychological measurement·2025
Same author

Fatigue in hematological cancer changes across chemotherapy trajectory within the context of IL-6, not hemoglobin level: evidence from growth curve modeling.

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 28, 2025

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
09:36

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study

Published on: February 2, 2017

27.4K

On the Pitfalls of Estimating and Using Standardized Reliability Coefficients.

Tenko Raykov1, George A Marcoulides2

  • 1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Educational and Psychological Measurement
|July 16, 2021
PubMed
Summary

Standardized reliability coefficients for scales can differ significantly from unstandardized ones. Researchers should avoid using standardized reliability unless components are intentionally standardized.

Keywords:
congeneric test modelcongeneric testsmeasuring instrumentreliabilitysingle-factor modelstandardized reliability coefficientunstandardized reliability coefficient

More Related Videos

The Use of Traditional Fear Tests to Evaluate Different Emotional Circuits in Cattle
12:08

The Use of Traditional Fear Tests to Evaluate Different Emotional Circuits in Cattle

Published on: April 22, 2020

8.8K
Nest Building Behavior as an Early Indicator of Behavioral Deficits in Mice
06:11

Nest Building Behavior as an Early Indicator of Behavioral Deficits in Mice

Published on: October 19, 2019

20.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 28, 2025

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
09:36

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study

Published on: February 2, 2017

27.4K
The Use of Traditional Fear Tests to Evaluate Different Emotional Circuits in Cattle
12:08

The Use of Traditional Fear Tests to Evaluate Different Emotional Circuits in Cattle

Published on: April 22, 2020

8.8K
Nest Building Behavior as an Early Indicator of Behavioral Deficits in Mice
06:11

Nest Building Behavior as an Early Indicator of Behavioral Deficits in Mice

Published on: October 19, 2019

20.5K

Area of Science:

  • Psychometrics
  • Statistical Modeling

Background:

  • Reliability coefficients are crucial for assessing the consistency of measurement instruments.
  • Standardized and unstandardized reliability coefficients can yield different values for the same scale.
  • The implications of this discrepancy for homogeneous multicomponent instruments are not fully understood.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine the population discrepancy between unstandardized and standardized reliability coefficients for homogeneous multicomponent measuring instruments.
  • To investigate the conditions under which standardized reliability may exceed or fall below unstandardized reliability.
  • To provide recommendations for the use of scale reliability coefficients in empirical research.

Main Methods:

  • Latent variable modeling framework was employed.
  • Analysis focused on homogeneous multicomponent instruments.
  • Comparison of unstandardized and standardized reliability coefficients was conducted.

Main Results:

  • The standardized reliability coefficient for unidimensional scales can be markedly higher than the unstandardized coefficient.
  • Alternatively, the standardized reliability can be substantially lower than the unstandardized coefficient.
  • The discrepancy is dependent on the specific characteristics of the scale components and their standardization.

Conclusions:

  • Scholars are advised against estimating, reporting, interpreting, or using standardized scale reliability coefficients in empirical research.
  • Exceptions are warranted only when there are strong, explicit reasons for standardizing the original components of the utilized scales.
  • Careful consideration of scale standardization is necessary for accurate reliability assessment.