Reliability (statistics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Reliability (disambiguation).
In statistics, reliability is the consistency of a set of measurements or of a measuring
instrument, often used to describe a test. Reliability is inversely related to random error.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Types
2 Difference from
validity
3 Estimation
4 Classical test theory
5 Item response theory
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
[edit] Types
There are several general classes of reliability estimates:
Inter-rater reliability is the variation in measurements when taken by different
persons but with the same method or instruments.
Test-retest reliability is the variation in measurements taken by a single person or
instrument on the same item and under the same conditions. This includes intra-rater
reliability.
Inter-method reliability is the variation in measurements of the same target when
taken by a different methods or instruments, but with the same person, or when inter-rater
reliability can be ruled out. When dealing with forms, it may be termed parallel-forms
reliability.[2]
Internal consistency reliability, assesses the consistency of results across items
within a test.[2]
[edit] Difference from validity
Reliability does not imply validity. That is, a reliable measure is measuring something
consistently, but you may not be measuring what you want to be measuring. For example,
while there are many reliable tests of specific abilities, not all of them would be valid for
predicting, say, job performance. In terms of accuracy and precision, reliability is analogous
to precision, while validity is analogous to accuracy.
An example often used to illustrate the difference between reliability and validity in the
experimental sciences involves a common bathroom scale. If someone who is 200 pounds
steps on a scale 10 times and gets readings of 15, 250, 95, 140, etc., the scale is not reliable.
If the scale consistently reads "150", then it is reliable, but not valid. If it reads "200" each
time, then the measurement is both reliable and valid. This is what is meant by the statement,
"Reliability is necessary but not sufficient for validity."
[edit] Estimation
Reliability may be estimated through a variety of methods that fall into two types: single-
administration and multiple-administration. Multiple-administration methods require that two
assessments are administered. In the test-retest method, reliability is estimated as the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient between two administrations of the same measure:
see also item-total correlation. In the alternate forms method, reliability is estimated by the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of two different forms of a measure, usually
administered together. Single-administration methods include split-half and internal
consistency. The split-half method treats the two halves of a measure as alternate forms. This
"halves reliability" estimate is then stepped up to the full test length using the Spearman–
Brown prediction formula. The most common internal consistency measure is Cronbach's
alpha, which is usually interpreted as the mean of all possible split-half coefficients.[3]
Cronbach's alpha is a generalization of an earlier form of estimating internal consistency,
Kuder-Richardson Formula 20.[3]
These measures of reliability differ in their sensitivity to different sources of error and so
need not be equal. Also, reliability is a property of the scores of a measure rather than the
measure itself and are thus said to be sample dependent. Reliability estimates from one
sample might differ from those of a second sample (beyond what might be expected due to
sampling variations) if the second sample is drawn from a different population because the
true variability is different in this second population. (This is true of measures of all types—
yardsticks might measure houses well yet have poor reliability when used to measure the
lengths of insects.)
Reliability may be improved by clarity of expression (for written assessments), lengthening
the measure,[3] and other informal means. However, formal psychometric analysis, called item
analysis, is considered the most effective way to increase reliability. This analysis consists of
computation of item difficulties and item discrimination indices, the latter index involving
computation of correlations between the items and sum of the item scores of the entire test. If
items that are too difficult, too easy, and/or have near-zero or negative discrimination are
replaced with better items, the reliability of the measure will increase.
R(t) = 1 − F(t).
R(t) = exp( − λt). (where λ is the failure rate)
[edit] Classical test theory
In classical test theory, reliability is defined mathematically as the ratio of the variation of the
true score and the variation of the observed score. Or, equivalently, one minus the ratio of the
variation of the error score and the variation of the observed score:
where ρxx' is the symbol for the reliability of the observed score, X; , , and are
the variances on the measured, true and error scores respectively. Unfortunately, there is
no way to directly observe or calculate the true score, so a variety of methods are used to
estimate the reliability of a test.
Some examples of the methods to estimate reliability include test-retest reliability,
internal consistency reliability, and parallel-test reliability. Each method comes at the
problem of figuring out the source of error in the test somewhat differently.
[edit] Item response theory
It was well-known to classical test theorists that measurement precision is not uniform
across the scale of measurement. Tests tend to distinguish better for test-takers with
moderate trait levels and worse among high- and low-scoring test-takers. Item response
theory extends the concept of reliability from a single index to a function called the
information function. The IRT information function is the inverse of the conditional
observed score standard error at any given test score.