Dear Gregor,
thank you very much for your comments.
Due to possibly existing general interest I post this message also in
sci.stat.edu.
"Gregor Socan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
You obviously should not use coefficient alpha. First, if an exclusion of
some people causes such a change, then
Thank you all for the helping answers.
I had the problem of obtaining negative Alphas, when some subjects where
excluded from analyses (three out of ten). When they were included, I
had alphas of .65 to .75 (N items =60). The problem is - as I suspect -
that the average interitem correlation is
The effect of N on alpha is minimal unless the assumptions for alpha are not met. If you have a multidimensional construct then the alpha will tend to go down as the sample size decreases. At leaset I have observed this in monte carlo analyses.
At 12:08 PM 2/28/01 +0100, you wrote:
>How is
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:08:55 +0100, Nicolas Sander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is Cronbach's alpha affected by the sample size apart from questions
related to generalizability issues?
- apart from generalizability, "not at all."
Ifind it hard to trace down the mathmatics related to this
