Cronbach’s Alpha: Definition, Interpretation,

SPSS
Share on

Contents:

1. What is Cronbach’s Alpha?

2. Cronbach’s Alpha in SPSS.

What is Cronbach’s Alpha?

Cronbach’s alpha, α (or coefficient alpha), developed by Lee Cronbach in 1951,
measures reliability, or internal consistency. “Reliability” is another name for
consistency.
Cronbach’s alpha tests to see if multiple-question Likert scale surveys are reliable. These
questions measure latent variables—hidden or unobservable variables like: a person’s
conscientiousness, neurosis or openness. These are very difficult to measure in real life.
Cronbach’s alpha will tell you how closely related a set of test items are as a group.
Watch the video for an overview and formula calculation:

Cronbach's Alpha: Definition & Calculation

Watch this video on YouTube.

Can’t see the video? Click here.

Cronbach’s Alpha Formula

The formula for Cronbach’s alpha is:

Where:
 N = the number of items.
 c̄ = average covariance between item-pairs.
 v̄ = average variance.

Cronbach’s Alpha in SPSS

While it’s good to know the formula behind the concept, in reality you won’t actually need to work it.
You’ll often calculate alpha in SPSS or similar software.
Watch the video for the steps and analysis of low values:

Cronbachs Alpha SPSS

Watch this video on YouTube.

Can’t see the video? Click here.

To run Cronbach’s alpha in SPSS, make sure you’re measuring latent variables on the Likert scale.
Cronbach’s alpha will tell you how closely related a set of test items are as a group.
The steps are:
Step 1: Click “Analyze,” then click “Scale” and then click “Reliability Analysis.”
Step 2: Transfer your variables (q1 to q5) into “Items,”. The model default should be set as “Alpha.”
Step 3: Click “Statistics” in the dialog box.
Step 4: Select “Item,” “Scale,” and “Scale if item deleted” in the box description. Choose “Correlation” in
the inter-item box.
Step 5: Click “Continue” and then click “OK”.
Step 4 can be omitted, but this will allow you to analyze problems with individual test questions.
Specifically, it might highlight one or more questions with low alpha values (I work through a specific
example in the video).

Rule of Thumb for Results

A rule of thumb for interpreting alpha for dichotomous questions (i.e. questions with two possible
answers) or Likert scale questions is:

In general, a score of more than 0.7 is usually okay. However, some authors suggest higher values of 0.90
to 0.95.

Avoiding Issues with Cronbach’s Alpha

Use the rules of thumb listed above with caution. A high level for alpha may mean that the items in the
test are highly correlated. However, α is also sensitive to the number of items in a test. A larger number of
items can result in a larger α, and a smaller number of items in a smaller α. If alpha is high, this may
mean redundant questions (i.e. they’re asking the same thing).
A low value for alpha may mean that there aren’t enough questions on the test. Adding
more relevant items to the test can increase alpha. Poor interrelatedness between test questions can also
cause low values, so can measuring more than one latent variable.
Confusion often surrounds the causes for high and low alpha scores. This can result in incorrectly
discarded tests or tests wrongly labeled as untrustworthy. Psychometrics professor Mohsen Tavakol and
medical education professor Reg Dennick suggest that improving your knowledge about internal
consistency and unidimensionality will lead to the correct use of Cronbach’s alpha1:
Unidimensionality in Cronbach’s alpha assumes the questions are only measuring one latent variable
or dimension. If you measure more than one dimension (either knowingly or unknowingly), the test result
may be meaningless. You could break the test into parts, measuring a different latent variable or
dimension with each part. If you aren’t sure about if your test is unidimensional or not, run Factor
Analysis to identify the dimensions in your test.

References
Lavrakas, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods 1st Edition. SAGE.
Mohsen Tavakol and Reg Dennick. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International Journal of Medical
Education. 2011; 2:53-55 Editorial
Salkind, N. (2015). Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics 1st Edition. SAGE.
CITE THIS AS:
Stephanie Glen. "Cronbach’s Alpha: Definition, Interpretation, SPSS" From StatisticsHowTo.com:
Elementary Statistics for the rest of
us! https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/statistics-definitions/cronbachs-alpha-spss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need help with a homework or test question? With Chegg Study, you can get step-by-step solutions to your
questions from an expert in the field. Your first 30 minutes with a Chegg tutor is free!
Comments? Need to post a correction? Please post a comment on our Facebook page.
StatisticsHowTo Facebook Page
Search
NEED HELP with a homework problem? CLICK HERE!

Need help with a homework or test question? With Chegg Study, you can get step-by-step solutions to your
questions from an expert in the field. Your first 30 minutes with a Chegg tutor is free!
Feel like “cheating” at Statistics? Check out our Practically Cheating Statistics Handbook, which gives you
hundreds of easy-to-follow answers in a PDF format. Recommended reading at top universities!
NEED HELP with a homework problem? CLICK HERE!

Close X

Cronbach's Alpha (α) using SPSS Statistics

Introduction
Cronbach's alpha is the most common measure of internal consistency ("reliability"). It is
most commonly used when you have multiple Likert questions in a survey/questionnaire
that form a scale and you wish to determine if the scale is reliable. If you are concerned
with inter-rater reliability, we also have a guide on using Cohen's (κ) kappa that you
might find useful.

SPSS Statistics
Example
A researcher has devised a nine-question questionnaire to measure how safe people
feel at work at an industrial complex. Each question was a 5-point Likert item from
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". In order to understand whether the questions in
this questionnaire all reliably measure the same latent variable (feeling of safety) (so a
Likert scale could be constructed), a Cronbach's alpha was run on a sample size of 15
workers.

SPSS Statistics
Setup in SPSS Statistics
In SPSS Statistics, the nine questions have been labelled Qu1 through to Qu9 . To
know how to correctly enter your data into SPSS Statistics in order to run a Cronbach's
alpha test, see our guide: Entering Data into SPSS Statistics. Alternately, you can learn
about our enhanced data setup content on our Features: Data Setup page.

Join the 10,000s of students, academics and professionals who rely

on Laerd Statistics.TAKE THE TOURPLANS & PRICING

SPSS Statistics
Test Procedure in SPSS Statistics
Cronbach's alpha can be carried out in SPSS Statistics using the Reliability
Analysis... procedure. In this section, we set out this 7-step procedure depending on
whether you have versions 26, 27 or 28 (or the subscription version of SPSS
Statistics) or version 25 or an earlier version of SPSS Statistics. The latest versions of
SPSS Statistics are version 28 and the subscription version. If you are unsure which
version of SPSS Statistics you are using, see our guide: Identifying your version of
SPSS Statistics. At the end of these seven steps, we show you how to interpret the
results from your Cronbach's alpha analysis.

SPSS Statistics versions 26, 27 and 28

(and the subscription version of SPSS Statistics)

1. Click Analyze > Scale > Reliability Analysis... on the top menu, as shown below:

Note: In version 27 and the subscription version, SPSS Statistics introduced a new look to
their interface called "SPSS Light", replacing the previous look for versions 26 and earlier
versions, which was called "SPSS Standard". Therefore, if you have SPSS Statistics versions
27 or 28 (or the subscription version of SPSS Statistics), the images that follow will be light
grey rather than blue. However, the procedure is identical in SPSS Statistics versions
26, 27 and 28 (and the subscription version of SPSS Statistics).

Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

You will be presented with the following Reliability Analysis dialogue box:
 Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

2. Transfer the variables Qu1 to Qu9 into the Items: box. You can do this by drag-and-

dropping the variables into their respective boxes or by using the button. You will
be presented with the following screen:
 Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

3. Leave the Model: option set as , which instructs SPSS Statistics to run
Cronbach's alpha.

Note: If you want to provide a name for the scale, enter it in the Scale label: box. Since this only
prints the name you enter at the top of the SPSS Statistics output, it is certainly not essential that
you do (in our example, we leave it blank).

4. Click on the button. You will be presented with the Reliability Analysis:
Statistics dialogue box, as shown below:
 Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

5. Select the Item, Scale and Scale if item deleted options in the –Descriptives for– area, and
the Correlations option in the –Inter-Item– area, as shown below:
 Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

6. Click on the button. This will return you to the Reliability Analysis dialogue
box.

7. Click on the button to generate the output.

Now that you have run the Cronbach's alpha procedure, we show you how to interpret your results in
the Interpreting Results section. You can skip the section below, which shows you how to carry out
Cronbach's alpha when you have SPSS Statistics version 25 or an earlier versions of SPSS Statistics.

SPSS Statistics version 25

and earlier versions of SPSS Statistics

1. Click Analyze > Scale > Reliability Analysis... on the top menu, as shown below:

Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

You will be presented with the following Reliability Analysis dialogue box:
 Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

2. Transfer the variables Qu1 to Qu9 into the Items: box. You can do this by drag-and-

dropping the variables into their respective boxes or by using the button. You will
be presented with the following screen:

Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

3. Leave the Model: option set as , which instructs SPSS Statistics to run
Cronbach's alpha.

Note: If you want to provide a name for the scale, enter it in the Scale label: box. Since this only
prints the name you enter at the top of the SPSS Statistics output, it is certainly not essential that
you do (in our example, we leave it blank).

4. Click on the button. You will be presented with the Reliability Analysis:
Statistics dialogue box, as shown below:
 Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

5. Select the Item, Scale and Scale if item deleted options in the –Descriptives for– area, and
the Correlations option in the –Inter-Item– area, as shown below:
 Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

6. Click on the button. This will return you to the Reliability Analysis dialogue
box.

7. Click on the button to generate the output.

Now that you have run the Cronbach's alpha procedure, we show you how to interpret your results in
the next section.
TAKE THE TOUR

PLANS & PRICING

SPSS Statistics
SPSS Statistics Output for Cronbach's Alpha

SPSS Statistics produces many different tables. The first important table is the Reliability Statistics table
that provides the actual value for Cronbach's alpha, as shown below:

Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

From our example, we can see that Cronbach's alpha is 0.805, which indicates a high
level of internal consistency for our scale with this specific sample.

SPSS Statistics
Item-Total Statistics
The Item-Total Statistics table presents the "Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted" in
the final column, as shown below:
Published with written permission from SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation.

This column presents the value that Cronbach's alpha would be if that particular item
was deleted from the scale. We can see that removal of any question, except question
8, would result in a lower Cronbach's alpha. Therefore, we would not want to remove
these questions. Removal of question 8 would lead to a small improvement in
Cronbach's alpha, and we can also see that the "Corrected Item-Total Correlation"
value was low (0.128) for this item. This might lead us to consider whether we should
remove this item.

Cronbach's alpha simply provides you with an overall reliability coefficient for a set of
variables (e.g., questions). If your questions reflect different underlying personal
qualities (or other dimensions), for example, employee motivation and employee
commitment, Cronbach's alpha will not be able to distinguish between these. In order to
do this and then check their reliability (using Cronbach's alpha), you will first need to run
a test such as a principal components analysis (PCA). You can learn how to carry out
principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS Statistics, as well as interpret and
write up your results, in our enhanced content. You can learn more on
our Features: Overview page. It is also possible to run Cronbach's alpha in Minitab.
Using and Interpreting Cronbach’s Alpha
I. What is Cronbach’s alpha?
Cronbach’s alpha is a measure used to assess the reliability, or internal consistency, of a
set of scale or test items. In other words, the reliability of any given measurement refers to
the extent to which it is a consistent measure of a concept, and Cronbach’s alpha is one
way of measuring the strength of that consistency.

Cronbach’s alpha is computed by correlating the score for each scale item with the total
score for each observation (usually individual survey respondents or test takers), and then
comparing that to the variance for all individual item scores:

α=(kk–1)(1–∑ki=1σ2yiσ2x)α=(kk–1)(1–∑i=1kσyi2σx2)

… kk refers to the number of scale items

where:

σ2yiσyi2 refers to the variance associated with item i

σ2xσx2 refers to the variance associated with the observed total scores

Alternatively, Cronbach’s alpha can also be defined as:

α=k×c¯v¯+(k–1)c¯α=k×c¯v¯+(k–1)c¯
…where: kk refers to the number of scale items

c¯c¯ refers to the average of all covariances between items

v¯v¯ refers to the average variance of each item

Cronbach’s alpha is thus a function of the number of items in a test, the average covariance
between pairs of items, and the variance of the total score.

II. How do I interpret Cronbach’s alpha?

The resulting αα coefficient of reliability ranges from 0 to 1 in providing this overall
assessment of a measure’s reliability. If all of the scale items are entirely independent from
one another (i.e., are not correlated or share no covariance), then αα = 0; and, if all of the
items have high covariances, then αα will approach 1 as the number of items in the scale
approaches infinity. In other words, the higher the αα coefficient, the more the items have
shared covariance and probably measure the same underlying concept.
 Although the standards for what makes a “good” αα coefficient are entirely arbitrary and
depend on your theoretical knowledge of the scale in question, many methodologists
recommend a minimum αα coefficient between 0.65 and 0.8 (or higher in many
cases); αα coefficients that are less than 0.5 are usually unacceptable, especially for scales
purporting to be unidimensional (but see Section III for more on dimensionality).
For example, let’s consider the six scale items from the American National Election Study
(ANES) that purport to measure “equalitarianism”—or an individual’s predisposition toward
egalitarianism—all of which were measured using a five-point scale ranging from ‘agree
strongly’ to ‘disagree strongly’:

 Our society should do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal
opportunity to succeed.
 We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country. (reverse worded)
 One of the big problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance.
 This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are. (reverse
worded)
 It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others.
(reverse worded)
 If people were treated more equally in this country we would have many fewer problems.

After accounting for the reversely-worded items, this scale has a reasonably
strong αα coefficient of 0.67 based on responses during the 2008 wave of the ANES data
collection. In part because of this αα coefficient, and in part because these items exhibit
strong face validity and construct validity (see Section III), I feel comfortable saying that
these items do indeed tap into an underlying construct of egalitarianism among
respondents.
In interpreting a scale’s αα coefficient, remember that a high αα is both a function of the
covariances among items and the number of items in the analysis, so a high αα coefficient
isn’t in and of itself the mark of a “good” or reliable set of items; you can often increase
the αα coefficient simply by increasing the number of items in the analysis. In fact, because
highly correlated items will also produce a high αα coefficient, if it’s very high (i.e., > 0.95),
you may be risking redundancy in your scale items.
III. What ISN’T Cronbach’s alpha?
Cronbach’s alpha is not a measure of dimensionality, nor a test of unidimensionality. In fact,
it’s possible to produce a high αα coefficient for scales of similar length and variance, even
if there are multiple underlying dimensions. To check for dimensionality, you’ll perhaps want
to conduct an exploratory factor analysis.
Cronbach’s alpha is also not a measure of validity, or the extent to which a scale records
the “true” value or score of the concept you’re trying to measure without capturing any
unintended characteristics. For example, word problems in an algebra class may indeed
capture a student’s math ability, but they may also capture verbal abilities or even test
anxiety, which, when factored into a test score, may not provide the best measure of her
true math ability.

A reliable measure is one that contains zero or very little random measurement error—i.e.,
anything that might introduce arbitrary or haphazard distortion into the measurement
process, resulting in inconsistent measurements. However, it need not be free of systematic
error—anything that might introduce consistent and chronic distortion in measuring the
underlying concept of interest—in order to be reliable; it only needs to be consistent. For
example, if we try to measure egalitarianism through a precise recording of a(n adult)
person’s height, the measure may be highly reliable, but also wildly invalid as a measure of
the underlying concept.

In short, you’ll need more than a simple test of reliability to fully assess how “good” a scale
is at measuring a concept. You will want to assess the scale’s face validity by using your
theoretical and substantive knowledge and asking whether or not there are good reasons to
think that a particular measure is or is not an accurate gauge of the intended underlying
concept. And, in addition, you can address construct validity by examining whether or not
there exist empirical relationships between your measure of the underlying concept of
interest and other concepts to which it should be theoretically related.

IV. How can I compute Cronbach’s alpha?

In the event that you do not want to calculate αα by hand (!), it is thankfully very easy using
statistical software. Let’s assume that the six scale items in question are named Q1, Q2,
Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q6, and see below for examples in SPSS, Stata, and R.
In SPSS:
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA.

Note that in specifying /MODEL=ALPHA, we’re specifically requesting the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient, but there are other options for assessing reliability, including split-half, Guttman,
and parallel analyses, among others.
The above syntax will produce only some very basic summary output; in addition to
the αα coefficient, SPSS will also provide the number of valid observations used in the
analysis and the number of scale items you specified. You may, however, want some more
detailed information about the items and the overall scale. Consider the following syntax:
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE CORR COV
/SUMMARY=MEANS VARIANCE COV CORR.

With the /SUMMARY line, you can specify which descriptive statistics you want for all items
in the aggregate; this will produce the Summary Item Statistics table, which provide the
overall item means and variances in addition to the inter-item covariances and correlations.
The /STATISTICS line provides several additional options as
well: DESCRIPTIVE produces statistics for each item (in contrast to the overall statistics
captured through /SUMMARY described above), SCALE produces statistics related to the
scale resulting from combining all of the individual items, CORR produces the full inter-item
correlation matrix, and COV produces the full inter-item covariance matrix.
In Stata:
alpha Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

The above syntax will provide the average inter-item covariance, the number of items in the
scale, and the αα coefficient; however, as with the SPSS syntax above, if we want some
more detailed information about the items and the overall scale, we can request this by
adding “options” to the above command (in Stata, anything that follows the first comma is
considered an option). For example:
alpha Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6, asis std item detail gen(SCALE)

The asis option takes the sign of each item as it is; if you have reversely-worded items in
your scale, whether or not you want to use this option depends on if you’ve already
reversed scored those items in the Q1-Q6 variables as entered. Alternatively, you might
want to use the option reverse(ITEMS) to reverse the signs of any items/variables you
list in between the parentheses.
The std option standardizes items in the scale to have a mean of 0 and a variance of 1
(again, whether or not you use this option might depend on whether or not you’ve already
standardized the variables Q1-Q6), the detail option will list individual inter-item
correlations and covariances, and gen(SCALE) will use these six items to generate a scale
and save it into a new variable called SCALE (or whatever else you specify in between the
parentheses).
Finally, the item option will produce a table displaying the number of non-missing
observations for each item, the correlation of each item with the summed index (“item-test”
correlations), the correlation of each item with the summed index with that item excluded
(“item-rest” correlations), the covariance between items and the summed index, and what
the αα coefficient for the scale would be were each item to be excluded. Type help
alpha in Stata’s command line for more options.
In R:
There are many ways of calculating Cronbach’s alpha in R using a variety of different
packages. One option utilizes the psy package, which, if not already on your computer, can
be installed by issuing the following command:

install.packages("psy")

You then load this package by specifying:

library(psy)

The variables Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q6 should be defined as a matrix or data frame
called X (or any name you decide to give it); then issue the following command:

cronbach(X)

This will output the number of observations, the number of items in your scale, and the
resulting αα coefficient. Additional documentation for the psy package can be found here.
Alternatively, the psych package offers a way of calculating Cronbach’s alpha with a wider
variety of arguments; see further documentation and examples here, here, and here.
V. Can I compute Cronbach’s alpha with binary variables?
Yes! If all of the scale items you want to analyze are binary and you compute Cronbach’s
alpha, you’re actually running an analysis called the Kuder-Richardson 20. The formula for
Cronbach’s alpha builds on the KR-20 formula to make it suitable for items with scaled
responses (e.g., Likert scaled items) and continuous variables, so the underlying math is, if
anything, simpler for items with dichotomous response options. After running this test, you’ll
get the same αα coefficient and other similar output, and you can interpret this output in the
same ways described above.

Medical educators attempt to create reliable and valid tests and

questionnaires in order to enhance the accuracy of their assessment and
evaluations. Validity and reliability are two fundamental elements in the
evaluation of a measurement instrument. Instruments can be
conventional knowledge, skill or attitude tests, clinical simulations or
survey questionnaires. Instruments can measure concepts, psychomotor
skills or affective values. Validity is concerned with the extent to which
an instrument measures what it is intended to measure. Reliability is
concerned with the ability of an instrument to measure consistently. 1 It
should be noted that the reliability of an instrument is closely associated
with its validity. An instrument cannot be valid unless it is reliable.
However, the reliability of an instrument does not depend on its
validity.2 It is possible to objectively measure the reliability of an
instrument and in this paper we explain the meaning of Cronbach’s
alpha, the most widely used objective measure of reliability.

Calculating alpha has become common practice in medical education

research when multiple-item measures of a concept or construct are
employed. This is because it is easier to use in comparison to other
estimates (e.g. test-retest reliability estimates)3 as it only requires one
test administration. However, in spite of the widespread use of alpha in
the literature the meaning, proper use and interpretation of alpha is not
clearly understood. 2, 4, 5 We feel it is important, therefore, to further
explain the underlying assumptions behind alpha in order to promote its
more effective use. It should be emphasised that the purpose of this brief
overview is just to focus on Cronbach’s alpha as an index of reliability.
Alternative methods of measuring reliability based on other
psychometric methods, such as generalisability theory or item-response
theory, can be used for monitoring and improving the quality of OSCE
examinations 6-10, but will not be discussed here.

What is Cronbach alpha?

Alpha was developed by Lee Cronbach in 195111 to provide a measure of

the internal consistency of a test or scale; it is expressed as a number
between 0 and 1. Internal consistency describes the extent to which all
the items in a test measure the same concept or construct and hence it is
connected to the inter-relatedness of the items within the test. Internal
consistency should be determined before a test can be employed for
research or examination purposes to ensure validity. In addition,
reliability estimates show the amount of measurement error in a test.
Put simply, this interpretation of reliability is the correlation of test with
itself. Squaring this correlation and subtracting from 1.00 produces the
index of measurement error. For example, if a test has a reliability of
0.80, there is 0.36 error variance (random error) in the scores
(0.80×0.80 = 0.64; 1.00 – 0.64 = 0.36).12 As the estimate of reliability
increases, the fraction of a test score that is attributable to error will
decrease.2 It is of note that the reliability of a test reveals the effect of
measurement error on the observed score of a student cohort rather
than on an individual student. To calculate the effect of measurement
error on the observed score of an individual student, the standard error
of measurement must be calculated (SEM).13

If the items in a test are correlated to each other, the value of alpha is
increased. However, a high coefficient alpha does not always mean a high
degree of internal consistency. This is because alpha is also affected by
the length of the test. If the test length is too short, the value of alpha is
reduced.2, 14 Thus, to increase alpha, more related items testing the same
concept should be added to the test. It is also important to note that
alpha is a property of the scores on a test from a specific sample of
testees. Therefore investigators should not rely on published alpha
estimates and should measure alpha each time the test is administered.14

Use of Cronbach’s alpha

Improper use of alpha can lead to situations in which either a test or

scale is wrongly discarded or the test is criticised for not generating
trustworthy results. To avoid this situation an understanding of the
associated concepts of internal consistency, homogeneity or
unidimensionality can help to improve the use of alpha. Internal
consistency is concerned with the interrelatedness of a sample of test
items, whereas homogeneity refers to unidimensionality. A measure is
said to be unidimensional if its items measure a single latent trait or
construct. Internal consistency is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for measuring homogeneity or unidimensionality in a sample of test
items. 5, 15 Fundamentally, the concept of reliability assumes that
unidimensionality exists in a sample of test items16 and if this assumption
is violated it does cause a major underestimate of reliability. It has been
well documented that a multidimensional test does not necessary have a
lower alpha than a unidimensional test. Thus a more rigorous view of
alpha is that it cannot simply be interpreted as an index for the internal
consistency of a test. 5, 15, 17

Factor Analysis can be used to identify the dimensions of a test.18 Other

reliable techniques have been used and we encourage the reader to
consult the paper “Applied Dimensionality and Test Structure
Assessment with the START-M Mathematics Test” and to compare
methods for assessing the dimensionality and underlying structure of a
test.19

Alpha, therefore, does not simply measure the unidimensionality of a set

of items, but can be used to confirm whether or not a sample of items is
actually unidimensional.5 On the other hand if a test has more than one
concept or construct, it may not make sense to report alpha for the test
as a whole as the larger number of questions will inevitable inflate the
value of alpha. In principle therefore, alpha should be calculated for each
of the concepts rather than for the entire test or scale. 2, 3 The implication
for a summative examination containing heterogeneous, case-based
questions is that alpha should be calculated for each case.

More importantly, alpha is grounded in the ‘tau equivalent model’ which

assumes that each test item measures the same latent trait on the same
scale. Therefore, if multiple factors/traits underlie the items on a scale,
as revealed by Factor Analysis, this assumption is violated and alpha
underestimates the reliability of the test.17 If the number of test items is
too small it will also violate the assumption of tau-equivalence and will
underestimate reliability.20 When test items meet the assumptions of the
tau-equivalent model, alpha approaches a better estimate of reliability.
In practice, Cronbach’s alpha is a lower-bound estimate of reliability
because heterogeneous test items would violate the assumptions of the
tau-equivalent model.5 If the calculation of “standardised item alpha” in
SPSS is higher than “Cronbach’s alpha”, a further examination of the tau-
equivalent measurement in the data may be essential.
Numerical values of alpha

As pointed out earlier, the number of test items, item inter-relatedness

and dimensionality affect the value of alpha.5 There are different reports
about the acceptable values of alpha, ranging from 0.70 to 0.95. 2, 21, 22 A
low value of alpha could be due to a low number of questions, poor inter-
relatedness between items or heterogeneous constructs. For example if a
low alpha is due to poor correlation between items then some should be
revised or discarded. The easiest method to find them is to compute the
correlation of each test item with the total score test; items with low
correlations (approaching zero) are deleted. If alpha is too high it may
suggest that some items are redundant as they are testing the same
question but in a different guise. A maximum alpha value of 0.90 has
been recommended.14

Summary

High quality tests are important to evaluate the reliability of data

supplied in an examination or a research study. Alpha is a commonly
employed index of test reliability. Alpha is affected by the test length and
dimensionality. Alpha as an index of reliability should follow the
assumptions of the essentially tau-equivalent approach. A low alpha
appears if these assumptions are not meet. Alpha does not simply
measure test homogeneity or unidimensionality as test reliability is a
function of test length. A longer test increases the reliability of a test
regardless of whether the test is homogenous or not. A high value of
alpha (> 0.90) may suggest redundancies and show that the test length
should be shortened.
Go to:

Conclusions

Alpha is an important concept in the evaluation of assessments and

questionnaires. It is mandatory that assessors and researchers should
estimate this quantity to add validity and accuracy to the interpretation
of their data. Nevertheless alpha has frequently been reported in an
uncritical way and without adequate understanding and interpretation.
In this editorial we have attempted to explain the assumptions
underlying the calculation of alpha, the factors influencing its magnitude
and the ways in which its value can be interpreted. We hope that
investigators in future will be more critical when reporting values of
alpha in their studies.
Go to:

References
1. Tavakol M, Mohagheghi MA, Dennick R. Assessing the skills of surgical residents
using simulation. J Surg Educ. 2008;65(2):77-83. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2007.11.003
[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Nunnally J, Bernstein L. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher, INC;
1994.
3. Cohen R, Swerdlik M. Psychological testing and assessment. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education; 2010. [Google Scholar]
4. Schmitt N.Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological
Assessment. 1996;8:350-3. 10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Cortina J.What is coefficient alpha: an examination of theory and
applications. Journal of applied psychology. 1993;78:98-104. 10.1037/0021-
9010.78.1.98 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Schoonheim-Klein M, Muijtjens A, Habets L, Manogue M, Van der Vleuten C,
Hoogstraten J, et al. On the reliability of a dental OSCE, using SEM: effect of different
days. Eur J Dent Educ. 2008;12:131-7. 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2008.00507.x [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Eberhard L, Hassel A, Bä umer A, Becker J, Beck-Mußotter J, Bö micke W, et
al. Analysis of quality and feasibility of an objective structured clinical examination
(OSCE) in preclinical dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2011;15:1-7.
10.1111/j.1600-0579.2010.00653.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Auewarakul C, Downing S, Praditsuwan R, Jaturatamrong U.Item analysis to
improve reliability for an internal medicine undergraduate OSCE. Adv Health Sci
Educ Theory Pract. 2005;10:105-13. 10.1007/s10459-005-2315-3 [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Iramaneerat C, Yudkowsky R, CM. M, Downing S. Quality control of an OSCE using
generalizability theory and many-faceted Rasch measurement. Adv Health Sci Educ
Theory Pract. 2008;13:479-93. 10.1007/s10459-007-9060-8 [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Lawson D.Applying generalizability theory to high-stakes objective structured
clinical examinations in a naturalistic environment. J Manipulative Physiol
Ther. 2006;29:463-7. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
11. Cronbach L.Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychomerika. 1951;16:297-334. 10.1007/BF02310555 [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
12. Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis New York: Routledge; 1994. [Google
Scholar]
13. Tavakol M, Dennick R.post-examination analysis of objective tests. Med
Teach. 2011;33:447-58. 10.3109/0142159X.2011.564682 [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Streiner D.Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and
internal consistency. Journal of personality assessment. 2003;80:99-103.
10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Green S, Lissitz R, Mulaik S.Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test
unidimensionlity. Educational Psychological Measurement. 1977;37:827-38.
10.1177/001316447703700403 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Miller M.Coefficient alpha: a basic introduction from the perspectives of classical
test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling. 1995;2:255-73. 10.1080/10705519509540013 [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
17. Green S, Thompson M. Structural equation modeling in clinical psychology
research In: Roberts M, Ilardi S, editors. Handbook of research in clinical
psychology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2005. [Google Scholar]
18. Tate R.A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of
responses to test items. Applied Psychological Measurement. 2003;27:159-203.
10.1177/0146621603027003001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Jasper F.Applied dimensionality and test structure assessment with the START-
M mathematics test. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological
Assessment. 2010;6:104-25 [Google Scholar]
20. Graham J.Congeneric and (Essentially) Tau-Equivalent estimates of score
reliability: what they are and how to use them. Educational Psychological
Measurement. 2006;66:930-44. 10.1177/0013164406288165 [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
21. Bland J, Altman D.Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314:275.
10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. DeVellis R. Scale development: theory and applications: theory and application.
Thousand Okas, CA: Sage; 2003. [Google Scholar]