TY  - JOUR
T1  - Estimating Internal Consistency: Did We Choose the Right Coefficient?
TT  - İç Tutarlılığın Tahmini: Doğru Katsayıyı Seçtik mi?
AU  - Montoro-pérez, Néstor
AU  - Escribano, Silvia
PY  - 2026
DA  - February
Y2  - 2026
DO  - 10.62425/jopres.1789821
JF  - Journal of Psychometric Research
JO  - Journal of Psychometric Research
PB  - Atatürk Üniversitesi
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 3023-4646
SP  - 70
EP  - 76
VL  - 4
IS  - 1
LA  - en
AB  - Internal consistency is a concept extensively used in academic discourse, yet its definition remains debated. In the context of validation studies, it is noteworthy that, although internal consistency is commonly assessed, some studies could benefit from employing more accurate estimators that are better suited to the underlying factorial structure. These editorial addresses the various recommended estimators for calculating internal consistency based on the characteristics of the studied model. We explore one-dimensional measures, identifying when estimators such as α are suitable, particularly for tau-equivalent models. For congeneric measurement models, coefficient ω is recommended. We also discuss complex models incorporating multidimensional structures, including essential unidimensionality, scales with multiple correlated or uncorrelated factors, and higher-order models. Researchers should avoid reporting the total internal consistency of the instrument unless unidimensionality or a higher-order factor structure has been demonstrated. When data are approximately unidimensional, measures are congeneric with moderate factor loadings, and sample sizes are large, it is reasonable to report both α and ω.
KW  - Internal Consistency
KW  - Reliability
KW  - Psychometrics
N2  - İç tutarlılık, akademik söylemde yaygın olarak kullanılan bir kavramdır ancak tanımı hâlâ tartışmalıdır. Geçerlilik çalışmaları bağlamında, iç tutarlılığın yaygın olarak değerlendirildiği, ancak bazı çalışmaların altta yatan faktör yapısına daha uygun ve daha doğru tahmin edicilerden faydalanabileceği dikkate değerdir. Bu editoryal, incelenen modelin özelliklerine göre iç tutarlılığın hesaplanması için önerilen çeşitli tahmin edicileri ele almaktadır. Tek boyutlu ölçümleri inceliyor, α gibi tahmin edicilerin özellikle tau-eşdeğer modeller için ne zaman uygun olduğunu belirtiyoruz. Kongenerik ölçüm modelleri için ω katsayısı önerilmektedir. Ayrıca, zorunlu tek boyutluluk, birden fazla ilişkili veya ilişkisiz faktöre sahip ölçekler ve üst düzey modeller dahil olmak üzere çok boyutlu yapıları içeren karmaşık modelleri de tartışıyoruz. Araştırmacılar, tek boyutluluk veya üst düzey faktör yapısı gösterilmedikçe aracın toplam iç tutarlılığını raporlamaktan kaçınmalıdır. Veriler yaklaşık olarak tek boyutlu olduğunda, ölçümler orta düzey faktör yüklerine sahip kongenerik ise ve örneklem büyüklüğü büyükse, hem α hem de ω’nun raporlanması makuldür.
CR  - Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
CR  - Bentler, P. M. (2021). Alpha, FACTT, and beyond. Psychometrika, 86(4), 861-868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09797-8
CR  - Berge, J. M. F. T. (2014). Tau‐equivalent and congeneric measurements. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat06393
CR  - Bollen, K. A. (1980). Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review, 45(3), 370. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095172
CR  - Cho, E., & Béland, S. (2025). Reliability in unidimensional ordinal data: A comparison of continuous and ordinal estimators. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000739
CR  - Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555
CR  - Crutzen, R., & Peters, G. Y. (2015). Scale quality: Alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all. Health Psychology Review, 11(3), 242-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1124240
CR  - Doval, E., Viladrich, C., & Angulo-Brunet, A. (2023). Coefficient alpha: The resistance of a classic. Psicothema, 35(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2022.321
CR  - Flora, D. B. (2020). Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using r to obtain better reliability estimates. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 484-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951747
CR  - Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.7275/n560-j767
CR  - Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(6), 930-944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288165
CR  - Green, S. B., & Hershberger, S. L. (2000). Correlated errors in true score models and their effect on coefficient alpha. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(2), 251-270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0702_6
CR  - Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2015). Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educational Measurement Issues And Practice, 34(4), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12100
CR  - Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality1. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 37(4), 827-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447703700403
CR  - Gu, F., Little, T. D., & Kingston, N. M. (2012). Misestimation of reliability using coefficient alpha and structural equation modeling when assumptions of tau-equivalence and uncorrelated errors are violated. Methodology, 9(1), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000052
CR  - Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1086/376806
CR  - Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36(2), 109-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291393
CR  - Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
CR  - McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34(1), 100-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1981.tb00621.x
CR  - Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(3), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519509540013
CR  - Mokkink, L. B., Elsman, E. B., & Terwee, C. B. (2024). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0. Quality of Life Research, 33(11), 2929-2939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6
CR  - Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
CR  - Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
CR  - Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., De Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147-1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
CR  - Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
CR  - Raykov, T. (2004). Point and interval estimation of reliability for multiple-component measuring instruments via linear constraint covariance structure modeling. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 342-356. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_3
CR  - Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2012a). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
CR  - Reise, S. P. (2012b). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
CR  - Revelle, W. (1979). Hierarchical cluster analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1401_4
CR  - Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M. (2019). Reliability from α to ω: A tutorial. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1395-1411. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000754
CR  - Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2015). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
CR  - Sijtsma, K. (2008). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
CR  - Sijtsma, K., & Pfadt, J. M. (2021). Part II: On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha: Discussing lower bounds and correlated errors. Psychometrika, 86(4), 843-860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09789-8
CR  - Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52(4), 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294821
CR  - Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8001_18
CR  - Tang, W., Cui, Y., & Babenko, O. (2014). Internal consistency: Do we really know what it is and how to assess it? Journal of Psychology & Behavioral Science, 2(2), 205–220. https://jpbs.thebhprj.org/journals/jpbs/Vol_2_No_2_June_2014/13.pdf
CR  - Thorndike, R. M. (1995). Book review: Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.) by Jum Nunnally and Ira Bernstein New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, xxiv + 752 pp. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(3), 303-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900308
CR  - Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755 –782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
CR  - Yung, Y., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64(2), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294531
CR  - Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. (2015). Robust coefficients alpha and omega and confidence intervals with outlying observations and missing data. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 76(3), 387-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415594658
CR  - Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, revelle’s β, and mcdonald’s ωh: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
CR  - Zumbo, B. D., & Kroc, E. (2019). A measurement is a choice and stevens’ scales of measurement do not help make it: A response to chalmers. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 79(6), 1184-1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419844305
UR  - https://doi.org/10.62425/jopres.1789821
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/5268312
ER  -