↓ Skip to main content

Statistical power as a function of Cronbach alpha of instrument questionnaire items

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
847 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statistical power as a function of Cronbach alpha of instrument questionnaire items
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0070-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moonseong Heo, Namhee Kim, Myles S. Faith

Abstract

In countless number of clinical trials, measurements of outcomes rely on instrument questionnaire items which however often suffer measurement error problems which in turn affect statistical power of study designs. The Cronbach alpha or coefficient alpha, here denoted by C α , can be used as a measure of internal consistency of parallel instrument items that are developed to measure a target unidimensional outcome construct. Scale score for the target construct is often represented by the sum of the item scores. However, power functions based on C α have been lacking for various study designs. We formulate a statistical model for parallel items to derive power functions as a function of C α under several study designs. To this end, we assume fixed true score variance assumption as opposed to usual fixed total variance assumption. That assumption is critical and practically relevant to show that smaller measurement errors are inversely associated with higher inter-item correlations, and thus that greater C α is associated with greater statistical power. We compare the derived theoretical statistical power with empirical power obtained through Monte Carlo simulations for the following comparisons: one-sample comparison of pre- and post-treatment mean differences, two-sample comparison of pre-post mean differences between groups, and two-sample comparison of mean differences between groups. It is shown that C α is the same as a test-retest correlation of the scale scores of parallel items, which enables testing significance of C α . Closed-form power functions and samples size determination formulas are derived in terms of C α , for all of the aforementioned comparisons. Power functions are shown to be an increasing function of C α , regardless of comparison of interest. The derived power functions are well validated by simulation studies that show that the magnitudes of theoretical power are virtually identical to those of the empirical power. Regardless of research designs or settings, in order to increase statistical power, development and use of instruments with greater C α , or equivalently with greater inter-item correlations, is crucial for trials that intend to use questionnaire items for measuring research outcomes. Further development of the power functions for binary or ordinal item scores and under more general item correlation strutures reflecting more real world situations would be a valuable future study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 847 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 847 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 3%
Student > Bachelor 16 2%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 2%
Student > Postgraduate 10 1%
Lecturer 10 1%
Other 28 3%
Unknown 747 88%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 21 2%
Social Sciences 14 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 1%
Computer Science 7 <1%
Other 29 3%
Unknown 756 89%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2019.
All research outputs
#14,475,478
of 24,460,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,376
of 2,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,053
of 284,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,460,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.