MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142892303 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.87.3f.1171

Creating Comparability among Reliability Coefficients: The Case of Cronbach Alpha and Cohen Kappa

2000· article· en· W2142892303 on OpenAlexaff
Gilbert Becker

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaComparabilityKappaPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Alpha (finance)EstimatorStatisticsMetric (unit)Cohen's kappaContrast (vision)Complement (music)PsychometricsSocial psychologyClinical psychologyMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cronbach alpha and Cohen kappa were compared and found to differ along two major facets. A fourfold classification system based on these facets clarifies the double contrast and produces a common metric allowing direct comparability. A new estimator, coefficient beta, is introduced in the process and is presented as a complement to coefficient alpha in estimating the psychometric properties of test scores and ratings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.289
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.692
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2890.692
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207