MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298555240 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.12.1.p057

Impact on Cronbach's alpha of simple treatment methods for missing data

2016· article· en· W2298555240 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaSimple (philosophy)Alpha (finance)Missing dataComputer scienceStatisticsPsychologyMathematicsPsychometricsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scientific treatment of missing data has been the subject of research for nearly a century. Strangely, interest in missing data is quite new in the fields of educational science and psychology It is now important to better understand how various common methods for dealing with missing data can affect widely-used psychometric coefficients. The purpose of this study is to compare the impact of ten common fill-in methods on Cronbach's We use simulation studies to investigate the behavior of in various situations. Our results show that multiple imputation is the most effective method. Furthermore, simple imputation methods like Winer imputation, item mean, and total mean are interesting alternatives for specific situations. These methods can be easily used by non-statisticians such as teachers and school psychologists.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.228
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.228
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.890
GPT teacher head0.756
Teacher spread0.134 · 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