The Impact of Measurement Model Misspecification on Coefficient Omega Estimates of Composite Reliability
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coefficient omega indices are model-based composite reliability estimates that have become increasingly popular. A coefficient omega index estimates how reliably an observed composite score measures a target construct as represented by a factor in a factor-analysis model; as such, the accuracy of omega estimates is likely to depend on correct model specification. The current paper presents a simulation study to investigate the performance of omega-unidimensional (based on the parameters of a one-factor model) and omega-hierarchical (based on a bifactor model) under correct and incorrect model misspecification for high and low reliability composites and different scale lengths. Our results show that coefficient omega estimates are unbiased when calculated from the parameter estimates of a properly specified model. However, omega-unidimensional produced positively biased estimates when the population model was characterized by unmodeled error correlations or multidimensionality, whereas omega-hierarchical was only slightly biased when the population model was either a one-factor model with correlated errors or a higher-order model. These biases were higher when population reliability was lower and increased with scale length. Researchers should carefully evaluate the feasibility of a one-factor model before estimating and reporting omega-unidimensional.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it