Meta-Analysis of Coefficient Alpha: Empirical Demonstration Using English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory
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
Cronbach’s alpha is a reliability coefficient commonly reported in second language (L2) and English language teaching (ELT) studies. The alpha coefficient provides information on the internal consistency of a measuring instrument. The reported alpha coefficients are obtained from, and apply only to, the research sample. However, the estimation of the alpha coefficient for the population has not received the attention of L2 and ELT researchers. This study aims to provide an overview of the alpha coefficient estimation procedure of a measuring instrument for a population with the reliability generalization method, commonly known as alpha coefficient meta-analysis. An example alpha coefficient meta-analysis study—using empirical data of the 29-item English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) from 27 independent study samples—was conducted to provide an overview of the procedure for applying the method and the information that needs to be reported from the results of the analysis. The results of the study using a random-effect model show that the population alpha of ELTRI was 0.872, indicating excellent reliability; this is followed by application of a mixed-effect model that shows that article type and means of teaching experience significantly impacted ELTRI reliability. Implications for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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