{"id":1316,"date":"2014-10-21T14:06:55","date_gmt":"2014-10-21T12:06:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ijph.blogs.springer.com\/?p=1316"},"modified":"2014-10-21T14:06:55","modified_gmt":"2014-10-21T12:06:55","slug":"the-reliability-of-a-two-item-scale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/international-journal-of-public-health\/the-reliability-of-a-two-item-scale\/","title":{"rendered":"The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Golden trophy for IJPH paper!"},"content":{"rendered":"

We were happy to be informed that a recent IJPH paper has been identified as a “highly cited paper<\/a> ” in “Essential Science Indicators<\/a>” in Web of Science, which resulted in the award of a golden trophy (virtual, I presume!)<\/p>\n

The paper is called “The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown”<\/a> and belongs to our Hints and Kinks* section. The paper aims to clear the confusion regarding which is the most appropriate reliability indicator for 2-item scales: the most frequently used Cronbach’s alpha coefficient or -as suggested by others- Pearson or Spearman-Brown?<\/p>\n

We would like to congratulate the authors Rob\u00a0Eisinga<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Manfred\u00a0te\u00a0Grotenhuis<\/span><\/a>and <\/span>Ben\u00a0Pelzer<\/a> from Radboud University<\/a> in the Netherlands!
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We welcome any comments on this paper and\/or your submissions to our Hints and Kinks section (see below for details)<\/p>\n

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/<\/p>\n

*Hints and Kinks are short methodological reports (1000 words max., no abstract) presenting topics relevant in survey research and surveillance. They report on experiences with techniques in a variety of areas and topics, such as writing questions, questionnaire design, survey implementation, or new and original ways to show results.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We were happy to be informed that a recent IJPH paper has been identified as a “highly cited paper ” in “Essential Science Indicators” in Web of Science, which resulted in the award of a golden trophy (virtual, I presume!) The paper is called “The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown” and… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":301,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[201,418,568,651,744,822,841],"class_list":["post-1316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-international-journal-of-public-health","tag-cronbach","tag-ijph","tag-methods","tag-pearson","tag-reliability","tag-spearman-brown","tag-statistics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/301"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.springer.com\/ijph\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}