Reliability: Floramae Z. Campos Student/MA-GC
Reliability: Floramae Z. Campos Student/MA-GC
Reliability: Floramae Z. Campos Student/MA-GC
Floramae Z. Campos
Student/MA-GC
MEANING
1. 4 4 11. 3 3
2. 6 6 12. 5 6
3. 8 5 13. 4 2
4. 3 5 14. 6 6
5. 1 1 15. 2 2
6. 8 8 16. 9 9
7. 6 6 17. 6 4
8. 7 6 18. 4 4
9. 4 4 19. 7 7
10. 8 9 20. 8 8
Parallel – forms reliability
– This reliability various names such as,
– Alternative- forms reliability
– Equivalent –forms reliability
– Comparable – forms reliability
– Compares two equivalent forms of a test that measures the same
attribute.
– If the correlation between the alternative forms is low, it could indicate
that considerable measurement error is present, because two different
scales were used.
Form A Form B
1. 80 75
2. 70 65
3. 95 90
4. 40 45
5. 30 25
6. 90 95
Split – half reliability
– Other name Internal Consistency
reliability
– It indicates the homogeneity of the
test
– This method the test is divided into
two equal or nearly halves
– Common way of this test is the odd-
even method
– Indicates that subjects’ scores on
some trials consistently match their
scores on other trials
© Thatchinamoorthy, PhD scholar
Kuder – Richardson Reliability and
coefficient alpha
• Fourth method on finding reliability , also utilizing a single
administration of a single form, is based on the consistency of
responses to all items in the test.
• Instead of comparing responses on two-halves of the test as in
split-half reliability, this approach examines consistency of
responding to all individual items on the test.
Kuder – Richardson Reliability
Σ pq
r KR20
= ( k-
k
1 )( 1 –
σ 2 )
k = 10
Σ pq = 2.05
σ 2
= 5.57
r KR20
= ( )(10
10
- 1
1 –
2.05
5.57 )
r KR20
= 1.11 * 0.63
KR20
0.70
Σ (X– X) (Y – Y)
r = √ [Σ (X –
xy X) 2
] [Σ (Y– Y) 2
]
Σ (X– X) (Y – Y) = 12.66
√ [Σ (X – X) 2
] [Σ (Y– Y) 2
] = 82.72
12.66
r =
xy 82.72
r xy = 0.15
2rhh
r = 1+r
SB hh
2 * 0.15
rSB= 1 + 0.15
0.3
rSB= 1.15
rxy = 0.26
Pearson correlation coefficient
Cronbach alpha
Factors influencing
Reliability of Test Scores