Accuracy and Sensitivity of Coefficient Alpha and Its Alternatives with Unidimensional and Contaminated Scales

We compared coefficient alpha with five alternatives (omega total, omega RT, omega h, GLB, and coefficient H) in two simulation studies. Results showed for unidimensional scales, (a) all indices except omega h performed similarly well for most conditions; (b) alpha is still good; (c) GLB and coefficient H overestimated reliability with small samples and short scales, and (d) sensitivity to scale quality reduced with longer scales. For contaminated scales, (a) all indices except omega h were reasonably unbiased with non-severe contamination; (b) alpha, omega total, and GLB were more sensitive in picking up contamination with shorter scales, whereas omega RT and omega h were not; and (c) coefficient H could not pick up contaminated items among high-quality items. For applied researchers, (a) supplementary information of scale characteristics helps choose the appropriate index; (b) comparing different scales with one golden standard is inappropriate; (c) omega h should not be used alone.

Automated summary

We compared coefficient alpha with five alternatives in two simulation studies. Results showed that alpha performed well for unidimensional scales, but GLB and coefficient H overestimated reliability with small samples and short scales. For contaminated scales, all indices except omega h were reasonably unbiased with non-severe contamination, but alpha, omega total, and GLB were more sensitive in picking up contamination with shorter scales. Applied researchers should consider supplementary information of scale characteristics, avoid comparing different scales with one golden standard, and not use omega h alone.