Expanding G-Theory Models to Incorporate Congeneric Relationships: Illustrations Using the Big Five Inventory

References

• Ark, T. K. (2015). Ordinal generalizability theory using an underlying latent variable framework [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0166304
   Google Scholar
• Becker, G. (2000). How important is transient error in estimating reliability? Going beyond simulation studies. Psychological Methods, 5(3), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.5.3.370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, R. L. (2001a). Generalizability theory. Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, R. L. (2001b). Manual for mGENOVA (Version 2.1) (Iowa Testing Programs Occasional Papers No. 50). [University of Iowa, IA Testing Programs].
   Google Scholar
• Chmielewski, M., & Watson, D. (2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1947). Test “ reliability; its meaning and determination”. Psychometrika, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289289
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Deng, L., & Chan, W. (2017). Testing the difference between reliability coefficients alpha and omega. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416658325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiser, C., & Lockhart, G. (2012). A comparison of four approaches to account for method effects in latent state-trait analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
   Google Scholar
• Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(6), 930–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2009). Commentary on coefficient alpha: A cautionary tale. Psychometrika, 74(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9098-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harville, D. A. (1977). Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72(358), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1977.10480998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, T. P., Benjamin, A., & Brezinski, K. L. (2000). Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
   Google Scholar
• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. (pp. 102–138). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). An alternative method for estimating variance components in generalizability theory. Psychological Reports, 66(2), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.2.379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcoulides, G. A. (1996). Estimating variance components in generalizability theory: The covariance structure analysis approach [Teacher’s corner. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(3), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, C. A. (2020). Optimal methods for disattenuating correlation coefficients under realistic measurement conditions with single-form, self-report instruments [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, C. A., Vispoel, W. P., & Kilinc, M. (2018, April). Scale-point effects on reliability and disattenuated correlation coefficients derived from CFA raw-score and continuous-latent-response-variable models [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York City, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Newson, J. T. (2015). Longitudinal structural equation modeling: A comprehensive introduction. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). Estimation of generalizability coefficients via a structural equation modeling approach to scale reliability evaluation. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0601_5
   Google Scholar
• Revelle, W. (2016). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (1.6.4) [software package and manual]. Northwestern University. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.8.2.206
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, S. R. (1971). Linear models. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's Alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 79–98.
   Google Scholar
• Steyer, R., Mayer, A., Geiser, C., & Cole, D. A. (2015). A theory of states and traits-revised. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorndike, R. L. (1951). Reliability. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement. (pp. 560–620). American Council on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Morris, C. A., & Kilinc, M. (2018a). Applications of generalizability theory and their relations to classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 23(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Morris, C. A., & Kilinc, M. (2018b). Practical applications of generalizability theory for designing, evaluating, and improving psychological assessments. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1296455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Morris, C. A., & Kilinc, M. (2018c). Using G-theory to enhance evidence of reliability and validity for common uses of the Paulhus Deception Scales. Assessment, 25(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116641182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Morris, C. A., & Kilinc, M. (2018d). Using generalizability theory to disattenuate correlation coefficients for multiple sources of measurement error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(4), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1457938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Morris, C. A., & Kilinc, M. (2019). Using generalizability theory with continuous latent response variables. Psychological Methods, 24(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Morris, C. A., Kilinc, M., & Zhang, M. (2018, April). Disattenuating correlation coefficients to account for multiple sources of measurement error, scale coarseness, and congeneric relationships [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York City, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Schneider, W. S., & Xu, G. (2020). Interrelationships between latent state-trait theory and generalizability theory within a structural equation modeling framework. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., & Tao, S. (2013). A generalizability analysis of score consistency for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Xu, G., Schneider, W. S., Zhang, M., & Kilinc, M. (2020, April 16–20). Evaluating effects of positively and negatively worded questionnaire items using the bifactor model [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA. (Conference Canceled).
   Google Scholar
• Warne, R. T., Lazo, M., Ramos, T., & Ritter, N. (2012). Statistical methods used in gifted journals, 2006–2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Joreskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle β, and McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar