Using Parallel Splits with Self-Report and Other Measures to Enhance Precision in Generalizability Theory Analyses

References

• Algina, J., & Penfield, R. D. (2009). Classical test theory. In R. C. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds), The Sage handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 93–122). Sage.
   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
• Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, R. L. (2010). Generalizability theory and classical test theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.532417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, R. L., & Kane, M. T. (1977). An index of dependability for mastery tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1977.tb00045.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
   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
• Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404266386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagan, J. C. (1937). A proposed procedure for increasing the efficiency of objective tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057430
   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
• Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). Short forms of the Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI), an objective measure of self-esteem. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4(5), 473–475. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334260
   Google Scholar
• Huebner, A., & Lucht, M. (2019). Generalizability Theory in R. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 24(5), 1–12. Available at http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=24&n=5
   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
• Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., & Putka, D. J. (2009). The multifaceted nature of measurement artifacts and its implications for estimating construct-level relationships. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 165–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107302900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W. (1992). Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) III: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of late adolescent self-concept. An interim test manual and research monograph. University of Western Sydney, Faculty of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J., & Von Davier, M. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right-camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, C. T. (2016). gtheory: Apply generalizability theory with R. R package version 0.1.2. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gtheory.
   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
• Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Measures of social psychological attitudes Series) (pp. 17–59). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): The balanced inventory of desirable responding-7. User’s manual. Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Reeve, C. L., Heggestad, E. D., & George, E. (2005). Estimation of transient error in cognitive ability scales. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(4), 316–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2005.00328.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelle, W. (2016). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (1.6.4). [software package and manual]. Evanston, IL: 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
• Rulon, P. J. (1939). A simplified procedure for determining the reliability of a test by split-halves. Harvard Educational Review, 9, 99–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8
   PubMed 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
• Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
   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., Lee, H., & Xu, G. (2021a). Extending bifactor models to account for multiple sources of measurement error. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   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
   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., & 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., & Kilinc, M. (2021b). Expanding G-theory models to incorporate congeneric relationships: Illustrations using the Big Five Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1808474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Xu, G., & Schneider, W. S. (2021c). Interrelationships between latent state-trait theory and generalizability theory within a structural equation modeling framework. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar