Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 1:15:1482016.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1482016. eCollection 2024.

Comparison of different reliability estimation methods for single-item assessment: a simulation study

Sijun Zhang  1 , Kimberly Colvin  2
Affiliations

Comparison of different reliability estimation methods for single-item assessment: a simulation study

Sijun Zhang et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Single-item assessments have recently become popular in various fields, and researchers have developed methods for estimating the reliability of single-item assessments, some based on factor analysis and correction for attenuation, and others using the double monotonicity model, Guttman's λ6, or the latent class model. However, no empirical study has investigated which method best estimates the reliability of single-item assessments. This study investigated this question using a simulation study. To represent assessments as they are found in practice, the simulation study varied several aspects: the item discrimination parameter, the test length of the multi-item assessment of the same construct, the sample size, and the correlation between the single-item assessment and the multi-item assessment of the same construct. The results suggest that by using the method based on the double monotonicity model and the method based on correction for attenuation simultaneously, researchers can obtain the most precise estimate of the range of reliability of a single-item assessment in 94.44% of cases. The test length of a multi-item assessment of the same construct, the item discrimination parameter, the sample size, and the correlation between the single-item assessment and the multi-item assessment of the same construct did not influence the choice of method choice.

Keywords: Guttman’s λ6; correction for attenuation; double monotonicity model; factor analysis; latent class model; reliability; simulation study; single-item assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

    1. Allen M. S., Iliescu D., Greiff S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science. EJPA 38, 1–5. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000699 - DOI
    1. Arvey R. D., Landon T. E., Nutting S. M., Maxwell S. E. (1992). Development of physical ability tests for police officers: a construct validation approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 77, 996–1009. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.996 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bailey J. P., Guertin W. H. (1970). Test item dependence of several oblique factor solutions. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 30, 611–619. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000309 - DOI
    1. Bergkvist L., Rossiter J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. JMR 44, 175–184. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 - DOI
    1. Buchner C., Kraus J., Miller L., Baumann M. (2024). What is good? Exploring the applicability of a one item measure as a proxy for measuring acceptance in driver-vehicle interaction studies. J Multimodal User Interfaces 18, 195–208. doi: 10.1007/s12193-024-00432-1 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources