The present study transforms subjective conflict perceptions into formally defined games, tests the reliability of the transformation, and explores the properties of several conflict scenarios. To this end we: (i) develop an illustration-based method that transforms implicit perceptions of expected outcomes and experiences into sets of structured numerical values, termed subjective game structures; (ii) develop a reliability index that compares the properties of two subjective games, allowing to test the consistency of repeatedly elicited games; (iii) empirically test game perceptions across eight conflict scenarios; and (iv) interpret the results in terms of two game taxonomies. The results reveal the capacity of the applied methods to transform vague social scenarios into reliable formal games, point to natural solutions, and show the distribution of games that characterizes each conflict scenario. The newly developed model and tools provide a potent instrument for studying a diverse array of social interactions, ranging from interpersonal relations to trade, political conflicts, and war. They represent invaluable resources for conducting polls, examining implicit attitudes, and assisting in the formulation of political, commercial, and social policies.

This paper defines and studies a broad class of shock models by assuming that a Markovian arrival process models the arrival pattern of shocks. Under the defined class, we show that the system’s lifetime follows the well-known phase-type distribution. Further, we examine the age replacement policy for systems with a continuous phase-type distribution, identifying sufficient conditions for determining the optimal replacement time. Since phase-type distributions are dense in the class of lifetime distributions, our findings for the age replacement policy are widely applicable. We include numerical examples and graphical illustrations to support our results.

In psychophysiology, an interesting question is how to estimate the reliability of event-related potentials collected by means of the Eriksen Flanker Task or similar tests. A special problem presents itself if the data represent neurological reactions that are associated with some responses (in case of the Flanker Task, responding incorrectly on a trial) but not others (like when providing a correct response), inherently resulting in unequal numbers of observations per subject. The general trend in reliability research here is to use generalizability theory and Bayesian estimation. We show that a new approach based on classical test theory and frequentist estimation can do the job as well and in a simpler way, and even provides additional insight to matters that were unsolved in the generalizability method approach. One of our contributions is the definition of a single, overall reliability coefficient for an entire group of subjects with unequal numbers of observations. Both methods have slightly different objectives. We argue in favor of the classical approach but without rejecting the generalizability approach.

A coefficient derived from communalities of test parts has been proposed as greatest lower bound to Guttman's “immediate retest reliability.” The communalities have at times been calculated from covariances between item sets, which tends to underestimate appreciably. When items are experimentally independent, a consistent estimate of the greatest defensible internal-consistency coefficient is obtained by factoring item covariances. In samples of modest size, this analysis capitalizes on chance; an estimate subject to less upward bias is suggested. For estimating alternate-forms reliability, communality-based coefficients are less appropriate than stratified alpha.

Corrections of correlations for range restriction (i.e., selection) and unreliability are common in psychometric work. The current rule of thumb for determining the order in which to apply these corrections looks to the nature of the reliability estimate (i.e., restricted or unrestricted). While intuitive, this rule of thumb is untenable when the correction includes the variable upon which selection is made, as is generally the case. Using classical test theory, we show that it is the nature of the range restriction, not the nature of the available reliability coefficient, that determines the sequence for applying corrections for range restriction and unreliability.

The asymptotic standard deviation (SD) of the alpha coefficient with standardized variables is derived under normality.The research shows that the SD of the standardized alpha coefficient becomes smaller as the number of examinees and/or items increase. Furthermore, this research shows that the degree of the dependence of the SD on the number of items is a function of the average correlation coefficients. When the average correlation approaches 1, the SD of the alpha coefficient decreases rapidly as the number of items increase, with the order of p. On the other hand, when the items are only weakly correlated, increasing the number of items decreases the SD of the alpha coefficient at a much slower rate.

An asymptotic expression for the reliability of a linearly equated test is developed using normal theory. The reliability is expressed as the product of two terms, the reliability of the test before equating, and an adjustment term. This adjustment term is a function of the sample sizes used to estimate the linear equating transformation. The results of a simulation study indicate close agreement between the theoretical and simulated reliability values for samples greater than 200. Findings demonstrate that samples as small as 300 can be used in linear equating without an appreciable decrease in reliability.

It is argued that the generalizability theory interpretation of coefficient alpha is important. In this interpretation, alpha is a slightly biased but consistent estimate for the coefficient of generalizability in a subjects x items design where both subjects and items are randomly sampled. This interpretation is based on the “domain sampling” true scores. It is argued that these true scores have a more solid empirical basis than the true scores of Lord and Novick (1968), which are based on “stochastic subjects” (Holland, 1990), while only a single observation is available for each within-subject distribution. Therefore, the generalizability interpretation of coefficient alpha is to be preferred, unless the true scores can be defined by a latent variable model that has undisputed empirical validity for the test and that is sufficiently restrictive to entail a consistent estimate of the reliability—as, for example, McDonald’s omega. If this model implies that the items are essentially tau-equivalent, both the generalizability and the reliability interpretation of alpha can be defensible.

To date, virtually all techniques appropriate for ordinal data are based on the uniform probability distribution over the permutations. In this paper we introduce and examine an alternative probability model for the distribution of ordinal data. Preliminary to deriving the expectations of Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau under this model, we show how to compute certain conditional expectations of rho and tau under the uniform distribution. The alternative probability model is then applied to ordinal test theory, and the calculation of true scores and test reliability are discussed.

Change scores obtained in pretest–posttest designs are important for evaluating treatment effectiveness and for assessing change of individual test scores in psychological research. However, over the years the use of change scores has raised much controversy. In this article, from a multilevel perspective, we provide a structured treatise on several persistent negative beliefs about change scores and show that these beliefs originated from the confounding of the effects of within-person change on change-score reliability and between-person change differences. We argue that psychometric properties of change scores, such as reliability and measurement precision, should be treated at suitable levels within a multilevel framework. We show that, if examined at the suitable levels with such a framework, the negative beliefs about change scores can be renounced convincingly. Finally, we summarize the conclusions about change scores to dispel the myths and to promote the potential and practical usefulness of change scores.

In the last decade several authors discussed the so-called minimum trace factor analysis (MTFA), which provides the greatest lower bound (g.l.b.) to reliability. However, the MTFA fails to be scale free. In this paper we propose to solve the scale problem by maximization of the g.l.b. as the function of weights. Closely related to the primal problem of the g.l.b. maximization is the dual problem. We investigate the primal and dual problems utilizing convex analysis techniques. The asymptotic distribution of the maximal g.l.b. is obtained provided the population covariance matrix satisfies sone uniqueness and regularity assumptions. Finally we outline computational algorithms and consider numerical examples.

In theory, the greatest lower bound (g.l.b.) to reliability is the best possible lower bound to the reliability based on single test administration. Yet the practical use of the g.l.b. has been severely hindered by sampling bias problems. It is well known that the g.l.b. based on small samples (even a sample of one thousand subjects is not generally enough) may severely overestimate the population value, and statistical treatment of the bias has been badly missing. The only results obtained so far are concerned with the asymptotic variance of the g.l.b. and of its numerator (the maximum possible error variance of a test), based on first order derivatives and the asumption of multivariate normality. The present paper extends these results by offering explicit expressions for the second order derivatives. This yields a closed form expression for the asymptotic bias of both the g.l.b. and its numerator, under the assumptions that the rank of the reduced covariance matrix is at or above the Ledermann bound, and that the nonnegativity constraints on the diagonal elements of the matrix of unique variances are inactive. It is also shown that, when the reduced rank is at its highest possible value (i.e., the number of variables minus one), the numerator of the g.l.b. is asymptotically unbiased, and the asymptotic bias of the g.l.b. is negative. The latter results are contrary to common belief, but apply only to cases where the number of variables is small. The asymptotic results are illustrated by numerical examples.

To assess the reliability of congeneric tests, specifically designed reliability measures have been proposed. This paper emphasizes that such measures rely on a unidimensionality hypothesis, which can neither be confirmed nor rejected when there are only three test parts, and will invariably be rejected when there are more than three test parts. Jackson and Agunwamba's (1977) greatest lower bound to reliability is proposed instead. Although this bound has a reputation for overestimating the population value when the sample size is small, this is no reason to prefer the unidimensionality-based reliability. Firstly, the sampling bias problem of the glb does not play a role when the number of test parts is small, as is often the case with congeneric measures. Secondly, glb and unidimensionality based reliability are often equal when there are three test parts, and when there are more test parts, their numerical values are still very similar. To the extent that the bias problem of the greatest lower bound does play a role, unidimensionality-based reliability is equally affected. Although unidimensionality and reliability are often thought of as unrelated, this paper shows that, from at least two perspectives, they act as antagonistic concepts. A measure, based on the same framework that led to the greatest lower bound, is discussed for assessing how close is a set of variables to unidimensionality. It is the percentage of common variance that can be explained by a single factor. An empirical example is given to demonstrate the main points of the paper.

In this rejoinder, we examine some of the issues Peter Bentler, Eunseong Cho, and Jules Ellis raise. We suggest a methodological solid way to construct a test indicating that the importance of the particular reliability method used is minor, and we discuss future topics in reliability research.