Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I assessed the internal reliability of a self-created scale with eight items (N total = 150) by calculating Cronbach’s α. It appears that one item correlates low with the overall score of the scale (item 4 in the example below). The corrected item-total correlation, i.e. the correlation of this item with the scale total excluding that item, is only r= .046.

library(psych)
scale<-mydata[,c(24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31)]
alpha(scale)

Reliability analysis   
Call: alpha(x = scale)

          0.62      0.64    0.66      0.18  4.3 0.79

 Reliability if an item is dropped:
      raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r
item1      0.56      0.59    0.62      0.17
item2      0.53      0.57    0.58      0.16
item3      0.54      0.56    0.58      0.16
item4      0.66      0.67    0.67      0.23
item5      0.60      0.62    0.63      0.19
item6      0.55      0.59    0.62      0.17
item7      0.58      0.61    0.63      0.18
item8      0.63      0.65    0.67      0.21

 Item statistics 
        n    r r.cor r.drop mean   sd
item1 144 0.60  0.51  0.395  4.5 0.71
item2 145 0.65  0.62  0.499  4.6 0.71
item3 142 0.67  0.64  0.484  4.5 0.72
item4 146 0.33  0.15  0.046  4.6 0.81
item5 147 0.51  0.41  0.298  4.9 0.41
item6 139 0.59  0.50  0.404  4.4 0.82
item7 136 0.53  0.43  0.339  4.2 1.03
item8 135 0.39  0.21  0.190  4.3 0.94

Non missing response frequency for each item
         1    2    3    4    5 miss
item1 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.60 0.04
item2 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.24 0.71 0.03
item3 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.28 0.60 0.05
item4 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.77 0.03
item5 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.87 0.02
item6 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.29 0.58 0.07
item7 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.25 0.54 0.09
item8 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.32 0.52 0.10

PROBLEM: I would like to report this low correlation with the degrees of freedom in parentheses and the significance level in the main text. Yet, I am not sure whether I calculated the correct p-value. What I did is a simple regression with item 4 as the dependent variable:

scale <- as.data.frame(scale)
summary(lm(item4 ~ item1+item2+item3+item5+item6+item7+item8, data=scale))

Call:
lm(formula = item4 ~ item1 + item2 + item3 + item5 + item6 + 
    item7 + item8, data = scale)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-3.4256 -0.0465  0.2869  0.3500  1.3405 

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)  1.65098    1.00288   1.646 0.102492    
item1        0.12916    0.11560   1.117 0.266262    
item2        0.02387    0.12921   0.185 0.853760    
item3       -0.07323    0.12718  -0.576 0.565921    
item5        0.64204    0.18636   3.445 0.000802 ***
item6       -0.04596    0.10230  -0.449 0.654120    
item7       -0.13217    0.08030  -1.646 0.102545    
item8        0.05609    0.08758   0.641 0.523136    
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 

Residual standard error: 0.8235 on 113 degrees of freedom
  (29 observations deleted due to missingness)
Multiple R-squared: 0.1385,     Adjusted R-squared: 0.08518 
F-statistic: 2.596 on 7 and 113 DF,  p-value: 0.01604

QUESTION: Is it correct if I report something like "Item 4 correlates only weakly with the overall score of the scale (r(113)= .046, p= .02)" -- or did I make a rather large error in reasoning here?

Many thanks!

share|improve this question

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.