Objective: To demonstrate that Coefficient omega, a model-based estimate, is more a more appropriate index of reliability than coefficient alpha for the multidimensional scales that are commonly employed by neuropsychologists.
Method: As an illustration, a structural model of an overarching general factor and four first-order factors for the WAIS-IV based on the standardization sample of 2200 participants was identified and omega coefficients were subsequently computed for WAIS-IV composite scores.
Results: Alpha coefficients were ≥ .90 and omega coefficients ranged from .75 to .88 for WAIS-IV factor index scores, indicating that the blend of general and group factor variance in each index score created a reliable multidimensional composite. However, the amalgam of variance from general and group factors did not allow the precision of Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) and factor index scores to be disentangled. In contrast, omega hierarchical coefficients were low for all four factor index scores (.10-.41), indicating that most of the reliable variance of each factor index score was due to the general intelligence factor. In contrast, the omega hierarchical coefficient for the FSIQ score was .84.
Conclusions: Meaningful interpretation of WAIS-IV factor index scores as unambiguous indicators of group factors is imprecise, thereby fostering unreliable identification of neurocognitive strengths and weaknesses, whereas the WAIS-IV FSIQ score can be interpreted as a reliable measure of general intelligence. It was concluded that neuropsychologists should base their clinical decisions on reliable scores as indexed by coefficient omega.
Keywords: Intelligence; WAIS-IV; alpha; omega; reliability.