Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:19:41.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the Strength of a General Factor: Coefficient Omega Hierarchical

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

Gilles E. Gignac
Gilles E. Gignac*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Western Australia
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gilles E. Gignac, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia, 6009, Australia. E-mail: gilles.gignac@uwa.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Relying on work described by Jackson (2003), Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) recommended researchers use the first unrotated principal component associated with a principal components analysis (PCA) to estimate the strength of a general factor. Arguably, such a recommendation is based on rather old work. Furthermore, it is not a method that can be relied on to yield an accurate solution. For example, it is well known that the first component extracted from a correlation matrix of the Wechsler intelligence subtests is biased toward the verbal comprehension subtests (Ashton, Lee, & Vernon, 2001).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 434 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Vernon, P. A. (2001). Which is the real intelligence? A reply to Robinson (1999). Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1353–1359.Google Scholar
Brunner, M. (2008). No g in education? Learning and Individual Differences, 18 (2), 152–165.Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E. (2006). Evaluating subtest “g” saturation levels via the single trait-correlated uniqueness (STCU) SEM approach: Evidence in favor of crystallized subtests as the best indicators of “g.” Intelligence, 34, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gignac, G. E. (2008). Higher-order models versus bifactor modes: g as superordinate or breadth factor? Psychology Science, 50 (1), 21–43.Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E. (2014a). Dynamic mutualism versus g factor theory: An empirical test. Intelligence, 42, 89–97.Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E. (2014b). On the inappropriateness of using items to calculate total scale score reliability via coefficient alpha for multidimensional scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 130–139.Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 639–662.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. E. (2003). A user's guide to principal components. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (2015). Pervasiveness of dominant general factors in organizational measurement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (3), 409–427.Google Scholar
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revelle, W., & Wilt, J. (2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47 (5), 493–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmiedek, F., & Li, S. C. (2004). Toward an alternative representation for disentangling age-associated differences in general and specific cognitive abilities. Psychology and Aging, 19 (1), 40–56.Google Scholar
van der Maas, H. L., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H. M., & Raijmakers, M. E. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113 (4), 842.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach's α, Revelle's β, and McDonald's ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70 (1), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar