Clinicians are cautioned against interpreting Digit Span subscale scores due to lower than previously reported internal consistency reliability when estimated using omega hierarchical.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Warrants caution interpreting Digit Span scores; leaves open questions on optimal reliability estimation methods.
The Digit Span subscale (Digit Span Forward, Backward, and Sequencing combined composite) internal inconsistency reliability has been reported at .93, based on a coefficient known as stratified coefficient alpha. With accessible examples, we demonstrate that stratified coefficient alpha can deviate substantially from a model-based internal consistency reliability that represents an underlying dimension, that is, omega hierarchical. Next, we simulated item-level Digit Span subscale data to correspond very closely to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-fourth edition normative sample. Based on omega hierarchical, we estimated the internal consistency reliability associated with the Digit Span subscale scores at .74. In light of the results, clinicians are cautioned against interpreting Digit Span subscale scores. Instead, interpretations should probably be restricted to the Digit Span Forward, Digit Span Backward, and Digit Span Sequencing test scores. Finally, we offer suggestions for improvement to achieve higher levels of Digit Span subscale score reliability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gignac et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: