Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
A composite score is the sum of a set of components. For example, a total test score can be defined as the sum of the individual items. The reliability of composite scores is of interest in a wide variety of contexts due to their widespread use and applicability to many disciplines. The psychometric literature has devoted considerable time to discussing how to best estimate the population reliability value. However, all point estimates of a reliability coefficient fail to convey the uncertainty associated with the estimate as it estimates the population value. Correspondingly, a confidence interval is recommended to convey the uncertainty with which the population value of the reliability coefficient has been estimated. However, many confidence interval methods for bracketing the population reliability coefficient exist and it is not clear which method is most appropriate in general or in a variety of specific circumstances. We evaluate these confidence interval methods for 4 reliability coefficients (coefficient alpha, coefficient omega, hierarchical omega, and categorical omega) under a variety of conditions with 3 large-scale Monte Carlo simulation studies. Our findings lead us to generally recommend bootstrap confidence intervals for hierarchical omega for continuous items and categorical omega for categorical items. All of the methods we discuss are implemented in the freely available R language and environment via the MBESS package.
Kelley et al. (Fri,) studied this question.