Fixed alpha cutoff values create publication bias so knowledge tests with low alphas are underrepresented in the literature¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Current publication cutoff values prevent publication of knowledge tests with low alphas, so published tests may not reflect the full range of knowledge tests. → Peter A. Edelsbrunner 2025

Evidence¶

Peter A. Edelsbrunner 2025¶

Peter A. Edelsbrunner, Bianca A. Simonsmeier, Michael Schneider. (2025). The Reliability, But Not the Cronbach's Alpha, of Knowledge Tests Matters: Response to Zitzmann and Orona (2025). Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10023-5

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The authors cite their own meta-analysis of published knowledge tests as converging evidence that alpha cutoffs create publication bias, meaning "knowledge tests with low alphas are underrepresented in the literature."

"Our meta-analysis (Edelsbrunner et al., 2025) presented converging evidence that these cutoffs create publication bias so that knowledge tests with low alphas are underrepresented in the literature."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Published knowledge test Alphas show distributional bias with underrepresentation of low Alphas — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Cronbach's alpha does not generally indicate the reliability of knowledge tests because knowledge is a heterogeneous construct — a broader claim this one bears on
• Meta-analytic average Cronbach's Alpha of domain-specific knowledge tests is 0.85 with expected item intercorrelation of 0.22 — related
• Confidence intervals around alpha do not resolve the problem because they inherit alpha's failure to indicate knowledge-test reliability — related