ω = 0.82, and the evidence base geographically uneven¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Pooled reliability was highest in Latin America (α/ω = 0.98, a single estimate) and lowest in Australia (α/ω = 0.83), with several regions represented by very few estimates. → Könül Karimova 2026 q2 i? The ARS showed strong reliability (α/ω = 0.90, 95% CI [0.87, 0.92]) and the ABS acceptable-to-strong reliability (α/ω = 0.82, 95% CI [0.79, 0.85]). → Könül Karimova 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Könül Karimova 2026¶

Könül Karimova, Hsing-Fen Tu. (2026). Dimensionality, Reliability, and Validity of Academic Resilience Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10207-7

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Exploratory moderator analysis of internal consistency by geographic region (Table 6). The review states Latin America was represented by a single estimate and Europe and the Middle East by three each, so these should not be interpreted as stable regional summaries.

"Reliability was highest in Latin America, α/ω = 0.98, 95% CI [0.98, 0.98], followed by the Middle East, α/ω = 0.91, 95% CI [0.56, 0.98], Asia, α/ω = 0.90, 95% CI [0.88, 0.92]"

Könül Karimova 2026 (2)¶

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Instrument-specific pooled reliability estimates from the systematic review (Table 7). The review cautions that instrument-specific estimates based on one or two effects should not be treated as stable evidence of comparative instrument quality.

"The ARS showed strong reliability, α/𝜔 = 0.90, 95% CI [0.87, 0.92], and the ABS showed acceptable-to-strong reliability, α/𝜔 = 0.82, 95% CI [0.79, 0.85]."

Discussion¶

Academic resilience scales show high pooled internal consistency (α/ω = 0.89) with substantial heterogeneity — a broader claim this one bears on
Spanish Math and Reading scores show high marginal reliability and moderate-to-strong test-retest stability, lowest for fall–spring and kindergarten — related
Alpha of knowledge tests is higher for language and mathematics than for science and social sciences/humanities — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`regional-instrument-reliability-variation`
`title`	`Reliability estimates vary by region and instrument, with ARS showing α/ω = 0.90 and ABS α/ω = 0.82, and the evidence base geographically uneven`
`description`	`Reliability estimates vary by region and instrument, with ARS showing α/ω = 0.90 and ABS α/ω = 0.82, and the evidence base geographically uneven`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`weak`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-22`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `könül-karimova-2026`, `könül-karimova-2026-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.