• should I change negative sign in factor loading into positive befor

    From hamzakabli6@gmail.com@21:1/5 to caroline on Thu May 14 15:05:05 2020
    On Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 11:30:18 PM UTC+5, caroline wrote:
    Hello,

    In my survey questionnaire, I have negative worded questions.lest say there are 08 questions of customer satisfation(dependent variable) on lickert scale in which few of them are negative worded. i did reliability, correletaion and regression
    analysis. crown bach alpha was above 85% and all varibales were significant but when i recoded those negative questions my reliability decreased to 55% and all variables became insignificant
    my question is what should i do now? is it necessary to recode those questions ? if not then why not ? and is there any other way to increase crown bach alpha?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Ulrich@21:1/5 to hamzakabli6@gmail.com on Thu May 14 23:32:21 2020
    On Thu, 14 May 2020 15:05:05 -0700 (PDT), hamzakabli6@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 11:30:18 PM UTC+5, caroline wrote:
    Hello,



    In my survey questionnaire, I have negative worded questions.
    lest say there are 08 questions of customer satisfation(dependent
    variable) on lickert scale in which few of them are negative worded.
    i did reliability, correletaion and regression analysis. crown bach
    < cronbach >
    alpha was above 85% and all varibales were significant but when
    i recoded those negative questions my reliability decreased to 55%
    and all variables became insignificant

    Basically: Not possible that you did correctly what you said.

    If there were "08" items with a few in the wrong direction, you
    did not get an alpha of 0.85. For 80 items, a few could be
    swamped. But correcting the direction of good scores only
    increases the alpha, as you surely expect.

    If alpha goes down when you "correct" the directions, then
    I assume that your reversal screwed up. The uncorrected
    correlation matrix should have a bunch of negative r's;
    the corrected will have (probably) none, if it is right.

    For an item scored 1-5, you can reverse it by subracting
    from 6. One way that this can screw up is if Missing is not
    yet defined and there are Missing scores of 9 or -9, which
    then get rescored to odd numbers. There is a bigger effect
    on the computed alpha if the unrecognized missing is big,
    like "99", because alpha is a ratio of variances


    my question is what should i do now? is it necessary to recode
    those questions ? if not then why not ? and is there any other
    way to increase crown bach alpha?

    You quoted from Caroline only the Hello.

    Ray Koopman gave the good answer, found at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.soft-sys.stat.spss/-c04zC3_dNM

    In short: Start by reverse-scoring the items with reversed
    meaning relative to the latent factor.

    Okay, you tried that. Now, check your item means and
    frequencies, to make sure that you don't screw up (and
    that Missing is properly accounted for). Look at the
    correlation matrix.

    Everything should work out from there.

    --
    RIch Ulrich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)