Tips for Calculating Cronbach’s Alpha by Hand

You need your Bailey book open to follow the explanation below. Follow the example on
pages 179 (starting at the very bottom) and going on to page 182. Just plug your data into
those table.

D = the distance between a particular score and the mean.

So for instance, in Table 11.3 on page 180, Speaker A was awarded a 5 by Rater 1.

The value of 0.17 there is the distance between the mean ratings by Rater 1 for this group
of speech samples (4.833, as reported on the bottom of p. 179) and Speaker A's rating of
5.

Mathematically speaking, distance is a function of subtraction. It's analogous to

difference. So to find the entry for that particular student in the D column, we subtract
4.833 from 5 (the student's score) and we get 0.17, which you see entered in Table 11.3 --
right?

Then we square that value and get 0.028 -- which is what you see in the D-squared
column.

You do that for the rating of Rater 1 on each student's performance.

Notice that some of the values in the D column have minus signs in front of them. This is
because in some cases, the mean score is GREATER than the individual speaker's score.

So for instance, the value in the D column for Speaker B is (minus) - 1.83. This is
because Speaker B's score was 3, but the mean rating for the group by Rater 1 was 4.833
(see the last line on page 180.)

Do you know why there is a D-squared column? It's to get rid of these pesky little minus,
because when you square a negative number you get a positive number. Minus 2
squared is positive four.

Lots of statistical formulas include a squaring step like this, and it is almost always there
to get rid of minus signs, so we don't have to add up columns of both positive and
negative numbers.

Then you repeat the process for each student's performance as rated by rater 2. That's
what you see in Table 11.4 on page 180.

The next step is a little different but follows the same principles. It is represented in Table
11.5 on page 181. Do you see what is different about the column headings in this table,
as compared to Tables 11.3 and 11.4? Have a look for a minute.

1
Okay, I think you will have noticed that where Tables 11.3 and 11.4 have a column
heading "Raw Scores", in Table 11.5 there is a column labeled "Combined Raw
Scores."

When you look at the combined raw score of 11 for Speaker A, do you see where that 11
came from? (Take a deep breath. The data are found in the two tables on page 180.)

Okay, I think you can see that the 11 came from combining the scores awarded to
Speaker A by Rater 1 (who gave a rating of 5) and Rater 2 (who gave Speaker A a 6).

If you look down the Combined Raw Scores column in Table 11.5, you'll see that each
of those combined scores comes from adding the two scores awarded to each speaker by
the two raters.

When you've got all the combined raw scores entered into the Combined Raw Scores
column on your own chart, add them up and divide by the number of speakers who were
rated. This gives you the mean of the two raters' ratings for this group of speakers.

You know how to compute standard deviation and variance. Most hand calculators will
do this for you. If you need a little review, look back at pages 100-102 in the Bailey book.

So far so good??

So once you have created the equivalents of Tables 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5, using your own
data, you are ready to turn to the top of page 182 and use the formula at the top of page
182, and the calculations that follow it, as the model for your own calculation of your
own alpha value.

(Alpha is the Greek symbol that looks like a fat little fish swimming to the left in the first
line on page 182.)

When you do the math, the alpha value you come out with should not be greater than the
whole number 1. If it is, you have a math error somewhere.

What we are hoping for is an alpha value that is APPROACHING the whole number 1.
The closer it is to 1, the greater your intra- or inter-rater reliability (whichever you are
calculating).

Have fun! Keep breathing! KB