ArticleThe British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology2026
Estimating the reliability of round-robin judgments with social relations confirmatory factor analyses.
Article in The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The social relations model (SRM) is commonly used in psychological research to analyse interdependent data from round-robin designs, where all members of a group rate each other. Based on the recently suggested social relations confirmatory factor analysis (SR-CFA), we present general formulas for determining the reliability of composites of round-robin judgments and also derive simpler variants when specific restrictions are applied to the parameters of the SR-CFA model. In the unidimensional case, this results in an omega-type reliability measure, which can be converted into an alpha-type reliability measure through further restrictions. We also discuss how standard errors of the reliability coefficients can be obtained, illustrate the suggested methods using an empirical example, and we examine the suitability of the estimation approach in a small simulation study. Finally, we discuss questions for future methodological research and how the person-level composites are related to other SRM effect estimates proposed in the SRM literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.