There are three fundamental problems in Sijtsma (Psychometrika, 2008): (1) contrary to the name, the glb is not the greatest lower bound of reliability but rather is systematically less than ωt (McDonald, Test theory: A unified treatment, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1999), (2) we agree with Sijtsma that when considering how well a test measures one concept, α is not appropriate, but recommend ωt rather than the glb, and (3) the end user needs procedures that are readily available in open source software.

Sijtsma and Pfadt (2021) published a thought-provoking article on coefficient alpha. I make the following arguments against their work. 1) Kuder and Richardson (1937) deserve more credit for coefficient alpha than Cronbach (1951). 2) We should distinguish between the definition of reliability and its meaning. 3) We should be wary of overfitting in the use of FA reliability. 4) Our primary concern is to obtain accurate reliability estimates rather than conservative estimates. 5) Several reliability estimators, such as ${\lambda }_2$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\lambda _{2}$$\end{document}, ${\mu }_2$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\mu _{2}$$\end{document}, congeneric reliability and the Gilmer-Feldt coefficient are more accurate than coefficient alpha. 6) The name omega should not be used to refer to a specific reliability estimator.