{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02450229709035222, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.169811320754717, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The many issues in reliability research: choosing from a horn of plenty.

We respond to three commentaries on our discussion article on different conceptions of test score reliability. First, we discuss the use of standard errors for reliability estimates. Second, we discuss the desirability not to confuse issues pertaining to the dimensionality of the test data (closely related to construct validity) and the degree to which measurement values are repeatable under the same circumstances (i.e., the reliability issue). Third, we discuss a new reliability estimation method that is almost unbiased irrespective of the dimensionality of the test data.