Search results

The purpose is to assess current construct measurement in social entrepreneurship and provide recommendations for future construct measurement on the topic.

We use content analysis to assess the construct measurement practices in social entrepreneurship research. Prior studies were coded and analyzed to assess the way social entrepreneurship researchers have developed measures for key constructs in the social entrepreneurship literature. The content analysis allows for the examination of the number, type, and measures associated with social entrepreneurship research and for the comparison with the construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research, in general.

We suggest that, while initial quantitative research has provided a useful start for empirical analysis of social entrepreneurship, future research can be improved by developing and applying stronger measures of key constructs, such as social value, mission consistency, and performance of social enterprises.

This chapter takes a content analytic approach to provide evidence regarding how a foundational element such as construct measurement has developed within social entrepreneurship research. We also propose directions for improving future research by validating and strengthening measurements of core constructs in social entrepreneurship.

This chapter draws from an understanding of measurement error to address practical issues that arise in measurement and research design in the day-to-day conduct of research. The topics include constructs and measurement error, the measure development process, and the indicators of measurement error. The discussion covers types of measurement error, types of measures, and common scenarios in conducting research, linking measurement to research design.

The purpose of this study is to review the literature on strategic management in Africa with special emphasis on how strategy constructs have been measured and present a roadmap to help improve strategy research in Africa.

A content analysis of empirical research on strategic management published in journals using data from Africa from 2000 to 2013 is conducted to examine construct measurement practices.

The findings indicate that the average sample sizes in strategy research in Africa is not large as strategy research in general, and have low statistical power. While the studies rely heavily on single-indicator measures, there were also several studies using scale or multiple measures that report reliabilities.

Limitations of the research include small number of studies used, inability to examine journal effects’ of the findings due to few numbers of papers from many of the journals, and lack of examination of the influence of the context and topical areas of the articles on the use of the construct measurement techniques.

The study provides information about the use of construct measurement techniques and power analysis in strategy research in Africa. It further encourages the use of larger sample sizes, the examination of power, and more focus on variables which allow the assessment of reliabilities and validity.

Little is known about construct measurement practices of the empirical research in and about Africa in the discipline of strategic management. This chapter builds on extant research on construct measurement issues in strategic management research, but with the unique value-added contribution of focusing on the African environment where the discipline is beginning to take hold.

Since the publication of Venkatraman and Grant's (1986) article two decades ago, considerably more attention has been directed at establishing the validity of constructs in the strategy literature. However, recent developments in measurement theory indicate that strategy researchers need to pay additional attention to whether their constructs should be modeled as having formative or reflective indicators. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to highlight the differences between formative and reflective indicator measurement models, and discuss the potential role of formative measurement models in strategy research. First, we systematically review the literature on construct measurement model specification. Second, we assess the extent of measurement model misspecification in the recent strategy literature. Our assessment of 257 constructs in the contemporary strategy literature suggests that many important strategy constructs are more appropriately modeled as having formative indicators than as having reflective indicators. Based on this review, we identify some common errors leading to measurement model misspecification in the strategy domain. Finally, we discuss some implications of our analyses for scholars in the strategic management field.

This study aims to develop a measurement instrument, which involves four usability dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction, and learnability, as a way of assessing the usability of academic digital libraries.

To generate measurement items, previous research related to usability frameworks, usability guidelines, and empirical usability tests was reviewed. The measurement instrument was then verified in terms of reliability and validity, empirically using data from 230 actual users of an academic digital library. To ensure the reliability of the instrument, internal consistency of measurements, measurement item reliability, and construct reliability were examined. Construct validity, which consists of convergent validity and discriminant validity, was also examined on the basis of confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling.

The usability evaluation instrument suggested in this study comprises four dimensions: efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction, and learnability, and three to four items were identified to measure each dimension.

To date, while many of the usability studies have relied on either experimental methods or inspection methods, few studies have been conducted to identify evaluation measures that can assess the usability of a digital library from a survey method. This study is one of a few studies to develop a measurement instrument tailored to academic digital library environments.

The purpose of this study is to assess the validity of the psychological safety (PS), psychological empowerment (PE), intrapreneurial behaviour (IB) and individual performance (IP) construct measurements originally developed in Western individualistic cultures.

Proportionate stratified systematic sampling was used among the production/operations middle managers in Nigerian medium enterprises (MEs), resulting in 355 valid responses. The measurements were analysed through internal consistency analysis, content, convergent and discriminant validity analysis.

The result shows that all four construct measurements are suitable and appropriate to gauge the respective constructs in collectivistic cultures such as Nigeria.

Cross-sectional self-reported data were used to analyse the result of this study, which may lead to common method variance.

Organizations, especially MEs, can use the validated measurements of this study to enhance work results in the Nigerian context.

Collectivistic cultures can benefit from the widely used measurements of PS, PE, IB and IP despite been originally developed in Western individualistic cultures.

This paper extends the body of knowledge by validating the measurements of PS, PE, IB and IP in collectivistic cultures such as Nigeria. Measurement validation for these constructs is scarce in this context. Thus, this study will provide a consistent and efficient reference for forthcoming studies and improve the credibility and replicability of future research results in collectivistic cultures.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new model that is inclusive and practical because of the deficiencies in models for construct measurement. Further, the authors demonstrate the value of the proposed model by describing its application to the development and validation of a multi-dimensional construct, enviropreneurial orientation. Although used in the literature, enviropreneurial orientation had not been developed nor tested as a construct. The paper provides detailed explanation of development and validation processes exemplified by experiences of research into the factors that motivate individual enviropreneurial orientation among owner/managers in supply chains.

The authors review models of construct development and propose an eight step model to overcome the deficiencies in the existing models. The eight steps are: defining the construct; identifying its dimensions; generating measurement items for each dimension; pretesting the measurement items; collecting data; constructing scales; analysing reliability; and evaluating the relationships. Each step is explained through examples based on the authors’ experience in using the model to develop the new construct – enviropreneurial orientation.

All correlation results were positive and significant as were the multiple regression results with one exception, competitive aggressiveness.

The authors provide a practical model to guide new construct measurement development which can be used by researchers and research students for multi-dimensional constructs, especially they are constrained by time and financial resources. By using an example to demonstrate the applicability of the model, the authors go beyond the usual description of construct development models to make the proposed model more comprehensible and thus useful.

A growing body of research outlines how to best facilitate and ensure methodological rigor when using dictionary-based computerized text analyses (DBCTA) in organizational research. However, these best practices are currently scattered across several methodological and empirical manuscripts, making it difficult for scholars new to the technique to implement DBCTA in their own research. To better equip researchers looking to leverage this technique, this methodological report consolidates current best practices for applying DBCTA into a single, practical guide. In doing so, we provide direction regarding how to make key design decisions and identify valuable resources to help researchers from the beginning of the research process through final publication. Consequently, we advance DBCTA methods research by providing a one-stop reference for novices and experts alike concerning current best practices and available resources.

This paper aims to respond to claims by Collier and Bienstock and Rossiter that reflective measurement is wrong for internet retailing service quality (IRSQ). The research empirically assesses Rossiter's proposal that the C‐OAR‐SE procedure for index development will generate a more valid way to measure IRSQ than is otherwise available.

C‐OAR‐SE is used to develop a formative IRSQ index. The index is administered to internet shoppers in an online survey. The index is compared with an existing IRSQ scale in terms of content, parsimony, measurement scores and criterion validity.

The scale and index display parity in content, parsimony and measurement scores, while the scale shows higher criterion validity. The results contradict Rossiter's claims and foster doubt regarding the usefulness of C‐OAR‐SE's formative measurement procedures.

IRSQ can be conceptualised as reflective or formative, but C‐OAR‐SE does not necessarily generate a better way to measure the construct. Furthermore, implementing C‐OAR‐SE unearths problems with the procedure.

Multiple variations of IRSQ exist, as well as multiple views on how to measure the variations and differing degrees to which the variations are actually measured. Crucially, the situation is not as bleak as Collier and Bienstock or Rossiter suggest: the literature does offer sound, valid IRSQ measurement scales.

The paper resolves unwarranted criticisms of IRSQ scales, highlights the limitations with some scales, offers the first complete example of using C‐OAR‐SE to develop a new index and lends applied support to theoretical criticisms of C‐OAR‐SE.

The research practice in management research is dominantly based on structural equation modeling (SEM), but almost exclusively, and often misguidedly, on covariance-based SEM. The purpose of this paper is to question the current research myopia in management research, because the paper adumbrates theoretical foundations and guidance for the two SEM streams: covariance-based and variance-based SEM; and improves the conceptual knowledge by comparing the most important procedures and elements in the SEM study, using different theoretical criteria.

The study thoroughly analyzes, reviews and presents two streams using common methodological background. The conceptual framework discusses the two streams by analysis of theory, measurement model specification, sample and goodness-of-fit.

The paper identifies and discusses the use and misuse of covariance-based and variance-based SEM utilizing common topics such as: first, theory (theory background, relation to theory and research orientation); second, measurement model specification (type of latent construct, type of study, reliability measures, etc.); third, sample (sample size and data distribution assumption); and fourth, goodness-of-fit (measurement of the model fit and residual co/variance).

The paper questions the usefulness of Cronbach's α research paradigm and discusses alternatives that are well established in social science, but not well known in the management research community. The author presents short research illustration in which analyzes the four recently published papers using common methodological background. The paper concludes with discussion of some open questions in management research practice that remain under-investigated and unutilized.