Search results

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure the corporate reputation of large service organizations. The validity of a discipline’s constructs is a prerequisite for effective theory development and testing. Construct validity thus lies at the very heart of both decision-making and scientific progress in marketing. The use of marketing instruments that do not demonstrate sufficient evidence of construct validity can lead to invalid results, erroneous conclusions and poor decision-making. Despite several attempts to develop an instrument to measure the corporate reputation of service organizations effectively, lingering doubts remain about the construct validity of several published instruments.

Empirical data were collected from the clients of service organization using an online survey during three waves of data collection and scale purification. Invariance testing in two different service industries confirmed that the final instrument is completely invariant, suggesting that the measurement parameters of the measurement model are the same in both samples.

Rigorous scale development led to the development of a 19-item instrument that effectively measures a large service organization’s corporate reputation along five dimensions, namely, emotional appeal, corporate performance, social engagement, good employer and service points.

The study was limited to the measurement of the corporate reputation of large service organizations.

Given the fact that corporate reputation has been described as “the ultimate determinant of competitiveness” by some executives, the outcome of this study is a proposal that large service organizations measure this intangible asset along five dimensions, namely, emotional appeal, corporate performance, social engagement, good employer and service points.

Despite several attempts to do so, a valid and reliable instrument to effectively measure the corporate reputation of service firms (particularly large ones) has remained elusive. After more than two decades after the first attempts at measurement, there are many who now call for improved methodologies and more valid instruments to measure corporate reputation, based on more rigorous theoretical and conceptual development. This study addresses a matter of concern for many managers and academics.

Requests for tests and measuring instruments for use in class assignments and faculty and student research are both familiar and frustrating to most academic librarians. In typical scenarios, an education student wants to measure aggression in children or a nursing student needs a test for patient mobility. Even the faculty member who may know the name of a scale may not know its author or how to obtain a copy. All are looking for a measure applicable to a specific situation and each has come to the library in hopes of walking away with a copy of the measure that day. Those familiar with measurement literature know that accessing measures can be time consuming, circuitous, and sometimes impossible. The standard test reference books, such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook and Tests in Print (both of which are published by the Buros Institute, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska), are of limited use. These books typically do not include actual instruments or noncommercial tests from the journal and report literature. While these standard reference books are essential to a test literature collection, sole use of them would mean bypassing large numbers of instruments developed and published only in articles, reports, papers, and dissertations. Sources are available to locate additional measurements, tests, and instruments, but they are widely dispersed in the print and electronic literature.

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is now considered to be the price of entry for running a business. However, ERP systems are complex and expensive, and the decision to install an ERP system necessitates a choice of mechanisms for determining whether ERP is needed and, once implemented, whether it is successful. User satisfaction is one evaluation mechanism for determining system success. This study develops a reliable and valid instrument for measuring ERP ultimate‐user satisfaction.

Initial ERP system characteristics and the implementation context were investigated. Some previously validated instruments were selected for examination using rigorous interview techniques. A modified version was developed and pre‐tested. The instrument was then used to administer a test to 264 Taiwanese users that interact directly with an ERP system.

The results suggest a ten‐item instrument to measure three components of ultimate‐user satisfaction in an ERP environment: ERP project team and service, ERP product, and user knowledge and involvement.

This study has conducted a rigorous scale development procedure to establish a reliable and valid instrument for measuring ERP ultimate‐user satisfaction.

The purpose of this paper is to validate an instrument for the Ghoshal and Bartlett model and operationalize its four attributes into a multidimensionality instrument questionnaire. This study operationalizes the four attributes, namely, discipline, support, trust and stretch, into a multidimensionality instrument questionnaire and tests this instrument's validation using data from 317 Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor-status companies.

This paper follows the procedures of building a scale measure. This was carried out in three main stages. The first stage is the generation of scale items. The purpose of this stage is to identify and analyze items based on intensive literature review. The second stage is the assessment of face validity to ensure the correspondence between the individual items and the constructs intended to measure. The final stage is the statistical validation, which includes the assessment of validity and reliability of the introduced instrument.

The paper introduces 23 multidimensional questionnaire items, which contribute to organizational context dimensions. The statistical analysis that followed the conceptual development shows that the presented instrument has good psychometric properties. The validity and reliability of the scale were presented and discussed.

This paper suggests that these organizational context dimensions can be investigated with a high degree of confidence, especially when applied to organizations with different climate. To improve the robustness of the model, additional testing in different contexts and cultures may be necessary. Future research may also test the validity of the instrument using larger sample data.

The measure offers researchers a comprehensive and flexible approach to the assessment of organizational context and collective learning from a managerial action perspective. This measure may be useful for a broad range of research interests, enabling researchers to investigate some theoretical propositions related to managerial action, such as the relationship between organizational climate and organizational performance. The measure also helps to establish the relationship between organizational context and collective learning in the organization.

This study helps to fill the gap in the development of the organizational climate through both conceptual and empirical work. There is therefore a need for a measured, testable instrument to facilitate the empirical evaluation by the modern organization. This measure also contributes toward a better understanding of the managerial role. This managerial role has an imperative role in crafting the behavior of the organization’s members, developing collective learning through distributed initiatives and mutual cooperation.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how mental health service user involvement in health professional education adds value to student learning about recovery-oriented practice and to determine the quality and suitability of instruments used in studies to evaluate this involvement in terms of their: relationship to recovery-oriented practice; and psychometric properties.

Studies of service user involvement were reviewed to identify their research objectives. These were mapped against an Australian recovery-oriented practice capability framework together with the constructs measured by instruments used in these studies. Psychometric properties for each instrument were evaluated using the COSMIN checklist.

While research objectives are not stated in terms of recovery-oriented practice, they do relate to some elements of a recovery-oriented practice framework. No instrument measures outcomes against all recovery-oriented practice domains. The AQ has the strongest evidence for its psychometric properties. The most commonly used instrument measures only stigma and has poorly validated psychometric properties.

This paper demonstrates that the “value add” of service user involvement in health professional education has been poorly defined and measured to date. Learning from lived experience is central to a recovery-orientation and is an expectation of health professional education programmes. Defining objectives for service user involvement in terms of recovery-oriented practice and developing an instrument which measures student learning against these objectives are important areas for ongoing research supporting improved approaches to supporting people’s recovery.

This paper aims to critically comment Rossiter’s “How to use C-OAR-SE to design optimal standard measures” in the current issue of EJM and provides a broader perspective on Rossiter’s C-OAR-SE framework and measurement practice in marketing in general.

The paper is conceptual, based on interpretation of measurement theory.

The paper shows that, at best, Rossiter’s mathematical dismissal of convergent validity applies to the completely hypothetical (and highly unlikely) situation where a perfect measure without any error would be available. Further considerations cast serious doubt on the appropriateness of Rossiter’s concrete object, dual subattribute-based single item measures. Being immunized against any piece of empirical evidence, C-OAR-SE cannot be considered a scientific theory and is bound to perpetuate, if not aggravate, the fundamental flaws in current measurement practice. While C-OAR-SE indeed helps generate more content valid instruments, the procedure offers no insights as to whether these instruments work properly to be used in research and practice.

This paper concludes that great caution needs to be exercised before adapting measurement instruments based on the C-OAR-SE procedure, and statistical evidence remains essential for validity assessment.

This paper identifies several serious conceptual and operational problems in Rossiter’s C-OAR-SE procedure and discusses how to align measurement in the social sciences to be compatible with the definition of measurement in the physical sciences.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

From an extensive review of the literature in the field of total quality management (TQM), 11 constructs of TQM implementation were identified. An instrument measuring these constructs was developed. The reliability and validity of the instrument were tested and validated using data from 212 Chinese manufacturing companies. Various methods were employed for this test and validation. Comparisons between this instrument and the three other quality management instruments were made. It was concluded finally that the instrument presented in this paper was reliable and valid. Researchers will be able to use this instrument for developing quality management theory. Industrial practitioners will be able to use this instrument to evaluate their TQM implementation so as to target improvement areas.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

The purpose of this paper is to present a new instrument for measuring cultural intelligence in the business context (BCIQ).

The paper describes the process of the conceptualization of the model and the development of the instrument, the sample, as well as the validation of the instrument. Directions on the use of the instrument and future research are discussed.

The instrument shows good psychometric properties and good predictive power and outperforms other publicly available CQ measures on a number of dimensions.

The unique features and advantages of the present instrument are as follows: first, a refined factor structure compared to existing CQ instruments; second, use of objective cultural knowledge measures; third, applicability in the business and workplace contexts, thus rendering the instrument suitable for assessing cultural intelligence among expatriates, employees, and global virtual team members; and fourth, improved reliability and validity as compared to other Cultural Intelligence Quotient measures.