Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe a toolkit to examine the wording and sentence structure in each item of multi-item measures to avoid pitfalls and flaws in questionnaire surveys.

Based on hands-on scholarly experiences, the toolkit is designed to examine the wording and sentence structure of multi-item measures.

The results show a compilation of conceivable pitfalls and flaws in the items of multi-item measures.

This research offers scholars insights to enhance the wording and sentence structure in research surveys.

The findings offer a practitioner-oriented hands-on approach to examine measures in business surveys.

This paper contributes to a foundation to avoid pitfalls and flaws in validity and reliability of multi-item measures.

Looks at the generality and reliability of multi‐item measures that are based upon the perception of one or more individuals. Proposes that at least an overall time aspect is missing, which would contribute to the measurement of the perceived direction of change in a specific empirical context. The issues raised in current marketing research literature on the use of multi‐item measures relate to the generality and reliability of the findings regarding time and space. Emphasises the limits of the issues of time. The characteristics of data collected using a particular multi‐item measurement scale determine the reliability of the findings. Determines, by a methodological procedure, the generality of the empirical outcome. The results may lack reliability and generality over time even if the same items of measurement are used in the same context. Therefore, introduces an overall trend dimension in multi‐item measures in order to incorporate the time aspect for each dimension in a construct. The trend dimension makes it possible to measure the perceived direction of change, and complements the facets, as well as the perceptual degree, of a phenomenon or object in a specific empirical context.

The purpose of this paper is to enrich the understanding of how to form a multi-item assessment and what approaches can be applied for researchers.

This study proposes three ways to form a multi-item assessment (i.e. separate, formative and reflective approaches) and further makes a comparison between these three approaches.

The results show that multi-item assessment, particularly for formative and reflective constructs, has greater explanatory power in the research model. Finally, this study provides a roadmap to guide future researchers’ decision strategy for selecting multi-item assessments.

Due to the multi-faceted nature of research, using a single indicator to judge a scholar’s research performance will never reveal a multi-faceted picture and can easily result in measurement bias. In this vein, researchers should use different evaluation approaches and indicators to address various forms of research outcomes. However, prior studies rarely adopt multi-item scales to evaluate research performance and seldom discuss how to build a composite construct of research performance. This study aims to fill this research gap in the literature.

Researchers often use partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to estimate path models that include formatively specified constructs. Their validation requires running a redundancy analysis, which tests whether the formatively measured construct is highly correlated with an alternative measure of the same construct. Extending prior knowledge in the field, this paper aims to examine the conditions favoring the use of single vs multiple items to measure the criterion construct in redundancy analyses.

Merging the literatures from a variety of fields, such as management, marketing and psychometrics, we first provide a theoretical comparison of single-item and multi-item measurement and offer guidelines for designing and validating suitable single items. An empirical comparison in the context of hospitality management examines whether using a single item to measure the criterion variable yields sufficient degrees of convergent validity compared to using a multi-item measure.

The results of an empirical comparison in the context of hospitality management show that, when the sample size is small, a single item yields higher degrees of convergent validity than a reflective construct does. However, larger sample sizes favor the use of reflectively measured multi-item constructs, but the differences are marginal, thus supporting the use of a global single item in PLS-SEM-based redundancy analyses.

This study is the first to research the efficacy of single-item versus multi-item measures in PLS-SEM-based redundancy analyses. The results illustrate that a convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs can be implemented without triggering a pronounced increase in survey length.

In a multi‐item environment with a joint set‐up cost structure considerable savings may be realised by co‐ordinating the replenishments. This article presents a unified survey of the inventory control literature designed to capture the models that fit in this frame. In general these models are complex and require a great deal of computational effort to obtain an exact solution. The literature relies mainly on heuristic procedures.

The topic of scholarly journals is important to the marketing discipline and the worldwide research communities, due to the way the journals are categorized and judged in available and compiled journal rankings. The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the underlying measures of journal rankings in scholarly journals in marketing.

It is limited to the scholarly journals and journal rankings of the marketing discipline.

Journal rankings of scholarly journals in marketing are mainly based upon single‐item measures based upon either citations or perceptions, without any estimates of validity, reliability or generality.

There is a need to move away from the predominantly “single‐item measure syndrome” that characterizes most of the available and compiled journal rankings in marketing.

Broader approaches should be implemented and applied in journal rankings based upon “multi‐item measures”.

Re‐assessment of the activity of ranking journals is long overdue if the ranking lists themselves do not consider a minimum of scientific rigor and soundness as required in other areas of scholarly endeavours. The marketing discipline may be at risk of entering a vicious and irreversible circle of decline and decomposition.

The contemporary interest in customer loyalty has resulted in a proliferation of multi‐item scales containing an aggregated mix of items that appears to reflect different aspects of loyalty. The most common application of this aggregation approach is to include two specific loyalty facets, repatronage intentions and word‐of‐mouth intentions, in the same loyalty measure and to proceed as if they reflect the same underlying construct. The purpose of this paper is to examine – and question – this practice in conceptual, methodological, and empirical terms.

Two empirical studies in service settings were conducted and multi‐item measures were used to collect data on repatronage intentions, word‐of‐mouth intentions, and satisfaction. A structural equation model approach was used to compare an aggregated measurement approach with an approach which models the two loyalty constructs as two separate factors.

The results indicate that repatronage intentions and word‐of‐mouth intentions can indeed be seen as two discrete constructs.

The results indicate that caution is called for when the investigator is measuring customer loyalty with multi‐item measures. Indeed, the lumping together of such facets as repatronage intentions and word‐of‐mouth intentions is likely to conceal significant aspects of loyalty per se and its relation to other variables in the nomological net.

Only a very limited number of existing studies measure customer loyalty with multi‐item scales and with an explicit assumption that several discrete facets of loyalty exist.

This paper aims to determine if single-item (SI) needs' and values' measures have similar reliability and validity values to multi-item (MI) measures of the same constructs and thus could be substituted by sport marketers to predict internal motivating aspects of sport consumer attitudes and behavior. In addition, the authors wish to determine whether a small subset of needs and values listed in current measures are sufficient to predict sport consumer attitudes and behavior.

In this two-study design, the first study was a national sample (N = 439) comparing reliability and validity of single-item scales to multi-item scales. In the second study the authors collected data from fans and spectators of four different teams (N1 = 583; N2 = 1164; N3 = 213; N4 = 404) to determine the impact of needs and values on sport consumer attitudes and behavior.

The authors determined that in 89% of the scales, single-item measures of needs and values were just as reliable and valid as their associated multi-item measures. The authors also found that a small subset of the needs and values explain a meaningful amount of variance in sport consumer attitudes and behaviors.

The authors determined that in 89% of the scales, single-item measures of needs and values were just as reliable and valid as their associated multi-item measures. The authors also found that a small subset of the needs and values explain a meaningful amount of variance in sport consumer attitudes and behaviors.

The authors show that as motives for sport consumption, single-item measures of personal needs and values are equivalent to multi-item measures and not all needs and values used in previous sport research are necessary because they do not predict a meaningful amount of variance in sport consumer attitudes and behaviors. The authors identified a small number of single-item measures that practitioners can easily use in short surveys that will predict a statistically meaningful amount of variance in sport consumer attitudes and behaviors.

This paper aims to identify religiosity scale usage in academic marketing articles and compare the effectiveness of different religiosity scales in predicting marketing and consumer behavior outcomes.

Articles (n = 397) in the top 20 marketing journals are reviewed and a follow-up study is conducted that compares 22 religiosity scales in predicting 18 marketing variables.

Most scales are from preexisting sources (64.3%), only 20% are multi-dimensional and over 58% are used in only one journal article. Only 22.5% of possible regressions in the follow-up study predicting marketing variables from religiosity scales were significant.

This research is limited by the journals and dependent variables chosen. Implications include diversify research topics, expand publication outlets, decrease use of author-generated scales, increase use of multi-item and multi-dimensional measures, replicate findings methodologically and conceptually and make cultural context adaptations.

Marketers would benefit from using preexisting scales, ensuring that religiosity is measured using a multi-item measure that contains appropriate items for the dominant religious beliefs of the sample, as well as consider multi-dimensional measures to best guide marketing strategy decisions, such as target market definition.

This is the first research study to compare the use of religiosity scales in marketing. This offers key value to the marketing literature by highlighting tactics to take to improve consistency in research practices to increase the comparability and accuracy of findings.

Numerous sustainability assessment tools are being created and applied in the higher education sector. In light of such diversity, there is a need to provide a common guideline for sustainability assessment which makes easier the comparison among universities. Using as a reference the Spanish university system, the main aim of this paper is to develop a multi-item quantitative tool for measuring sustainability performance at universities.

To accomplish this task, the first step was to review the literature on sustainability assessment in universities. After reviewing the literature, the authors found more than 1,000 items. The next step was to select those items which were able to fit to the Spanish university context. On this basis, the authors selected a total of 268 items. These items were discussed in a workshop with senior management members from eight Spanish universities with the aim of analyzing the validity and relevance of the items selected.

Then, the proposal for measuring sustainability in Spanish universities was composed of a total of 156 relevant items. In addition, these items were grouped according to seven different dimensions (corporate governance, students, staff, society, environment, companies and continuous improvement). Also, it is important to note that these items were not associated with political risk and they were linked to provide more reliable information to assess sustainability in universities.

Recent literature have stated that the existing tools specifically developed for assessing higher education institutions performance toward sustainability have some weaknesses. Then, one of the main contributions of this study has been the creation of a new multi-item quantitative tool aimed at measuring the integrated consideration of social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability in universities.