Search results

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.

The purpose of this paper, a critical reflection, is twofold. First, by comprehensively reviewing scale development procedures in hospitality research, a concerning lack of nomological validity testing is demonstrated. Second, the need for nomological validity testing is discussed and both conceptually and empirically reasoned.

This research systematically reviews scale development studies in three leading hospitality journals, including Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and International Journal of Hospitality Management over ten years (2012–2021) to analyze the completeness of scale development procedures. Specifically, the authors evaluate whether the reviewed studies engage in testing the nomological and predictive validity of the newly developed measures.

The results indicate a concerning gap in the current practices in hospitality research. Specifically, only 33.3% of the examined studies assess nomological validity. These findings collectively underscore the need for improving the comprehensiveness of scale development processes in hospitality research.

The study offers important implications for hospitality researchers. The paper provides an extensive discussion on the importance and benefits of testing for nomological validity in scale development studies, contributing to the completeness and consistency of scale development procedures in the hospitality discipline.

This research critically assesses prevalent, and widely accepted, scale development procedures in hospitality research. This research empirically demonstrates the neglect of nomological validity issues in scale development practices in hospitality research. Scale development is an essential scientific practice used to create a research instrument in a field of study, improving our understanding of a specific phenomenon and contributing to knowledge creation. Considering the significance of scale development in advancing the field of hospitality research, the validation procedures involved in the scale development processes are of utmost importance and should be thoroughly applied.

We develop and validate measurement instruments for the business partner, watchdog, and scorekeeper roles of controllers. This study addresses calls to enhance the quality of survey research in management accounting by devoting more attention to scale development and especially to construct validity. By focusing on the activity sets of the controllers’ roles, we provide a theoretically and empirically grounded picture of their current roles. The measurement instruments presented in this study enable systematic research progress on controller roles, their relationships, antecedents, and performance outcomes.

Using the work of earlier human needs researchers as a theoretical base, the Consumer Resource Exchange Model (CREM) has been developed. The model is based upon the concept that consumers seek to manage four fundamental resources in order to satisfy their needs. This paper is a partial replication of earlier work on the CREM and extends the stream of research to a diverse sample of “real world” consumers. The results of the study provided support for the dimensions of the model and the construct validity of a related paper and pencil assessment instrument.

Numerous scales have been developed and utilized in the tourism and hospitality field, yet, their psychometric properties have not been systematically reviewed and evaluated. This gap compromises researchers' ability to develop better measures and improve measurement decisions. In this current study, 56 scales were identified and evaluated in terms of their psychometric properties. It was found that most scales were imperfect in measuring tourism and hospitality domains, and most scales did not provide explicit information about the scale development procedures that were adopted. The scale development procedure and psychometric properties of the reviewed scales are summarized, evaluated, and recommendations are made for future tourism and hospitality scale development.

The article aims to present the results of adapting the team boosting behaviors (TBB) scale to Polish cultural conditions and validating it.

The research methodology consisted of three steps. In the first step, I translated the TBB scale into Polish using a rigorous back-translation method. Next, to assess content validity, nine domain experts reviewed the initial version of the instrument for clarity and relevance. Finally, I applied the scale to a sample of 532 team members and underwent thorough psychometric testing to assess construct validity. I employed structural equation modeling (SEM) with the partial least squares (PLS) factor-based algorithm technique for confirmatory factor analysis to assess the scale’s reliability and validity.

After development, the Polish version of the TBB scale kept its three sub-scale structures. However, the validation process led to a slight reduction in the number of test items compared to the original scale.

The findings imply that the Polish version of the scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing TBB. However, I recommend additional studies to confirm this instrument’s structure.

The results confirmed the reliability and relevance of the tool for measuring TBBs in Polish cultural conditions. The tool provides the basis for implementing further research with the TBB construct in Poland and internationally.

The concept of information security culture, which recently gained increased attention, aims to comprehensively grasp socio-cultural mechanisms that have an impact on organizational security. Different measurement instruments have been developed to measure and assess information security culture using survey-based tools. However, the content, breadth and face validity of these scales vary greatly. This study aims to identify and provide an overview of the scales that are used to measure information security culture and to evaluate the rigor of reported scale development and validation procedures.

Papers that introduce a new or adapt an existing scale of information security culture were systematically reviewed to evaluate scales of information security culture. A standard search strategy was applied to identify 19 relevant scales, which were evaluated based on the framework of 16 criteria pertaining to the rigor of reported operationalization and the reported validity and reliability of the identified scales.

The results show that the rigor with which scales of information security culture are validated varies greatly and that none of the scales meet all the evaluation criteria. Moreover, most of the studies provide somewhat limited evidence of the validation of scales, indicating room for further improvement. Particularly, critical issues seem to be the lack of evidence regarding discriminant and criterion validity and incomplete documentation of the operationalization process.

Researchers focusing on the human factor in information security need to reach a certain level of agreement on the essential elements of the concept of information security culture. Future studies need to build on existing scales, address their limitations and gain further evidence regarding the validity of scales of information security culture. Further research should also investigate the quality of definitions and make expert assessments of the content fit between concepts and items.

Organizations that aim to assess the level of information security culture among employees can use the results of this systematic review to support the selection of an adequate measurement scale. However, caution is needed for scales that provide limited evidence of validation.

This is the first study that offers a critical evaluation of existing scales of information security culture. The results have decision-making value for researchers who intend to conduct survey-based examinations of information security culture.

This study aims to reexamine the discriminant validity of the customer-based corporate reputation (CBR) scale in both its original and short forms.

The authors used data from end-use customers in two countries and two service industries. Results obtained in partial least squares structural equation modeling for the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT)-based inference test and the Fornell and Larcker criterion were compared to make judgements about the empirical distinctiveness of the CBR scale’s five dimensions.

This study’s findings demonstrate that the CBR scale in both its original and short forms lacks discriminant validity when using the HTMT-based inference test. Conversely, the discriminant validity of the five corporate reputation dimensions is generally supported when using the more liberal Fornell and Larcker criterion.

Future studies using the CBR scale in either the original or its short form should rely on the more stringent HTMT criterion to ensure the discriminant validity of the scale’s five dimensions.

By addressing recent findings regarding the HTMT criterion’s superiority in uncovering discriminant validity issues compared to that of the Fornell and Larcker criterion, this study is the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to reexamine the discriminant validity of the well-known CBR scale.

The uniqueness of the pre-hospital setting and the need for quick decision-making confronts pre-hospital emergency personnel with various moral conflicts that can lead to moral distress (MD) in them. This study aimed to design a valid scale for the assessment of MD in emergency medical service (EMS) staff.

This exploratory mixed-method study was conducted among the EMS provider's community. In the qualitative section, data were gathered and analyzed with semi-structured interviews and conventional content analysis, respectively. The initial pool of items was formed and the primary scale was designed. In the quantitative section, a methodological study was carried out to determine the psychometric properties of the scale including qualitative-quantitative face validity, qualitative-quantitative content validity with content validity ratio and index (CVR/CVI), construct validity by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and convergent validity, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha/ Omega McDonald's/ floor and ceiling effect) and stability with intra-class correlation (ICC).

After interviews with 14 emergency technicians, the initial scale was designed with 60 items. Of the total items, 17 poor items were dropped during face and qualitative content validity. In the content validity phase, the items with CVR > 0.62, modified Kappa > 0.74 were retained, which eliminated 23 items. EFA was conducted with 20 items and lead to the 5 factors. The floor and ceiling effect for the whole scale was zero. Finally, the reliability of the scale was confirmed (a = 0.83, O = 0.86, ICC = 0.95).

The developed 20-item scale is a valid and reliable scale for the assessment of the MD in EMS providers.

The purposes of this study were twofold: (1) to develop a scale for measuring consumers' perceived problems of finding a good fit (PFGF) and (2) to provide evidence of several types of scale validities including nomological validity through examining the relationship between PFGF and body esteem based on attribution theory.

Scale development took place in three steps: (1) An initial pool of items was generated based on a previous study; (2) preliminary quantitative tests of reliability and validity of items were performed, including confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs); and (3) final scale validation through a discriminant and nomological validity test was conducted using CFA and the structural equation model (SEM). CFAs and SEM with the mediation effect were performed using Preacher and Hayes' (2008) bootstrap procedure in Mplus.

Of the 20 items (four items for physical, eight items for aesthetic and eight items for functional) generated in Step 1, a total of 14 items (four items for physical, five items for aesthetic and five items for functional) were remained through preliminary tests of reliability and validity of the scale in Step 2. In Step 3, the 14 items were finalized and validated through testing the hypothesized mediating effect of internal attribution of fit problems between the PFGF scale and the measures of body esteem. The results of consumers' internal causal attribution process of fit problems supported attribution theory.

The study contributes to understanding consumer fit perceptions by developing a scale to assess PFGF that may be a key factor influencing multiple apparel shopping behaviors. The multidimensional scale of perceived PFGF should be useful to provide solutions to PFGF based on information from customers. Better understanding of perceived PFGF will ultimately increase consumer satisfaction with apparel.