Top

Marketing Letters

Published in:

01-09-2015

Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay

Author: Lars Bergkvist

Published in: Marketing Letters | Issue 3/2015

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In their article, Bergkvist and Rossiter (Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184, 2007) recommended marketing academics to use single-item instead of multiple-item measures for doubly concrete constructs. This recommendation was based on a study showing that the predictive validity of single-item measures was comparable to that of multiple-item measures. Kamakura (2014) presents three criticisms of Bergkvist and Rossiter’s study: (1) The correlations used to evaluate predictive validity are inflated by the presence of common-methods variance in the data, (2) the study used concurrent validity as criterion rather than predictive validity, and (3) the multiple-item measures in the study were not corrected for attenuation. A re-analysis of the data from the original study refutes the claims made by Kamakura (2014). The analysis shows that the common-methods variance in the data was negligible and that predicting delayed measures rather than concurrent measures yielded virtually identical results as in the original study. It is also shown that it is possible to estimate single-item reliabilities and correct single-item measures for attenuation, which makes them as predictively valid as multiple-item measures. Thus, there is no reason to change the conclusions and recommendations made in Bergkvist and Rossiter’s (Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184, 2007) article. The present article also shows that Kamakura’s (2014) analysis of consumer panel data has limitations which casts doubts upon the conclusions drawn from the analysis results. In addition, there is a discussion of the cost, in terms of research quality, that researchers unnecessarily using multiple-items measures pay.

previous article Measure twice and cut once: the carpenter’s rule still applies

next article On the limits of research rigidity: the number of items in a scale

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

The formula for the CMV adjusted correlation is r _A = \( \frac{r_{\mathrm{U}}-{r}_{\mathrm{M}}}{1-{r}_{\mathrm{M}}} \), where r _A = the CMV adjusted correlation, r _M = the lowest correlation between the marker variable and focal variables, and r _U = the uncorrected correlation between two theoretically related variables.

The formula for correction of attenuation is \( {\widehat{r}}_{12} \) = \( \frac{r_{12}}{\sqrt{r_{11}{r}_{22}}} \), where \( {\widehat{r}}_{12} \) = the expected correlation between two perfectly reliable variables, r ₁₂ = correlation between variables 1 and 2, and r ₁₁ and r ₂₂ the reliabilities of variables 1 and 2. If \( {\widehat{r}}_{12} \) is assumed to equal 1.0, then r ₂₂ = \( \frac{r_{12}^2}{r_{11}} \).

The number of Google Scholar citations is considerably higher (750+). However, Google Scholar, unlike Web of Science, does not support analysis of citations on the publication level. It seems likely that the share would be similar if the Google Scholar citations were analyzed.

Adigüzel, F., & Wedel, M. (2008). Split questionnaire design for massive surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 608–617.CrossRef

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184.CrossRef

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2008). The role of ad likability in predicting an ad’s campaign performance. Journal of Advertising, 37, 85–97.CrossRef

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2009). Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 607–621.CrossRef

Bruner, G. C., II. (1998). Standardization & justification: do A_ad scales measure up? Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20, 1–18.CrossRef

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.CrossRef

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRef

DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.CrossRef

Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effects of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 289–304.CrossRef

Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421–435.CrossRef

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 392–404.CrossRef

Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.CrossRef

Kamakura, W.A. (2014). Measure twice and cut once: the carpenter’s rule still applies. Marketing Letters, this issue.

Lehmann, D. R., McAllister, L., & Staelin, R. (2011). Sophistication in research in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75, 155–165.CrossRef

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.CrossRef

Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52, 1865–1883.CrossRef

Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: the lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105.CrossRef

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 381–391.CrossRef

Peterson, R. A., & Kim, Y. (2013). On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 194–198.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRef

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.CrossRef

Rossiter, J. R. (2010). Marketing measurement revolution: C-OAR-SE to replace psychometrics. Transfer - Werbeforschung & Praxis, 56(4), 66–72.

Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Measurement for the social sciences: the C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 664–680.CrossRef

Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high elaboration: it’s all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25, 536–552.CrossRef

Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: a replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.CrossRef

Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996). Estimating the reliability of a single-item measure. Psychological Reports, 78, 631–634.CrossRef

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.CrossRef

Title: Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay
Author: Lars Bergkvist
Publication date: 01-09-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Marketing Letters / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0923-0645
Electronic ISSN: 1573-059X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9325-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Cross-national differences in uncertainty avoidance predict the effectiveness of mass customization across East Asia: a large-scale field investigation

Measure twice and cut once: the carpenter’s rule still applies

Celebrity endorsements and women consumers in India: how generation-cohort affiliation and celebrity-product congruency moderate the benefits of chronological age congruency

Do you really feel happy? Some implications of Voice Emotion Response in Mandarin Chinese

On the limits of research rigidity: the number of items in a scale

Consumer store choice in Asian markets