IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v66y2013i9p1307-1317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a new paradigm of measurement in marketing

Author

Listed:
  • Salzberger, Thomas
  • Koller, Monika

Abstract

In measuring latent variables, marketing research currently defines measurement as the assignment of numerals to objects. On this basis, marketing researchers utilize a multitude of avenues to measurement. However, the scientific concept of measurement requires the discovery of a specific structure in the data allowing for the inference of a quantitative latent variable. A review of the quite diverse approaches used to measure marketing constructs reveals serious limitations in terms of their suitability as measurement models. Adhering to a revised definition of measurement, this paper finds that the Rasch model is the most adequate available. An empirical example illustrates its application to a marketing scale. Furthermore, this study investigates how instructions about response speed and the direction of an agree–disagree response scale impact the fit of the data to the Rasch model and to confirmatory factor analysis. The findings are diametrically opposed, with Rasch suggesting more plausible conclusions. Rasch favors well-considered responses and the agree–disagree scale, while factor analysis supports spontaneous responses and the disagree–agree format. The adoption of the Rasch model as the foundation of measurement in marketing promises to promote more advanced and substantial construct theories, is likely to deliver better-substantiated measures, and will enhance the crucial link between content and construct validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Salzberger, Thomas & Koller, Monika, 2013. "Towards a new paradigm of measurement in marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1307-1317.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:66:y:2013:i:9:p:1307-1317
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296312000628
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilcox, James B. & Howell, Roy D. & Breivik, Einar, 2008. "Questions about formative measurement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 1219-1228, December.
    2. Geoff Masters, 1982. "A rasch model for partial credit scoring," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 149-174, June.
    3. John Horn, 1965. "A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 30(2), pages 179-185, June.
    4. K. Jöreskog, 1971. "Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 36(2), pages 109-133, June.
    5. Gordon G. Bechtel, 1985. "Generalizing the Rasch Model for Consumer Rating Scales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 62-73.
    6. Jarvis, Cheryl Burke & MacKenzie, Scott B & Podsakoff, Philip M, 2003. "A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 199-218, September.
    7. David Andrich, 1995. "Further remarks on nondichotomization of graded responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 37-46, March.
    8. Kilbourne, William E. & Beckmann, Suzanne C. & Thelen, Eva, 2002. "The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes: a multinational examination," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 193-204, March.
    9. Venkatraman, Meera P. & Price, Linda L., 1990. "Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness : Concepts, measurement, and implications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 293-315, June.
    10. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    11. Singh, Jagdip, 2004. "Tackling measurement problems with Item Response Theory: Principles, characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 184-208, February.
    12. Childers, Terry L & Houston, Michael J & Heckler, Susan E, 1985. "Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(2), pages 125-134, September.
    13. David Andrich, 1978. "A rating formulation for ordered response categories," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 43(4), pages 561-573, December.
    14. David Andrich, 1995. "Models for measurement, precision, and the nondichotomization of graded responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 7-26, March.
    15. Gordon G. Bechtel & James B. Wiley, 1983. "Probabilistic Measurement of Attributes: A Logit Analysis by Generalized Least Squares," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 389-405.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Jing & Lin, Hua & Hu, Bing & Zhou, Zixiong & Agyeiwaah, Elizabeth & Xu, Ye, 2022. "Advancing the understanding of the resident pro-tourism behavior scale: An integration of item response theory and classical test theory," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 113-125.
    2. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, Alexandra & Wooliscroft, Ben, 2022. "An investigation of sustainable consumption behavior systems – Exploring personal and socio-structural characteristics in different national contexts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 161-173.
    3. Sarstedt, Marko & Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Salzberger, Thomas & Baumgartner, Petra, 2016. "Selecting single items to measure doubly concrete constructs: A cautionary tale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 3159-3167.
    4. de Rezende, Naia A. & de Medeiros, Denise D., 2022. "How rating scales influence responses’ reliability, extreme points, middle point and respondent’s preferences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 266-274.
    5. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, Alexandra & Wooliscroft, Ben, 2016. "Diffusion of innovation: The case of ethical tourism behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2711-2720.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Salzberger, Thomas & Newton, Fiona J. & Ewing, Michael T., 2014. "Detecting gender item bias and differential manifest response behavior: A Rasch-based solution," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607.
    2. David Andrich, 2010. "Sufficiency and Conditional Estimation of Person Parameters in the Polytomous Rasch Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 292-308, June.
    3. de Jong, M.G., 2006. "Response bias in international marketing research," Other publications TiSEM 5d4031be-97b5-4db3-962b-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Singh, Jagdip, 2004. "Tackling measurement problems with Item Response Theory: Principles, characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 184-208, February.
    5. Maud Dampérat & Ping Lei & Florence Jeannot, 2019. "IRT Approach for rating scales: applications for normal and non-normal distributions," Post-Print hal-04325043, HAL.
    6. Silvana Bortolotti & Rafael Tezza & Dalton Andrade & Antonio Bornia & Afonso Sousa Júnior, 2013. "Relevance and advantages of using the item response theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2341-2360, June.
    7. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Chang, Hsin-Li & Yang, Cheng-Hua, 2008. "Explore airlines’ brand niches through measuring passengers’ repurchase motivation—an application of Rasch measurement," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 105-112.
    9. Ivana Bassi & Matteo Carzedda & Enrico Gori & Luca Iseppi, 2022. "Rasch analysis of consumer attitudes towards the mountain product label," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, December.
    10. Panagopoulos, Nikolaos G. & Avlonitis, George J., 2010. "Performance implications of sales strategy: The moderating effects of leadership and environment," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 46-57.
    11. Antonio Caronni & Marina Ramella & Pietro Arcuri & Claudia Salatino & Lucia Pigini & Maurizio Saruggia & Chiara Folini & Stefano Scarano & Rosa Maria Converti, 2023. "The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Hua-Hua Chang, 1996. "The asymptotic posterior normality of the latent trait for polytomous IRT models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 445-463, September.
    13. Curt Hagquist & Raili Välimaa & Nina Simonsen & Sakari Suominen, 2017. "Differential Item Functioning in Trend Analyses of Adolescent Mental Health – Illustrative Examples Using HBSC-Data from Finland," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 10(3), pages 673-691, September.
    14. Valdivieso Taborga, Carlos Eduardo, 2013. "Comparación de los modelos formativo, reflexivo y de antecedentes de evaluación estudiantil del servicio de docencia || Comparison of Formative, Reflective, and Antecedents Models of Students Evaluati," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 16(1), pages 95-120, December.
    15. Rasmus A. X. Persson, 2023. "Theoretical evaluation of partial credit scoring of the multiple-choice test item," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(2), pages 143-161, August.
    16. Chang, Hsin-Li & Wu, Shun-Cheng, 2008. "Exploring the vehicle dependence behind mode choice: Evidence of motorcycle dependence in Taipei," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 307-320, February.
    17. Sarstedt, Marko & Ringle, Christian M. & Smith, Donna & Reams, Russell & Hair, Joseph F., 2014. "Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 105-115.
    18. Genge, Ewa & Bartolucci, Francesco, 2019. "Are attitudes towards immigration changing in Europe? An analysis based on bidimensional latent class IRT models," MPRA Paper 94672, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Jesper Tijmstra & Maria Bolsinova, 2019. "Bayes Factors for Evaluating Latent Monotonicity in Polytomous Item Response Theory Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(3), pages 846-869, September.
    20. Grahame R. Dowling & Tayo Otubanjo, 2011. "Corporate and organizational identity: two sides of the same coin," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 1(3), pages 171-182, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:66:y:2013:i:9:p:1307-1317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.