The Feasibility of Single-Item Measures in Sport Loyalty Research
Researchers in disciplines other than sport have attempted to make a case for single-item measures of cognitive and affective dimensions in instances when simplicity, brevity, or global measurement is of paramount importance. This study compared and contrasted two separate multiple-item measures to two single-item measures referent to two specified constructs: (1) affective commitment to a team, represented by the Psychological Commitment to Team scale, and (2) team identification represented by the Team Identification Index. Data were collected from 146 college students (72 men and 74 women) at a large American university. It was determined that multiple-item scales had the advantage of breadth of measurement and scale, and that single-item scales had the advantage of simplicity and brevity or ease of use. The study also examined one of the greatest criticisms of single-item measures and one of the greatest advantages of the multiple-item scales: reliability and concurrent validity. The Team Identification Index had better reliability (0.92 vs. 0.83) but explained less variance in behavioural items than its referent single-item measure. The Psychological Commitment to Team had better reliability (0.96 vs. 0.90) and explained more variance than its referent single-item measure. In general, all single-item measures should be tested before use and only used in certain circumstances. Specifically for the Team Identification Index and the Psychological Commitment to Team scale, sport marketers may be able to use the referent single-item measures in certain situations.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 8 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/716936/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/716936/bibliographic|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:spomar:v:8:y:2005:i:1:p:69-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.