IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint measurement of farm size and farm performance: a confirmatory factor analysis


  • Joleen C. Hadrich
  • Frayne Olson


Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to determine if a single dominant measure defines farm size and farm performance consistently over a ten-year time period, or if alternative measures are needed. The paper also seeks to determine the correlation between farm size and farm performance and how this correlation may change over time. Design/methodology/approach - A confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the relative strength of farm size and performance indicator variables and estimate the relationship between farm size and performance latent variables. Data were collected from the North Dakota Farm and Ranch Business Management Association (NDFRBA) Annual Summaries for 2000-2009. Findings - Results demonstrated that a single indicator, such as acres or rate of return on assets, may not capture the array of farm size and farm performance concepts and multiple indicators should be used to jointly determine farm size and farm performance measures. Results also found a sequential decrease in correlation between farm size and performance for seven of the ten years. Originality/value - This paper addresses the issue regarding multiple measures for farm size and farm performance which helps provide the framework to begin developing a systematic classification of farms for use in strategic farm planning and guide future government policies, federal farm programs, and environmental regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Joleen C. Hadrich & Frayne Olson, 2011. "Joint measurement of farm size and farm performance: a confirmatory factor analysis," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 71(3), pages 295-309, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:71:y:2011:i:3:p:295-309

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lawrence Rubey & Frank Lupi, 1997. "Predicting the Effects of Market Reform in Zimbabwe: A Stated Preference Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 89-99.
    2. Gloy, Brent A. & Hyde, Jeffrey & LaDue, Eddy L., 2002. "Dairy Farm Management and Long-Term Farm Financial Performance," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(2), October.
    3. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, March.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    7. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    8. Wayne H. Howard & Glen C. Filson, 1994. "An Evaluation of the Ontario Farm Business Management Association Program," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 42(3), pages 327-341, November.
    9. T.S. Jayne & Lawrence Rubey & Frank Lupi & David Tschirley & Michael T. Weber, 1996. "Estimating Consumer Response to Food Market Reform Using Stated Preference Data: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 820-824.
    10. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Fox, John A. & Biere, Arlo W., 2005. "European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(02), August.
    11. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    12. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    13. Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123.
    14. Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2003. "Are Stated Preferences Good Predictors of Market Behavior?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 44-45.
    15. Marcellino, Dana M. & Wilson, Christine A., 2006. "Valuing Farm Financial Information," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21243, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Schulz, Lee L. & Hadrich, Joleen C., 2014. "Feeding Practices and Input Cost Performance in U.S. Hog Operations: The Case of Split-Sex and Phase Feeding," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169983, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.


    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:eme:afrpps:v:71:y:2011:i:3:p:295-309. 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: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.