IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5532-d808706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Item Response Theory (IRT)-Graded Response Model (GRM) to Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Waqar Ahmed Sethar

    (Institute of Science, Technology and Development, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan)

  • Adnan Pitafi

    (Institute of Science, Technology and Development, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan)

  • Arabella Bhutto

    (Institute of Science, Technology and Development, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan)

  • Abdelmohsen A. Nassani

    (Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Mohamed Haffar

    (Department of Management, Birmingham Business School, Birmingham B15 2TY, UK)

  • Shah Muhammad Kamran

    (Institute of Science, Technology and Development, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76062, Pakistan)

Abstract

The scale of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) assesses the perceptions about entrepreneurial ecosystem domains, finances, capital finances, support, support professions, policies, markets, human resources, and culture. The scales are always error-prone—these scales must possess properties that enable them it to provide maximum information and validity reliability. Convenient sampling data from (n = 474) founders, co-founders, and entrepreneurs were collected. The IRT-GRM model is used to validate and test the instrument-based on polytomous scales. IRT yields discriminating power—the level of difficulty of the items of the scale. The scale consists of 48 items. The item Pol5 (4.13) was found to have the highest discriminating value (4.13), the item mar5 had the lowest discriminating value (1.57), and all items had discriminating values greater than the threshold value of 0.60. The EE Scale showed good reliability based on McDonald’s omega and Cronbach’s alpha (0.80 and 0.88). The parallel and factor analysis showed good agreement of the one-dimesnionality of the scale. The model goodness of fit statistics based on the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index, (TLI) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) showed a satisfactory level of fit; however, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSE) showed a poor fit. The item characteristic curves showed that the all item responses were properly ordered. The items of the scale showed a satisfactory level of discrimination power and level of difficulty, and it was found to have three levels of agreement about entrepreneurial ecosystem scale. It is concluded that the EE scale possesses good psychometric properties and that it is reliable and valid instrument to measure the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the given region.

Suggested Citation

  • Waqar Ahmed Sethar & Adnan Pitafi & Arabella Bhutto & Abdelmohsen A. Nassani & Mohamed Haffar & Shah Muhammad Kamran, 2022. "Application of Item Response Theory (IRT)-Graded Response Model (GRM) to Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-27, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5532-:d:808706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5532/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5532/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Stam, 2015. "Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 1759-1769, September.
    2. David B. Audretsch & Maksim Belitski, 2021. "Towards an entrepreneurial ecosystem typology for regional economic development: the role of creative class and entrepreneurship," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(4), pages 735-756, April.
    3. David Audretsch, 2009. "The entrepreneurial society," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 245-254, June.
    4. Christina Theodoraki & Karim Messeghem & David Audretsch, 2020. "The Effectiveness of Incubators’ Co-Opetition Strategy in the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: Empirical Evidence From France," Post-Print hal-03053306, HAL.
    5. Mahdi Rezapour & Kelly Cuccolo & Christopher Veenstra & F. Richard Ferraro, 2021. "An Item Response Theory to Analyze the Psychological Impacts of Rail-Transport Delay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Eric Liguori & Josh Bendickson & Shelby Solomon & William C. McDowell, 2019. "Development of a multi-dimensional measure for assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1-2), pages 7-21, January.
    7. K. Bruns & N. Bosma & M. Sanders & M. Schramm, 2017. "Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a regional cross-section growth regression approach," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 31-54, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Angelo Cavallo & Alessandra Colombelli & Elettra D’Amico & Emilio Paolucci, 2023. "“Balanced” or “polarized” entrepreneurial ecosystem types? Evidence from Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 1860-1889, October.
    2. Theodoraki, Christina & Dana, Léo-Paul & Caputo, Andrea, 2022. "Building sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: A holistic approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 346-360.
    3. Uwe Cantner & James A. Cunningham & Erik E. Lehmann & Matthias Menter, 2021. "Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a dynamic lifecycle model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 407-423, June.
    4. Christina Theodoraki & Alexis Catanzaro, 2022. "Widening the borders of entrepreneurial ecosystem through the international lens," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 383-406, April.
    5. Niels Bosma & Jeroen Content & Mark Sanders & Erik Stam, 2018. "Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in Europe," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 483-499, August.
    6. Coad, Alex & Srhoj, Stjepan, 2023. "Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional persistence of high growth firms: A ‘broken clock’ critique," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    7. Colin Donaldson, 2021. "Culture in the entrepreneurial ecosystem: a conceptual framing," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 289-319, March.
    8. Maksim Belitski & Ana-Maria Grigore & Anca Bratu, 2021. "Political entrepreneurship: entrepreneurship ecosystem perspective," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1973-2004, December.
    9. Guéneau, Grégory & Chabaud, Didier & Sauvannet, Marie-Christine Chalus, 2023. "Sticky ties: Quest for structural inter-organizational configurations in entrepreneurial ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    10. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    11. Rocha, Augusto & Brown, Ross & Mawson, Suzanne, 2021. "Capturing conversations in entrepreneurial ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    12. Arnauld Bessagnet & Joan Crespo & Jerome Vicente, 2023. "How is the literature on Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystems structured? A socio-semantic network approach," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2320, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2023.
    13. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    14. Reis, Germano Glufke & Villar, Eduardo Guedes & Prado Gimenez, Fernando Antonio & Maiolino Molento, Carla Forte & Ferri, Priscila, 2022. "The interplay of entrepreneurial ecosystems and global value chains: Insights from the cultivated meat entrepreneurial ecosystem of Singapore," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Allan O’Connor & David Audretsch, 2023. "Regional entrepreneurial ecosystems: learning from forest ecosystems," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 1051-1079, March.
    16. Daniel L. Bennett, 2021. "Local economic freedom and creative destruction in America," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 333-353, January.
    17. Luiza Ossowska & Dorota Janiszewska & Grzegorz Kwiatkowski, 2023. "The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem of Food Festivals—A Vendors’ Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, January.
    18. David Noble & Michael B. Charles & Robyn Keast, 2023. "Valuing intangible outcomes from the Cooperative Research Centres‐Projects program," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 47-62, March.
    19. David B. Audretsch & Maksim Belitski & Georg Eichler, 2020. "Bilingualism and regional entrepreneurship," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(3), pages 787-806, December.
    20. Kapturkiewicz, Agata, 2022. "Varieties of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A comparative study of Tokyo and Bangalore," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(9).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5532-:d:808706. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.