Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,736

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective

Open access
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Sarstedt, Marko, Fuchs, Christoph, Wilczynski, Petra, Kaiser, Sebastian·2012·Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
DOI 10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Establishing predictive validity of measures is a major concern in marketing research. This paper investigates the conditions favoring the use of single items versus multi-item scales in terms of predictive validity. A series of complementary studies reveals that the predictive validity of single items varies considerably across different (concrete) constructs and stimuli objects. In an attempt to explain the observed instability, a comprehensive simulation study is conducted aimed at identifying the influence of different factors on the predictive validity of single versus multi-item measures. These include the average inter-item correlations in the predictor and criterion constructs, the number of items measuring these constructs, as well as the correlation patterns of multiple and single items between the predictor and criterion constructs. The simulation results show that, under most conditions typically encountered in practical applications, multi-item scales clearly outperform single items in terms of predictive validity. Only under very specific conditions do single items perform equally well as multi-item scales. Therefore, the use of single-item measures in empirical research should be approached with caution, and the use of such measures should be limited to special circumstances.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(4), 453–460. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bagozzi, R. P. (1982). The role of measurement in theory construction and hypothesis testing: Toward a holistic model. In C. Fornell (Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis. Measurement and evaluation. Vol. 2 (pp. 5–23). New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
  3. Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Haws, K. L. (2011). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. · DOI
  5. 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(2), 175–184. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2009). Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 607–621. · DOI
  7. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 239–257. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Boyle, G. J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Personality and Individual Differences, 12(3), 291–294. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bruner, G. C., Hensel, P. J., & James, K. E. (2005). Marketing scales handbook: A compilation of multi-Item measures (Vol. 4). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
  11. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Peter, J.-P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 360–375. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. Cooil, B., Winer, R. S., & Rados, D. L. (1987). Cross-validation for prediction. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 271–279. · DOI
  15. Darden, W. S., Carlson, M., & Hampton, R. D. (1984). Issues in fitting theoretical and measurement models in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 12(3), 273–296. · DOI
  16. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
  17. Diamantopoulos, A. (2005). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: a comment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(1), 1–9. · DOI
  18. Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G. (2001). Do we really need multiple-item measures in service research? Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 196–204. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1–26. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ferguson, G. A. (1971). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  21. Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research. Business Administration Review, 69(2), 195–210.
  22. Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1989). Focus of attention at work: construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 61–77. · DOI
  23. Gorsuch, R. L., & McFarland, S. G. (1972). Single vs. multiple-item scales for measuring religious values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(1), 53–64. · DOI
  24. Grapentine, T. H. (2001). A practitioner’s comment on Aimee L. Drolet and Donald G. Morrison’s “Do we really need multiple-item measures in service research?”. Journal of Service Research, 4(2), 155–158. · DOI
  25. Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 404–420. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Iacobucci, D., & Duhachek, A. (2003). Advancing alpha: measuring reliability with confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 478–487. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: a state of the art review. Journal of Marketing, 42(2), 87–96. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kopalle, P. K., & Lehmann, D. R. (1997). Alpha inflation? The impact of eliminating scale items on Cronbach’s alpha. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 189–197. · DOI
  29. Kwon, H., & Trail, G. (2005). The feasibility of single-item measures in sport loyalty research. Sport Management Review, 8(1), 69–89. · DOI
  30. Lee, H., Delene, L. M., Bunda, M. A., & Chankon, K. (2000). Methods of measuring health-care service quality. Journal of Business Research, 48(3), 233–246. · DOI
  31. Long, J. S. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Loo, R. (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 68–75. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Moore, K. A., Halle, T. G., Vandivere, S., & Mariner, C. L. (2002). Scaling back survey scales: how short is too short? Sociological Methods & Research, 30(4), 530–567. · DOI
  34. Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77–86. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  37. Peter, J.-P. (1979). Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6–17. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Peter, J.-P., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1986). Relationships among research design choices and psychometric properties of rating scales: a meta analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 1–10. · DOI
  39. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1–15). San Diego: Academic. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195–209. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335. · DOI
  42. Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Measurement for the social sciences. The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. Berlin: Springer. · DOI
  43. Ryan, M. J., Buzas, T., & Ramaswamy, V. (1995). Making CSM a power tool—Composite indices boost the value of satisfaction measures for decision making. Marketing Research, 7(3), 10–16.
  44. Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in I/O psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, P. L. Ackerman, L. M. Hough, & H. C. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Vol 1 (pp. 419–489). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  45. Sawyer, A. G., & Ball, D. (1981). Statistical power and effect size in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 275–290. · DOI
  46. Sloan, J. A., Neil, A., Cappelleri, J. C., Fairclough, D. L., Varricchio, C., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. (2002). Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(5), 479–487. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Smith, G. T., & McCarthy, D. M. (1995). Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 300–308. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc. · DOI
  49. Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167–193. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283–299. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Viswanathan, M. (2005). Measurement error and research design. London: Sage Publications. · DOI · Paper page
  52. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252. · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S.
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-02-14
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
434-449
ISSN
  • 0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7824
DOI
10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
OpenAlex
W2131292268
Cited by
1,736
References
12
FWCI
52.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.