The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Reflections on discriminant validity: Reexamining the Bove et al. (2009) findings
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The AVE-SV approach tolerates strong correlations when the AVE value is high.
“Additionally, the AVE-SV approach tolerates strong correlations when the AVE value is high (Shiu et al., 2011;Voorhees et al., 2016).”
From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Shiu et al., 2011
The AVE-SV approach has been criticized for relying on rules of thumb rather than statistical test procedures, thus disregarding sampling errors.
“Despite the increasing popularity of the AVE-SV approach, it has been criticized for relying on rules of thumb rather than statistical test procedures, thus disregarding sampling errors (Shiu et al., 2011).”
From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Shiu et al., 2011
Using AVE to assess convergent validity relies on a rule of thumb rather than statistical testing procedures; this means that sampling errors are disregarded, and conclusions cannot be generalized to larger populations.
“Nonetheless, using AVE to assess convergent validity relies on a rule of thumb rather than statistical testing procedures; this means that sampling errors are disregarded, and conclusions cannot be generalized to larger populations (Shiu et al., 2011).”
From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Shiu et al., 2011
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value of greater than 0.5 relies on a rule of thumb that ignores sampling errors.
“Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value of greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) ➢ Relies on a rule of thumb that ignores sampling errors (Shiu, Pervan, Bove, & Beatty, 2011)”
From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Shiu, Pervan, Bove, & Beatty, 2011
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 9 · Cited by 111
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Anderson, 1988, Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychol Bull, 103, 411, 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · DOI · Paper page
- Bagozzi, 1982, Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal, Adm Sci Q, 27, 459, 10.2307/2392322 · DOI · Paper page
- Bagozzi, 1988, On the evaluation of structural equation models, J Acad Mark Sci, 16, 74, 10.1007/BF02723327 · DOI · Paper page
- Bagozzi, 1991, Assessing construct validity in organizational research, Adm Sci Q, 36, 421, 10.2307/2393203 · DOI · Paper page
- Bove, 2009, Service worker role in encouraging customer organizational citizenship behaviors, J Bus Res, 62, 698, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.07.003 · DOI
- Fornell, 1981, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, J Mark Res, 18, 39, 10.2307/3151312 · DOI · Paper page
- Gerbing, 1988, An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, J Mark Res, 25, 186, 10.2307/3172650 · DOI · Paper page
Metadata
- Authors
- Shiu, E., Pervan, S. J., Bove, L. L., & Beatty, S. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Strathclyde (GB)
- Southern Cross University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- University of Alabama (US)
- Corresponding author
- Beatty, Sharon E.
- Venue
- Journal of Business Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 497-500
- ISSN
- 0148-2963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2092008714
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Business Research (publishedVersion)
- Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Keywords
- discriminant validity, latent variable models, organizational citizenship behavior, service employees, measurement validity, reply to critics
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
