Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory

Malhotra, Manoj K, Grover, Varun·1998·Journal of Operations Management

Abstract

The use of field‐based empirical methodologies in the production and operations management (POM) area has been steadily increasing over the past several years. One of the most prominent among these is the survey research methodology which has often been used to capture data from business organizations. However, to effectively contribute to theory development in the POM field, this methodology must be carefully implemented. Poorly designed and executed survey research is of little or no value. This paper attempts to provide a normative perspective on ‘good survey research practices’. In doing so, it attempts to bridge the gap between survey research and theory development. The paper liberally draws from work in other social science disciplines like psychology, marketing, organizational behavior, and other related fields that are more mature in the use of surveys, and applies it to the POM area. A set of ideal survey research attributes are identified, and existing POM survey work in four prestigious academic journals is evaluated with respect to these attributes. Results of assessing 25 survey‐based articles published in these journals between 1990 and 1995 indicate that both exploratory as well as explanatory survey research is being conducted, with current emphasis being more on explanatory kind of research. In order to move the field forward, greater attention will need to be focused on employing multi‐item constructs, assessing them for content validity, and purifying them through field‐based pretesting. More sophisticated POM studies in the future would have to aim for testing theory with reliable and valid scales that are relatively free of measurement related errors. It is hoped that this work will act as a catalyst in compressing the learning curve with respect to survey research practices in POM, and also accelerate the use of greater methodological rigor in future empirical studies in the field.

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 · 10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00021-7

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.2307/3150876 · doi:10.2307/3150876 · Paper page
  2. 10.2307/3151642 · doi:10.2307/3151642 · Paper page
  3. Dubin R. 1978. Theory Building. Free Press New York.
  4. 10.2307/3172650 · DOI · Paper page
  5. McGrath J. 1979. Toward a theory of method for research on organizations. In: Mowday R.T. Steers R.M. (Eds.) Research in Organizations: Issues and Controversies. Goodyear Publishing Santa Monica CA pp. 4–21.
  6. Nunnally J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw‐Hill New York.

Cited by

See all 1,313

Metadata

Authors
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V.
Venue
Journal of Operations Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-07
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
407-425
ISSN
  • 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-1317
OpenAlex
W2122983118
Cited by
1,313
References
27
FWCI
18.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00021-7
The paper
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00021-7

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.