The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of operations management studies using scale development techniques
Abstract
Operations management research is beginning to focus on the development and use of reliable and valid scales. OM scale development efforts and scale development in organizational behavior and psychology are compared. Major differences include the fact that OM research tended, until recently, to be theoretical and, when applied, tended to use the firm as a unit of measure. OM research, therefore, seems to lack a common language that other fields have developed. OM literature was searched for completely described scale development efforts, and six studies were identified and reviewed for this paper. Suggested techniques of scale development were compiled primarily from those methods used in research areas such as psychology, organizational behavior, and management. The reviewed studies were compared to the suggested techniques. Many of the same techniques were described by the six studies. The similarities should be encouraging to researchers thinking about scale development studies. Weaknesses in the studies are identified, and suggestions for researchers are presented. Finally, the study provides a discussion of when and why OM researchers might find the development and use of scales advantageous in their research efforts.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639502100509 · Cited by 3,193
Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265 · Cited by 2,880
Cited by
Wong, C. Y., Boon‐itt, S., & Wong, C. W. Y. (2011) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2011.01.003 · Cited by 1,083
WebQual: An Instrument for Consumer Evaluation of Web Sites
Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2007) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415110302 · Cited by 812
Choe, J. Y. (., & Kim, S. (. (2018) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.11.007 · Cited by 688
The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on green product innovation and performance
Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W. Y., Dai, J., & Lim, M. K. (2016) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.12.006 · Cited by 490
Manufacturing strategy: Literature review and some issues
Dangayach, G. S., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2001) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570110393414 · Cited by 469
Metadata
- Authors
- Hensley, R. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Operations Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-02-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 343-358
- ISSN
- 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-1317
- OpenAlex
- W2043695287
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.04
- 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: A review of operations management studies using scale development techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00051-5
- The paper
- Hensley, R. L. (1999). A review of operations management studies using scale development techniques. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00051-5
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.