The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers
Abstract
Scale development involves numerous theoretical, methodological, and statistical competencies. Despite the central role that scales play in our predictions, scholars often apply measurement building procedures that are inconsistent with best practices. The defaults in statistical programs, inadequate training, and numerous evaluation points can lead to improper practices. Based on a quantitative content analysis of communication journal articles, scholars have improved very little in the communication of their scale development decisions and practices. To address these reoccurring issues, this article breaks down and recommends 10 steps to follow in the scale development process for researchers unfamiliar with the process. Furthermore, the present research makes a unique contribution by overviewing procedures scholars should employ to develop their dimensions and corresponding items. The overarching objective is to encourage the adoption of scale development best practices that yield stronger concepts, and in the long run, a more stable foundation of knowledge.
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?
In the citing paper
“As pointed out by Carpenter (2018), it is common in scale development to remove items.”
From Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load (2023) · cites this paper as Carpenter (2018)
In the citing paper
“Besides, it is important to meet the requirement of an optimal scale length to ensure participants' motivation (Carpenter, 2018).”
From Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load (2023) · cites this paper as Carpenter, 2018
In the citing paper
“The proposed questionnaire was developed following recommendations from various methodologists (e.g., Carpenter, 2018;DeVellis and Thorpe, 2021;Worthington and Whittaker, 2006).”
From Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load (2023) · cites this paper as Carpenter, 2018
In the citing paper
“Measuring an abstract construct such as cognitive load with a small number of items is problematic (Carpenter, 2018).”
From Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load (2023) · cites this paper as Carpenter, 2018
In the citing paper
“These items were not deleted to maintain the theoretical convergence of the construct (e.g., Carpenter, 2018).”
From Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load (2023) · cites this paper as Carpenter, 2018
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
(1991) · Cited by 15,554
The application of electronic computers to factor analysis
Kaiser, H. F. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000116 · Cited by 12,459
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/jyj1-4868 · Cited by 10,297
(2007) · Cited by 10,092
Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed
Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., Black, W. C., & Hair, J. F. (2006) · Cited by 9,807
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.3.272 · Cited by 9,587
A Rationale and Test for the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis
Horn, J. L. (1965) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289447 · Cited by 8,965
Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.3200/joer.99.6.323-338 · Cited by 6,937 · cited 1×
“Several content analyses have been done outside the field of communication evaluating such practices (Jackson, Gillaspy, & PureStephenson, 2009; Schreiber et al., 2006; Worthington &Whittaker, 2006).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Barrett P. T., 1981, Personality Study and Group Behavior, 1, 23
- Beavers A. S., 2013, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18, 1
- Bollen K., 1991, MIS Quarterly, 28, 305
- Chaffee S. H., 1991, Explication
- Costello A. B., 2005, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1
- Gorsuch R. L., 1983, Factor analysis
- Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory
- Tabachnick B. G., 2007, Using multivariate statistics
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharjee, K. K. (2020) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10159-7 · Cited by 747
Chatterjee, S., & Kar, A. K. (2020) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102103 · Cited by 613
Rana, N. P., Chatterjee, S., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Akter, S. (2021) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1955628 · Cited by 500
Abeele, V. V., Spiel, K., Nacke, L., Johnson, D., & Gerling, K. (2020) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102370 · Cited by 411
Adoption of artificial intelligence-integrated CRM systems in agile organizations in India
Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Ghosh, S. K. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120783 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Carpenter, S.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carpenter, Serena
- ORCID
- Carpenter, Serena
- Venue
- Communication Methods and Measures
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-11-22
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-44
- ISSN
- 1931-2458 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-2466
- OpenAlex
- W2768349557
- Cited by
- 1,141
- References
- 86
- Citations by year
- 2026: 208 · 2025: 240 · 2024: 209 · 2023: 130 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 25.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Methods and Measures (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Keywords
- scale development, measurement, best practices, item development, measurement reliability, measurement validity, communication research
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
