Cited by 477Psychometric Methodologies and TestingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorSocial Capital and Networks

Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations

McEvily, Bill, Tortoriello, Marco·2011·Journal of Trust Research

Abstract

Although the organisational literature is increasingly converging on common definitions and theoretical conceptualisations of trust, it is unclear whether the same is true for the measures used to operationalise trust. In this paper, we review the organisational literature to assess the degree of sophistication and convergence across studies in how trust has been measured. Our analysis of 171 papers published over 48 years revealed that the state of the art of trust measurement is rudimentary and highly fragmented. In particular, we identified a total of 129 different measures of trust. Moreover, in only 24 instances were we able to verify that a previously developed and validated measure of trust had been replicated verbatim, and 11 of these replications were by the same authors who originated the measure. In addition to the limited degree of replication, the measurement of trust in the organisational literature is characterised by weak evidence in support of construct validity and limited consensus on operational dimensions. What makes these findings even more surprising is that our review also identified several measures of trust that have been carefully developed and thoroughly validated. We profile those measures with strong measurement properties and discuss their trade-offs. We also present a framework for measuring trust that provides guidance to researchers for selecting or developing a measure of trust and propose an agenda for future research with an emphasis on re…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/21515581.2011.552424

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A lack of consensus around the measurement of trust is well documented in the literature and leading scholars have called for a more unified approach.

    “First, a lack of consensus around the measurement of trust is well documented in the literature and leading scholars in the area have called for a more unified approach (e.g. Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011).”

    From A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship (2021) · cites this paper as McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 228 · Cited by 477

Authors
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • IESE Business School (ES)
Corresponding author
McEvily, Bill
Venue
Journal of Trust Research
Published
2011-04
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
23-63
ISSN
  • 2151-5581 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-559X
OpenAlex
W2040113013
Cited by
477
References
228
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 9
FWCI
28.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Trust Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
Keywords
trust measurement, organizational trust, trust scale, construct validity, replication, measurement properties, trust dimensions, measurement framework, scale development

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