The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration
Abstract
This article conceptualizes and measures collaboration. An empirically validated theory of collaboration, one that can inform both theory and practice, demands a systematic approach to understanding the meaning and measurement of collaboration. We present findings from a study that develops and tests the construct validity of a multidimensional model of collaboration. Data collected using a mail questionnaire sent to 1382 directors of organizations that participate in a large national service program provides the basis for a higher order confirmatory factor analysis. The model that emerges from this analysis demonstrates an overall close fit with the empirical data and the high, standardized gamma coefficients estimated in the model confirm that five key dimensions contribute to an overall construct of collaboration. The primary purpose of this research was to stimulate interest in measurement of collaboration and refinement of the model. As such, we present a detailed description of the analytical process, identify areas that affect interpretation of the data (such as possible selection bias), and propose areas for future research. We believe this effort to conceptualize and measure collaboration offers a foundation for further research.
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
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Field, B. C., & Ostrom, E. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146384 · Cited by 18,859
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,442
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-6637 · Cited by 16,594
External Control of Organizations: Resource Dependence Perspective
(2011) · Organizational Behavior 6 · doi:10.4324/9781315701967-54 · Cited by 14,181
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Sufrin, S. C., & Olson, M. (1966) · Industrial and Labor Relations Review · doi:10.2307/2521228 · Cited by 11,518
PSYCHOLOGICAL, EMPOWERMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENT AND VALIDATION.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256865 · Cited by 7,383
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225
De Tocqueville, A. (2010) · The Two Narratives of Political Economy · doi:10.1002/9781118011690.ch12 · Cited by 6,286
Akaike, H. (1987) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294359 · Cited by 5,264
Cited by
Collaborative Platforms as a Governance Strategy
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mux030 · Cited by 604
Hu, Q., Dollard, M. F., & Taris, T. W. (2022) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105524 · Cited by 67
Xu, K., Shen, G. Q., Liu, G., & Martek, I. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11020491 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-11-13
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-56
- ISSN
- 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9803
- OpenAlex
- W2058301091
- Cited by
- 615
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 24.03
- 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: Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jopart/mum036
- The paper
- Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2007). Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum036
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.