The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A caveat on using single‐item versus multiple‐item scales
Abstract
Single‐item measures are quick and easy to use; however, methodologists advocate the use of multiple‐item measures. Recently, this stringent viewpoint has been challenged. Using the classical formula for the correction for attenuation and job satisfaction data, they demonstrated that meaningful reliability estimates can be calculated for single‐item measures. This study examined this approach using “belief in a just world” data from two instruments. The findings provide qualified support for single‐item measures when the underlying constructs are homogeneous, but these findings are not strong enough to challenge the view that multiple‐item measures are needed to measure relatively complex constructs reliably. Practitioners and researchers should be wary of single‐item measures.
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 new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047358 · Cited by 8,686
Estimating the Reliability of a Single-Item Measure
Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631 · Cited by 380
Cited by
A single-item measure of social identification: reliability, validity, and utility
Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12006 · Cited by 1,021
Cheah, J.-H., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Ramayah, T., & Ting, H. (2018) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-10-2017-0649 · Cited by 566
(2009) · Cited by 355
How to Evaluate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making? A Survey of Empirical Methodologies
Vereschak, O., Bailly, G., & Caramiaux, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3476068 · Cited by 229
Singh, J., Karanika-Murray, M., Baguley, T., & Hudson, J. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17196987 · Cited by 132
Metadata
- Authors
- Loo, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Managerial Psychology
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2002-02-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 68-75
- ISSN
- 0268-3946 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2112994156
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.25
- 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 caveat on using single‐item versus multiple‐item scales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/02683940210415933
- The paper
- Loo, R. (2002). A caveat on using single‐item versus multiple‐item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415933
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.
