Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

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

Loo, Robert·2002·Journal of Managerial Psychology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/02683940210415933

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 347

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

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.