The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Single-Item Versus Multiple-Item Measurement Scales: An Empirical Comparison
Abstract
Common methods variance often is a problem with psychological measures that require respondent self-reports of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and the like. The present study examined this problem by comparing multiple-item, Likert-type measures of psychological constructs to single-item, non-Likert-type measures of the same constructs. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the alternative forms were compared on criteria of methods variance and construct validity. Neither method appeared to be empirically better than the other. Unusual situations in which well-developed single-item measures might be appropriate are discussed.
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
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,023
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
(1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,690
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.391 · Cited by 3,824
Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.82.2.247 · Cited by 3,444
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.97.3.562 · Cited by 3,407
A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639502100509 · Cited by 3,193
Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., & Bennett, N. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.3.430 · Cited by 2,923
Cited by
The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 · Cited by 3,107
Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design
Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163 · Cited by 1,458
Advancing formative measurement models
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.009 · Cited by 1,451
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000494 · Cited by 1,136
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 898-915
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W2062800517
- Cited by
- 730
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 2.99
- 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: Single-Item Versus Multiple-Item Measurement Scales: An Empirical Comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0013164498058006003
- The paper
- Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-Item Versus Multiple-Item Measurement Scales: An Empirical Comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006003
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.
