Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 958

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications

Rust, Roland T., Cooil, Bruce·1994·Journal of Marketing Research
DOI 10.1177/002224379403100101
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Data based on qualitative judgments are prevalent in both academic research in marketing and applied marketing research. Reliability measurement of qualitative data is important to determine the stability and quality of the data obtained. The authors assume a decision theoretic loss function, formally model the loss to the researcher of using wrong judgments, and show how this produces a new, proportional reduction in loss (PRL) reliability measure that generalizes many existing quantitative and qualitative measures. Because the PRL measure is often cumbersome to compute directly, they provide reference tables that enable the researcher to apply their approach easily. They then use this new approach to explore several important practical issues in conducting marketing research with qualitative judgments. In particular, they address the issues of (1) how reliable qualitative data should be (extending directly from Nunnally's rule of thumb for Cronbach's alpha in quantitative measurement), (2) how many judges are necessary given a known proportion of agreement between judges, and (3) given a fixed number of judges, what proportion of agreement must be obtained to ensure adequate reliability.

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 · 10.1177/002224379403100101

Cites

3 of 3 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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. 10.1177/074391568400300103 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/002224378402100107 · DOI
  3. 10.2307/2392616 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1177/002224379303000102 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1177/001316448104100307 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cooil Bruce, 1993, Psychometrika
  8. Cooil Bruce, 1993, “Estimating the Reliability of Qualitative Data,”
  9. 10.2307/2090715 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cronbach L.J., 1972, The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles.
  11. Goodman Leo A., 1954, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732
  12. Hildebrand D.K., 1977, Prediction Analysis of Cross Classifications.
  13. 10.1177/002224379002700206 · DOI
  14. Nunnally Jum C., 1978, Psychometric Theory.
  15. 10.1177/002224378902600201 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1177/002224378001700101 · DOI
  17. Peter J. Paul, 1977, Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 394
  18. 10.1177/002224378602300101 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/002224378702400102 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/002224377301000108 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rust, R. T., & Cooil, B.
Venue
Journal of Marketing Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1994-02
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7193
DOI
10.1177/002224379403100101
OpenAlex
W2097235580
Cited by
958
References
3
FWCI
11.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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.