Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 736

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do We Really Need Multiple-Item Measures in Service Research?

Drolet, Aimee L., Morrison, Donald G.·2001·Journal of Service Research

Abstract

Increasingly, marketing academics advocate the use of multiple-item measures. However, use of multiple-item measures is costly, especially for service researchers. This article investigates the incremental information of each additional item in a multiple-item scale. By applying a framework derived from the forecasting literature on correlated experts, the authors show that, even with very modest error term correlations between items, the incremental information from each additional item is extremely small. This study’s “information” (as opposed to “reliability”) approach indicates that even the second or third item contributes little to the information obtained from the first item. Furthermore, the authors present evidence that added items actually aggravate respondent behavior, inflating across-item error term correlation and undermining respondent reliability. Researchers may want to consider the issue of item information in addition to reliability. This article discusses ways in which researchers can construct scales that maximize the amount of information scale items offer without compromising measurement 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 · 10.1177/109467050133001

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

Cited by

See all 736

Metadata

Authors
Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G.
Venue
Journal of Service Research
Published
2001-02
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
196-204
ISSN
  • 1094-6705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7379
OpenAlex
W2170185509
Cited by
736
References
2
FWCI
18.83
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.