The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Approach for Confirmatory Measurement and Structural Equation Modeling of Organizational Properties
Abstract
A crucial undertaking in research on organizations is to obtain valid estimates of the organization-level constructs and their relationships to one another. One organizational research methodology has multiple individuals within each firm act as informants and report their perceptions of these constructs. Drawing upon past work, a comprehensive, confirmatory measurement approach is presented that enables delineation of the organizational constructs of interest from potential sources of measurement error in multiple informant reports. A confirmatory composition model first specifies the relationship between measurements taken from multiple informants and organization-level indicators of organizational constructs. This model provides an explicit representation of the informants' perceptual agreement with respect to each measure, the bias in their responses due to their particular perspectives on the firm, and random measurement error. Measures which demonstrate significant perceptual agreement across informants are retained as organization-level indicators. A confirmatory measurement model is then presented that relates the defined indicators to their posited underlying organizational constructs, with the constructs allowed to freely inter-correlate. Finally, a structural model relates the constructs to one another as specified by some theory. The structure model in conjunction with the measurement model permits a comprehensive assessment of the construct validity of the organizational properties. An extension of the approach is also discussed where the assessment of commonalities and differences between different kinds of organizations with respect to some theoretical model is of interest. An illustration of the confirmatory approach is given, drawing upon data from a study of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working relationships.
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
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
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392322 · Cited by 2,064
Simultaneous Factor Analysis in Several Populations
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291366 · Cited by 2,051
On the Meaning of within-Factor Correlated Measurement Errors
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208993 · Cited by 526
Self-citation
Cited by
Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669 · Cited by 6,233
An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378802500207 · Cited by 6,293
Self-citationA Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299005400103 · Cited by 5,826
Self-citationCONDUCTING INTERORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH USING KEY INFORMANTS.
KUMAR, N., STERN, L. W., & ANDERSON, J. C. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256824 · Cited by 2,467
Self-citationInnovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance
Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015 · Cited by 2,053
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, J. C.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1987-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 525-541
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2128663886
- Cited by
- 453
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.97
- 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.