Main Content Area
Another volume in the Marketing Scales Handbook series has been published! This is Volume 8. The book has reviews of 392 scales that have not been in the previous volumes. Read more about the book, the two formats it is in, and download the sample that has the Table of Contents and examples of some reviews.
Beyond the big volumes, two smaller books have been published in the last couple of years. One is called Measuring Innovation and Technology Acceptance. Unlike the big volumes, this one focuses on 30 scales that have been used in studies of consumers involving innovativeness and/or the adoption of technology products.
The other small book is entitled Marketing Scales Handbook: The Top 20 Multi-Item Measures Used in Consumer Research. Dr. Bruner's goal was to provide reviews of the 20 scales that have been used the most in scholarly research of consumers in the last 30+ years, e.g., attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, purchase intention, satisfaction, and loyalty.
Scale-related Pet-Peeves Blog
The most recent pet-peeve blog has to do with the occasions in published research when evidence is provided by authors for the validity of some scales that were used in their study but not for others that were viewed as beyond need of validity testing. It is as if some measures have achieved a holy status. Is that justifiable?
Assumption of Perpetual Validity
In my routine work of reviewing articles for scales to review, I see statements made by authors of scholarly journal articles that raise red flags. I have written about several of the problems in past posts. The focus of this post has to do with authors borrowing a scale from past research and implying that they do not have to show evidence of its psychometric quality in their study because it has already been validated. It is as if to say, the scale is beyond reproach and has reached a holy status. I don’t buy that!--- more ---
- STOP RECREATING THE WHEEL!!!
- USE THE "RIGHT" NUMBER OF RESPONSE POINTS
- STOP USING LOWER NUMBERS TO MEAN MORE OF SOMETHING!
- IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF YOUR SCALES!
- DON'T USE REVERSE CODED ITEMS IN SCALES!
- USE THE "RIGHT" NUMBER OF SCALE ITEMS!
- CONFUSING REFLECTIVE AND FORMATIVE SCALES - Part 1
- CONFUSING REFLECTIVE AND FORMATIVE SCALES - Part 2
- CONFUSING REFLECTIVE AND FORMATIVE SCALES - Part 3
- AFFECT IS NOT THE SAME AS ATTITUDE
- ATTITUDE IS NOT THE SAME AS INTENTION OR BEHAVIOR -Part 1
- ATTITUDE IS NOT THE SAME AS INTENTION OR BEHAVIOR -Part 2
- PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF SCALE QUALITY
- DON'T JUST MEASURE HALF OF AN ATTITUDE
- STOP MAKING SCALES FOR THESE CONSTRUCTS!
- OUR LIMITED IMPROVEMENT IN SCALE DEVELOPMENT
- GIVING SCALES "BAD" NAMES
- FAILURE TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE MEASURES
- POOR RESPONSE RATES
- CONTINUED MISUSE OF 1-ITEM MEASURES
- SIMPLISTIC METRICS ABUSE
- IGNORING DIMENSIONALITY
- WHEN JOURNALS DON'T ADEQUATELY VET SCALES
- SETTING STANDARDS FOR SCALE USAGE AND REPORTING
- ENGAGEMENT IS NOT SOMETHING NEW
- DECEPTIVE SCALE REPORTING
- POOR CHOICE OF SCALES (SINGLE- vs. MULTI-ITEM)
- QUESTIONABLE SCALE UNIDIMENSIONALITY
- ASSUMPTION OF PERPETUAL VALIDITY