Main Content Area
Scale-related Pet-Peeves
Blog #4
Identify the Source of Your Scales
This post is addressed primarily to scholars because they are the most likely to publish their studies. Having said that, this topic is relevant for practitioners as well when they prepare reports of their work.
My main point here is very simple: tell readers who developed the scale you used. Is it original or did you borrow it from someone else? Did you borrow the scale intact or did you modify it in some way?
It is shocking how many researchers do not clearly identify the source of their scales or do not provide adequate references. In more cases than I am comfortable with, I have found authors who have provided citations that were either totally wrong or were stretching the truth at best. By "stretching the truth" I mean that the cite provided is not really about the scale they used though it may be related to it, e.g., the information has to do with the construct or a related measure of the construct. The greatest abuse seems to come with phrases such as "modified" and "adapted." Although those terms put the readers on notice that the authors did not borrow scales in tact from the cited sources, the degree of change made by the authors is usually unspecified. I believe that readers expect a strong resemblance between the original version and the "modified" version, especially when no details of the changes are provided. My guess is that providing citations adds credibility to what the authors have done and reduces the likelihood that journal reviewers will ask authors for as much evidence of scale quality as they would if the scale was described as original. My suggestion is that if there is minor rephrasing of the items or the addition/subtraction of an item or two of a cited scale then it is okay to describe one's scale as an adaptation of the cited one. On the other hand, if most of the items in the cited scale are different from those in the modified measure then that new one should be described as original. The creators of the new scale should still give credit to the developers of the other measure by saying something like "based on work by . . . ." Of course, referring to a measure developed by others raises a question in reviewers' and readers' minds about why the researchers did not use the other scale. A reason should be given. As much as I don't like the practice of recreating the wheel, there are good reasons at times for developing a new scale rather than using a previously developed one.
A related question I can imagine some researchers asking is, how do I know if a scale has been used before or how do I find who originally developed it? The easy answer is that the Marketing Scales Handbooks could simplify the process. At least it is easier when it comes to the thousands of scales that have been used in marketing research since 1980. If the scales are not reviewed in the books, then the search is more difficult. Scholars are expected to conduct a literature review of previous research bearing on their own and, in the process of doing that, they should have a reasonably good idea of how constructs have been measured before. The greater challenge may be for practitioners when they begin work at a company and come across legacy measures that have been used for years. There may be few if any staff around with knowledge of who developed the measures and what their psychometric quality has been. Further, there may be no priority in the company to document these things. Having said that, I hope professional researchers view measurement to be important enough that good records are kept in order for it to be easier for future users of those measures at the company to know their history and quality.
Finally, the worst offense is not providing a cite at all. That implies a measure is original to the users. When it is not original then the offense is tantamount to plagiarism. Now, I don't see our field as being too legalistic on this point and I am not suggesting that we go that direction, but I am expecting researchers to act professionally. Part of being a professional researcher is giving credit to the appropriate parties for critical aspects of their research that are not original. While I have not come across any marketing professors who expect to be financially compensated when others want to use scales they have created, they would certainly appreciate being acknowledged. It provides evidence of the impact they are having on the wider world of science which, in turn, may affect how their work is valued by their universities and their discipline.
.