Content area
Full Text
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:434449 DOI 10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
METHODOLOGICAL PAPER
Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictivevalidity perspective
Adamantios Diamantopoulos & Marko Sarstedt &
Christoph Fuchs & Petra Wilczynski & Sebastian Kaiser
Received: 1 June 2011 /Accepted: 27 December 2011 /Published online: 14 February 2012 # The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Establishing predictive validity of measures is a major concern in marketing research. This paper investigates the conditions favoring the use of single items versus multi-item scales in terms of predictive validity. A series of complementary studies reveals that the predictive validity of single items varies considerably across different (concrete) constructs and stimuli objects. In an attempt to explain the observed instability, a comprehensive simulation study is conducted aimed at identifying the influence of different factors on the predictive validity of single versus multi-item measures. These include the average inter-item correlations in the predictor and criterion constructs, the number of items measuring these constructs, as well as the
correlation patterns of multiple and single items between the predictor and criterion constructs. The simulation results show that, under most conditions typically encountered in practical applications, multi-item scales clearly outperform single items in terms of predictive validity. Only under very specific conditions do single items perform equally well as multi-item scales. Therefore, the use of single-item measures in empirical research should be approached with caution, and the use of such measures should be limited to special circumstances.
Keywords Single items . Multi-item scales . Predictive validity. Measurement theory
The authors thank Edward E. Rigdon (Georgia State University), Udo Wagner (University of Vienna) and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this paper.
A. DiamantopoulosDepartment of Business Studies, University of Vienna, Bruenner Strasse 72,1210 Vienna, Austriae-mail: [email protected]
M. Sarstedt (*)
Institute for Market-based Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Kaulbachstrasse 45,80539 Munich, Germanye-mail: [email protected]
M. SarstedtFaculty of Business and Law, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
C. FuchsRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,Burgemeester Oudlaan 50,3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]
P. WilczynskiInstitute for Market-based Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Kaulbachstrasse 45,80539 Munich, Germanye-mail: [email protected]
S. KaiserRSU Rating,Karlstrasse 35,80333 Munich, Germanye-mail: [email protected]
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:434449 435
Introduction
More 30...