Table 2

Existing measures of IO

ScaleDomainNo. of itemsDimensionsGap
Hurt et al.'s (1977) individual innovativeness scaleStudents and teachers20 itemsFive innovativeness categories: innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority, laggardThe scale is not generalised beyond students and teachers sample and displays poor convergent validity
Llopis and D'Este (2022)’s individual innovativeness scaleBiomedical setting, medical innovation11 itemsFour dimensions: product generation, drug development, clinical guidelines, diagnostics and preventionThe scale has not used Likert scale (drop down menu 0–10 for level of involvement in each dimension)
Agarwal and Prasad (1998)’s PIIT scalePersonal innovativeness in the domain of information technology4 itemsUnidimensionalThe scale is unidimensional and only pertains to innovation regarding information technology and domain specific innovativeness
Janssen’s (2000) innovative work behaviours scaleIndividual innovative behaviour in the workplace9 itemsThree dimensions: idea generation, idea promotion, idea realisationThis scale is built on categories, i.e. typologies of innovators, which runs counter to the study’s aims, which are to focus on individuals’ dispositions towards innovation
Robinson et al.’s (1991) EAO scaleEntrepreneurial attitude orientation; studies four possible attitudes associated with entrepreneurship (achievement, self-esteem, personal control and innovation)75 itemsFour sub-scales: achievement (23 items), self-esteem (14 items), personal control (12 items) and innovation (26 items); each scale has 3 components: affect, cognition and conationThis scale focuses on entrepreneurial mindsets, and innovation is not the primary construct under research, hence, it lacks to sufficiently measure IO
Yi et al.’s (2006) ACI scaleAdopter category innovativeness; individual characteristics that affect acceptance decisions for technologies14 itemsFour adopter categories: innovative adopters, early majority, late majority, laggardThis scale focuses on categories of innovators contrary to the study’s objectives, which are to focus on individuals’ orientations towards innovation
Source: Created by authors

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal