Measure instruments for DCs with the analysis of their validity and reliability according to Slavec and Drnovesek (2012)
| Theoretical importance and existence of the construct | Representativeness and appropriateness of data collection | Statistical analysis and statistical evidence of the construct | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Scale validation and statistical tests | CDS | IPG | CVE | QDE | TBT | PS | SD | DA | RA | CVA |
| Agarwal and Selen (2013) | Authors validate the scale by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. This scale is an improved version of the one designed by Agarwal and Selen (2013) | Y | NR | N | NR | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Alegre et al. (2012) | Authors applied multivariate analysis to assess the scale’s reliability and its content, discriminant and convergent validity. Authors applied confirmatory factor analysis | Y | Y | N | NR | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Biedenbach and Müller (2012) | The proposed model and scale were validated through multiple regression analysis. Canonical correlation analysis was also used to evaluate the relationship between innovative, absorptive and adaptive capabilities and project performance | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Camisón and Forés (2010) | The scale is based on the research of Zahra and George (2002). Then, the scale is validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equations modeling (SEM) | Y | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Cheng and Chen (2013) | To validate the instrument and the hypotheses proposed on the research, authors collected 218 valid responses. Authors assessed the construct validity and reliability by assessing the Cronbach’s α. To identify the factor structure, they used the varimax rotation. They also assessed the convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, they validated results by performing the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| da Costa and Porto (2014) | The scale was validated by applying the multiple regression analysis and other statistical tests (e.g. Cronbach’s α) | Y | NR | N | NR | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Danneels (2016) | The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis | N | Y | N | NR | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Desai et al. (2007) | The scale items were adapted from existing scale on market orientation, CRM, and dynamic capabilities. Then, the scale was evaluated by experts. On the sequence, authors conducted a pilot test with 82 executives. The final version of the scale was used in a survey that collected 334 responses from executives of 29 Indian companies from banking, telecom and retail sectors. To assess the reliability of the instrument, authors used EFA and tested the Cronbach’s α. In order to confirm the proposed hypotheses, they use the least square regression | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Gligor and Holcomb (2014) | The scale was validated by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Hakimi et al. (2014) | The scale was validated by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Initially the scale contained 57 items. The final version of the scale contains 16 items | Y | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Herrmann et al. (2007) | In the first phase, the model was tested by using partial least square modeling (PLS). In the second phase, the scale was tested by applying the confirmatory factor analysis | N | NR | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Janssen et al. (2015) | The scale was tested by performing exploratory and confirmatory analysis. Authors also performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to assess the construct correlation | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Jantunen (2005) | The scale was validated by applying exploratory factor analysis. The innovative factor was assessed by performing hierarchical linear regression analysis | N | Y | N | NR | na | N | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Jin et al. (2014) | The authors performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the scale and also performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to validate the model and hypotheses | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Kandemir et al. (2006) | The scale was validated by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Karayanni (2015) | The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis; the proposed model, by performing structural equation modeling (SME) | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Kim et al. (2013) | The scale was validated by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Lin and Wu (2014) | In order to assess data validity, authors tested the Mahalanobis distance, which checks outliers in a sample. To assess the validity of the constructs, authors assessed the Cronbach’s α value of these constructs. Authors also validate the model and the instrument, by using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and structural equation modeling (SEM). LISREL was the SEM technique adopted by the authors | NR | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Lisboa et al. (2013) | The instrument was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Maijanen and Jantunen (2016) | The scale was validated by applying multivariate analysis. To test the hypotheses, authors performed ANOVA tests | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | N | Y | N |
| Makkonen et al. (2014) | Authors validated the instrument by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Mitrega et al. (2012) | Authors adopted a three-stage process of scale development, which included qualitative and quantitative phases. First, the items emerged based on literature and interviews. Second, authors validated the scale items by conducting focus groups, and finally, after applying a online survey, authors validated the scale by performing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Initially, the scale contained 41 items. After the confirmatory factor analysis, only 17 items remained | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Nitzsche et al. (2016) | Authors wrote the items of the scale based on literature review. Then, they got feedbacks from experts about the scale. On the sequence, authors conducted a pre-test. Afterwards, authors applied a survey using the scale. To test the validity and reliability of the instrument, they applied the exploratory factor analyzed (EFA) on the collected data | N | Y | N | NR | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Ouakouak et al. (2014) | The scale is based on previous studies on innovation capability. Authors applied discriminant and convergent validity tests, and checked the values of KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) and Cronbach’s α | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | NR | Y | N |
| Paiva et al. (2012) | Scale was applied to Brazilian and Spanish participants. The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Plattfaut et al. (2015) | Authors used partial least squares (PLS) to validate the model | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Pratono (2016) | Author uses partial least squares (PLS) for data analysis and statistical validation | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Rungi (2015) | Authors wrote the scale items based on previous literature. After collecting data through a survey, to assess the collected data authors performed the Levene test and checked Cronbach’s α values. Authors do not mention a specific statistical process to validate the scale | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
| Sangari and Razmi (2015) | The instrument was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | N | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Santos-Vijande et al. (2013) | The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Schlosser and McNaughton (2009) | The scale was validated by applying exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). After performing the multivariate analysis, 20 items of the scale remained | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Schweitzer (2014) | The scale was validated by performing partial least squares (PLS) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Shafia et al. (2016) | The scale was designed based on literature review. After writing the scale items, authors conducted a survey among technology organizations. To validate the instrument, authors used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) under structural equation modeling (SEM) approach | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Sirén (2012) | Author validated the scale by performing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. After the statistical validation, the number of items reduced from 24 to 19 | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Sprafke et al. (2012) | To validate the scale, authors analyzed the component factor and factor loadings of the variables. To validate the internal consistency of the scale, they verified the Cronbach’s α. To test the research hypotheses, authors used multiple regression analysis | Y | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | NR | Y | NR |
| Storer et al. (2014) | To validate the instrument, authors used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) under structural equation modeling (SEM) approach | NR | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Tollin and Schmidt (2015) | To validate the model, authors compare the degree of variance of the constructs, their Cronbach’s α and their correlation. Authors also perform a cluster analysis to validate the model. Authors do no mention if they applied statistical analysis to validate the scale specifically | Y | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | NR | Y | Y |
| Urhahn and Spieth (2014) | The model was validated by applying structural equation modeling (SME) | Y | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Verreynne et al. (2016) | To validate the scale, authors used exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with structural equation modeling (SME) approach | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Vicente et al. (2015) | Authors wrote the scale items based on literature review. On the sequence, they applied a survey among 471 exporting manufacturing organizations. To test the validity and the reliability of the scale, authors performed structural equation modeling (SME) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Villar et al. (2014) | To validate the measurement instrument, authors performed structural equation modeling (SME) | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Whitten et al. (2012) | To validate the scale, authors performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with structural equation modeling (SME) approach | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Wu et al. (2010) | To validate the scale, authors performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with structural equation modeling (SME) approach | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Zheng et al. (2011) | To validate the instrument, authors conducted a survey on China on which they obtained 218 valid responses. They validated the construct validity and reliability by assessing the Cronbach’s α. They also performed the structural equation modeling (SME) using the AMOS 7.0 software | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Theoretical importance and existence of the construct | Representativeness and appropriateness of data collection | Statistical analysis and statistical evidence of the construct | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Scale validation and statistical tests | CDS | IPG | CVE | QDE | TBT | PS | SD | DA | RA | CVA |
| Authors validate the scale by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. This scale is an improved version of the one designed by Agarwal and Selen (2013) | Y | NR | N | NR | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Authors applied multivariate analysis to assess the scale’s reliability and its content, discriminant and convergent validity. Authors applied confirmatory factor analysis | Y | Y | N | NR | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The proposed model and scale were validated through multiple regression analysis. Canonical correlation analysis was also used to evaluate the relationship between innovative, absorptive and adaptive capabilities and project performance | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| The scale is based on the research of | Y | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the instrument and the hypotheses proposed on the research, authors collected 218 valid responses. Authors assessed the construct validity and reliability by assessing the Cronbach’s | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by applying the multiple regression analysis and other statistical tests (e.g. Cronbach’s | Y | NR | N | NR | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis | N | Y | N | NR | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale items were adapted from existing scale on market orientation, CRM, and dynamic capabilities. Then, the scale was evaluated by experts. On the sequence, authors conducted a pilot test with 82 executives. The final version of the scale was used in a survey that collected 334 responses from executives of 29 Indian companies from banking, telecom and retail sectors. To assess the reliability of the instrument, authors used EFA and tested the Cronbach’s | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| The scale was validated by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Initially the scale contained 57 items. The final version of the scale contains 16 items | Y | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| In the first phase, the model was tested by using partial least square modeling (PLS). In the second phase, the scale was tested by applying the confirmatory factor analysis | N | NR | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was tested by performing exploratory and confirmatory analysis. Authors also performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to assess the construct correlation | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by applying exploratory factor analysis. The innovative factor was assessed by performing hierarchical linear regression analysis | N | Y | N | NR | na | N | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| The authors performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the scale and also performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to validate the model and hypotheses | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis; the proposed model, by performing structural equation modeling (SME) | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| In order to assess data validity, authors tested the Mahalanobis distance, which checks outliers in a sample. To assess the validity of the constructs, authors assessed the Cronbach’s | NR | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The instrument was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by applying multivariate analysis. To test the hypotheses, authors performed ANOVA tests | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | N | Y | N | |
| Authors validated the instrument by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Authors adopted a three-stage process of scale development, which included qualitative and quantitative phases. First, the items emerged based on literature and interviews. Second, authors validated the scale items by conducting focus groups, and finally, after applying a online survey, authors validated the scale by performing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Initially, the scale contained 41 items. After the confirmatory factor analysis, only 17 items remained | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Authors wrote the items of the scale based on literature review. Then, they got feedbacks from experts about the scale. On the sequence, authors conducted a pre-test. Afterwards, authors applied a survey using the scale. To test the validity and reliability of the instrument, they applied the exploratory factor analyzed (EFA) on the collected data | N | Y | N | NR | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale is based on previous studies on innovation capability. Authors applied discriminant and convergent validity tests, and checked the values of KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) and Cronbach’s | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | NR | Y | N | |
| Scale was applied to Brazilian and Spanish participants. The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Authors used partial least squares (PLS) to validate the model | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Author uses partial least squares (PLS) for data analysis and statistical validation | N | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Authors wrote the scale items based on previous literature. After collecting data through a survey, to assess the collected data authors performed the Levene test and checked Cronbach’s | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | N | Y | N | |
| The instrument was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | N | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by applying exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). After performing the multivariate analysis, 20 items of the scale remained | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was validated by performing partial least squares (PLS) | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| The scale was designed based on literature review. After writing the scale items, authors conducted a survey among technology organizations. To validate the instrument, authors used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) under structural equation modeling (SEM) approach | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Author validated the scale by performing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. After the statistical validation, the number of items reduced from 24 to 19 | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the scale, authors analyzed the component factor and factor loadings of the variables. To validate the internal consistency of the scale, they verified the Cronbach’s | Y | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | NR | Y | NR | |
| To validate the instrument, authors used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) under structural equation modeling (SEM) approach | NR | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the model, authors compare the degree of variance of the constructs, their Cronbach’s | Y | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | NR | Y | Y | |
| The model was validated by applying structural equation modeling (SME) | Y | Y | N | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the scale, authors used exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with structural equation modeling (SME) approach | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Authors wrote the scale items based on literature review. On the sequence, they applied a survey among 471 exporting manufacturing organizations. To test the validity and the reliability of the scale, authors performed structural equation modeling (SME) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the measurement instrument, authors performed structural equation modeling (SME) | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the scale, authors performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with structural equation modeling (SME) approach | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the scale, authors performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with structural equation modeling (SME) approach | N | Y | N | Y | na | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| To validate the instrument, authors conducted a survey on China on which they obtained 218 valid responses. They validated the construct validity and reliability by assessing the Cronbach’s | Y | Y | Y | Y | na | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
Notes: CDS, contain domain specification; IPG, item pool generation; CVE, content validity evaluation; QDE, questionanaire development and evaluation; TBT, translation and back-translation; PS, pilot study; SD, sample data; DA, dimension assessment; RA, reliability assessment; CVA, construct validity assessment; Y, yes; N, no; NR, not reported
Source: Authors
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Please sign in to your personal account to gift article access.
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses.
You have reached the limit of 10 links within a 30 day period.
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.