Figure 1
At the top, a horizontal bar labeled “Item development” appears above four numbered boxes arranged from left to right. Step 1 appears in a box labeled “Clarify the construct (Literature review)”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “Conceptualization of affordable loss within effectuation theory and entrepreneurial decision-making literature”. Step 2 appears in a box labeled “Item pool development (Global interviews with entrepreneurs; N equals 13; 30.8 percent female, E x p. equals 17.2) Findings triangulated with literature”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “In-depth understanding of entrepreneurial reasoning 32 initial items developed”. Step 3 appears in a box labeled “Expert item review (North American, Western European, and Southern African scholars; N equals 6; 33 percent female): Qualitative and quantitative review of items”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “Revision of items C V I equals 0.931 greater than 0.83 equals content validity 24 items retained”. Step 4 appears in a box labeled “Pilot review of items (Entrepreneurial practitioners from South Africa; N equals 18; E x p. equals 10.2; I n d. equals 14) Evaluate clarity and validity of items”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “Rewording of items for clarity Addition of two demographic questions 24 items retained”. Below these boxes, two horizontal section labels appear. The left section is labeled “Exploration” and the right section is labeled “Validation”. Under “Exploration”, two numbered boxes appear from left to right. Step 5 is labeled “Exploratory factor analysis (U S A participants; N equals 295; 57 percent female; E x p. equals 9.84; I n d. equals 21 plus) Principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation; Parallel analysis”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “Three-factor solution (alpha equals 0.775, 0.686, 0.782) 14 items retained and three revised equals 17 items”. Step 6 is labeled “Second exploratory analysis (U K and Canada participants; N equals 257; E x p. equals 14.46; I n d. equals 20 plus) Principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “Two-factor solution (alpha equals 0.719, 0.769) 7 items retained”. Under “Validation”, two numbered boxes appear from left to right. Step 7 is labeled “Confirmatory factor analysis (South African participants; N equals 315; E. x. p. equals 11.03; I n d. equals 20 plus)”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “Two-factor solution Excellent fit indices 6 items confirmed”. Step 8 is labeled “Invariance testing (Comparing U K or Canadian with South African data; N equals 572) Statistical invariance testing in S P S S Amos”. A shaded box beneath contains the sub-category text “6-item, two-factor solution found to be invariant Configural, metric, and scalar invariance with excellent fit indices”.Scale development process and outcomes. Note(s): The process combines DeVellis’s (2017) eight steps (construct clarification, item generation, format selection, expert review, validation items, pilot testing, item evaluation, and scale length optimization) and Hinkin’s (1998) six steps (item generation, questionnaire administration, item reduction, confirmatory factor analysis, validity testing, and replication). Exp. = average years of experience; Ind. = industries represented