校准实验:在消费者研究中测量验证的多方法方法的替代方法

IF 10.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Dominik R. Bach , Edward E. Rigdon , Marko Sarstedt
{"title":"校准实验:在消费者研究中测量验证的多方法方法的替代方法","authors":"Dominik R. Bach ,&nbsp;Edward E. Rigdon ,&nbsp;Marko Sarstedt","doi":"10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Measurement validation in consumer research is ideally performed within the context of a multi-trait multi-method matrix (MTMM). While statistically well developed, this approach has several shortcomings that limit its domain of application: (1) the requirement for sufficiently unrelated latent variables that can be measured with the same methods, (2) the requirement for conceptually different methods to disambiguate trait from methods, and most seriously (3) the difficulty in identifying a more valid over a less valid method. We compare the MTMM approach to experiment-based calibration, an alternative framework for validating those latent variables that can be externally manipulated. We show how calibration lets researchers make distinctions between even closely related measurement methods, dispenses with the need for unrelated latent variables, and enables optimization of the measurement evaluation procedure itself. Calibration can be an important part of an integrative validity argument in consumer research and, more broadly, across the social sciences.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Research","volume":"193 ","pages":"Article 115352"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calibration experiments: An alternative to multi-method approaches for measurement validation in consumer research\",\"authors\":\"Dominik R. Bach ,&nbsp;Edward E. Rigdon ,&nbsp;Marko Sarstedt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Measurement validation in consumer research is ideally performed within the context of a multi-trait multi-method matrix (MTMM). While statistically well developed, this approach has several shortcomings that limit its domain of application: (1) the requirement for sufficiently unrelated latent variables that can be measured with the same methods, (2) the requirement for conceptually different methods to disambiguate trait from methods, and most seriously (3) the difficulty in identifying a more valid over a less valid method. We compare the MTMM approach to experiment-based calibration, an alternative framework for validating those latent variables that can be externally manipulated. We show how calibration lets researchers make distinctions between even closely related measurement methods, dispenses with the need for unrelated latent variables, and enables optimization of the measurement evaluation procedure itself. Calibration can be an important part of an integrative validity argument in consumer research and, more broadly, across the social sciences.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Research\",\"volume\":\"193 \",\"pages\":\"Article 115352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296325001754\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296325001754","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

消费者研究中的测量验证是理想的在多特征多方法矩阵(MTMM)的背景下进行的。虽然在统计上发展得很好,但这种方法有几个缺点限制了它的应用领域:(1)需要足够不相关的潜在变量,可以用相同的方法来测量,(2)需要概念上不同的方法来消除方法中的歧义,最严重的是(3)难以识别更有效的方法而不是更有效的方法。我们将MTMM方法与基于实验的校准方法进行比较,后者是验证可被外部操纵的潜在变量的另一种框架。我们展示了校准如何让研究人员区分甚至密切相关的测量方法,不需要不相关的潜在变量,并使测量评估程序本身得到优化。在消费者研究和更广泛的社会科学中,校准可以成为综合有效性论证的重要组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Calibration experiments: An alternative to multi-method approaches for measurement validation in consumer research
Measurement validation in consumer research is ideally performed within the context of a multi-trait multi-method matrix (MTMM). While statistically well developed, this approach has several shortcomings that limit its domain of application: (1) the requirement for sufficiently unrelated latent variables that can be measured with the same methods, (2) the requirement for conceptually different methods to disambiguate trait from methods, and most seriously (3) the difficulty in identifying a more valid over a less valid method. We compare the MTMM approach to experiment-based calibration, an alternative framework for validating those latent variables that can be externally manipulated. We show how calibration lets researchers make distinctions between even closely related measurement methods, dispenses with the need for unrelated latent variables, and enables optimization of the measurement evaluation procedure itself. Calibration can be an important part of an integrative validity argument in consumer research and, more broadly, across the social sciences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.30
自引率
10.60%
发文量
956
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Research aims to publish research that is rigorous, relevant, and potentially impactful. It examines a wide variety of business decision contexts, processes, and activities, developing insights that are meaningful for theory, practice, and/or society at large. The research is intended to generate meaningful debates in academia and practice, that are thought provoking and have the potential to make a difference to conceptual thinking and/or practice. The Journal is published for a broad range of stakeholders, including scholars, researchers, executives, and policy makers. It aids the application of its research to practical situations and theoretical findings to the reality of the business world as well as to society. The Journal is abstracted and indexed in several databases, including Social Sciences Citation Index, ANBAR, Current Contents, Management Contents, Management Literature in Brief, PsycINFO, Information Service, RePEc, Academic Journal Guide, ABI/Inform, INSPEC, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信