Year: 2013
Type: dissertation
Abstract: A large number of new constructs are introduced into marketing. These new constructs are\nimportant in the development of marketing theories. The validation of these constructs are\nprimarily based on a factor analytical framework (e.g., Churchill’s paradigm), with a\nvalidation rationale found in Classical Test Theory. However as the limitations of Classical\nTest Theory are widely realized by many researchers, alternative measurement theories might\nprovide better and more coherent guidelines for marketing researchers with regard to how to\nmeasure and validate marketing constructs. In this thesis I look at two alternative\nmeasurement theories, Item Response Theory and Generalizability Theory, in addition to\nClassical Test Theory. Both Item Response Theory and Generalizability Theory have\nrecently become more important for marketing measurement. This thesis addresses how the\nconstructs are measured based on these three theories and how these measurement theories\ndiffer from each other. After a detailed review of each theory, the theories are contrasted,\nespecially in terms of construct validation. It is found that Classical Test Theory, Item\nResponse Theory, and Generalizability Theory vary in how they address different\nmeasurement issues. They differ in terms of how constructs are defined, measured, and\nvalidated. However, the validation process employed for these three theories can only\nprovide empirical evidence, or indications, for the construct validity but cannot provide\nevidence as to whether constructs exist or not. This will be a challenging research question\nfor future research.
Author: Shan Lin
Language: English
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2467846964