The author proposes that generalizability theory be adopted by marketing researchers as a means of assessing and improving the dependability (reliability) of marketing measures. Concepts and computational procedures are presented and the comprehensiveness and flexibility of generalizability analysis are illustrated. Classical reliability theory is shown to be inappropriate in many measurement situations in marketing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BehrmanDouglas N., and PerreaultWilliam D. (1982), “Measuring the Performance of Industrial Salespersons,”Journal of Business Research, 10 (September), 355–70.
2.
BrennanRobert L. (1977), Generalizability Analysis: Principles and Procedures, ACT Technical Bulletin No. 26. Iowa City, IA: The American College Testing Program.
3.
BrennanRobert L. (1983), Elements of Generalizability Theory.Iowa City, IA: The American College Testing Program.
4.
CardinetJean, TourneurYvan, and AllalLinda (1976), “The Symmetry of Generalizability Theory: Applications to Educational Measurement,”Journal of Educational Measurement, 13 (Summer), 119–35.
5.
CardinetJean, TourneurYvan, and AllalLinda (1981), “Extension of Generalizability Theory and Its Applications in Educational Measurement,”Journal of Educational Measurement, 18 (Winter), 183–204.
6.
ChurchillGilbert A.Jr. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64–73.
7.
CongerAnthony J. (1981), “A Comparison of Multi-Attribute Generalizability Strategies,”Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41 (Spring), 121–9.
8.
CronbachLee J., GleserGoldine C., NandaHarinder, and RajaratnamNageswari (1972), The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9.
CronbachLee J., RajaratnamNageswari, and GleserGoldine C. (1963), “Theory of Generalizability: A Liberalization of Reliability Theory,”British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16 (November), 137–63.
10.
DixonW. J., and BrownM. B., eds. (1979), BMDP-79 Biomedical Computer Programs P Series.Los Angeles: University of California Press.
11.
JohnsonSandra, and BellJohn F. (1985), “Evaluating and Predicting Survey Efficiency Using Generalizability Theory,”Journal of Educational Measurement, 22 (Summer), 107–19.
12.
KaneMichael T. (1982), “A Sampling Model for Validity,”Applied Psychological Measurement, 6 (Spring), 125–60.
13.
KaneMichael T., and BrennanRobert L. (1980), “Agreement Coefficients as Indices of Dependability for Domain-Referenced Tests,”Applied Psychological Measurement, 1 (Winter), 105–26.
14.
NunnallyJum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
15.
NussbaumAlbert (1984), “Multivariate Generalizability Theory in Educational Measurement: An Empirical Study,”Applied Psychological Measurement, 8 (Spring), 219–30.
16.
PeterJ. Paul (1977), “Reliability, Generalizability, and Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, PerreaultW. D.Jr., ed. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research,394–400.
17.
PeterJ. Paul (1979), “Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 6–17.
18.
RaoC. R. (1971), “Minimum Variance Quadratic Unbiased Estimation of Variance Components,”Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 1 (December), 445–56.
19.
RaoC. R. (1972), “Estimation of Variance and Covariance Components in Linear Models,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67 (March), 112–15.
20.
RentzR. Robert (1980), “Rules of Thumb for Estimating Reliability Coefficients Using Generalizability Theory,”Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40 (Autumn), 575–92.
21.
RozeboomWilliam W. (1978), “Domain Validity—Why Care?”,Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38 (Winter), 81–8.
22.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1982), SAS User's Guide: Statistics.Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
23.
ShavelsonRichard J., and WebbNoreen M. (1981), “Generalizability Theory: 1973–1980,”British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34 (November), 133–66.
