Small Business Economics

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 151–163

Screening item effects in estimating the prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs

Article

Abstract

The use of human population surveys to estimate the prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs has become a major feature of both longitudinal studies of the firm creation process, such as the US Panel Studies of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) research program, as well as cross-national comparisons, as reflected in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) initiative. The basic procedure has been to use interview screening items to locate individuals that may be considered candidate nascent entrepreneurs; other criteria are then used to identify those considered active nascent entrepreneurs. In these human population surveys, little attention has been paid to the potential impact of variations in wording in the initial screening items, either across time in the same language or in different languages, on the final prevalence rates. Analysis of 134 independent samples in the US over the 1993–2006 period, where different screening items were employed, indicates a major impact of item wording. Once adjustments to account for item variation were made, there was no statistically significant change in the prevalence of active nascent entrepreneurs, from 5 to 6 per 100 over the 1998–2006 period. This pattern of temporal stability is consistent with three other national programs measuring U.S. new firm creation activity.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship New firms: startups Survey methods Informal economy Underground economy Economic sociology 

JEL Classifications

L26 M13 C42 E26 Z13 

References

  1. Curtin, R. T., & Reynolds, P. D. (2004). PSED background for analysis. Appendix B of W. B. Gartner, K. Shaver, N. Carter, P. D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of organizational creation (pp. 477–494). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Davidsson P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Fairlie R. W. (2006). Kauffman index of entrepreneurial activity: National report 1996–2005. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Gartner, W. B. (1988). “What is an entrepreneur” is the wrong question. American Small Business Journal (Spring), 11–31.Google Scholar
  5. Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., Carter, N. M. & Reynolds, P. D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W. D. (2004). United States GEM 2003 report. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.Google Scholar
  7. Reynolds, P. D. (2000). National panel study of U.S. business start-ups: Background and methodology. In J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 4, pp. 153–228). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Reynolds, P. D. (2007). New firm creation in the United States: A PSED I overview. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 1–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., Cox, L., & Hay, M. (2002). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2002 Executive report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.Google Scholar
  10. Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E., et al. (2004a). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2003 Summary report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.Google Scholar
  11. Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E. & Hay, M. (2001). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2001 executive report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.Google Scholar
  12. Reynolds, P. D., Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Greene, P. G. (2004b). The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reynolds, P. D., & Curtin, R. T. (2004). PSED Data collection overview. Appendix A in W. B. Gartner, K. Shaver, K., Carter, N., & Reynolds, P. (Eds.) Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of organizational creation (pp. 453–475). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Reynolds, P. D., Hay, M., Bygrave, W. D., Camp, S. M, & Autio, E. (2000). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2000 Executive report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.Google Scholar
  15. Reynolds, P. D., Hay, M., & Camp, S. M. (1999). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 1999 Executive report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.Google Scholar
  16. Reynolds P. D. & White, S. B. (1997). The entrepreneurial process: Economic growth, men, women, and minorities. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  17. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, V. S. (2001). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spletzer, J. R., Faberman, R. J., Sadeghi, S., Talan, D. M., & Clayton, R. L. (2004). Business employment dynamics: new data on gross job gains and losses. Monthly Labor Review , (April): 29–42.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Census Bureau (2006). Statistical abstract of the U.S: 2004–2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  20. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy (2004). The small business economy: A report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management and International BusinessFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations