Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Alignment of Measures and Constructs in Organizational Research: The Case of Testing Measurement Models of Creativity

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Organizational creativity research has a curious misalignment between construct definitions and measurement model specifications—definitions embrace multiple facets, but empirical measures do not. The purpose of this study was to examine potential measurement model misspecification in organizational creativity research. We compare whether creativity is best assessed as a unidimensional common latent construct model with reflective indicators or as a multi-dimensional composite latent construct model with formative indicators.

Design/methodology/approach

To assess potential measurement model misspecification, two studies were conducted in organizational and professional settings. For Study One, MBA students (n = 152) evaluated stimuli from entrepreneurship and advertising. For study, two professional artists (n = 167) evaluated art domain stimuli.

Findings

CFA results suggest composite latent construct models with two factors (novelty and usefulness) represent creativity assessments in entrepreneurship, advertising, and art better than one- and three-factor models.

Implications

Results suggest that failure to acknowledge inconsistencies between construct definitions and measurement models may put researchers at risk of reporting findings with limited statistical conclusion validity. Further, improved theories and empirical models should include facets of creativity. Broader implications of measurement model misspecification for organizational science research are also discussed.

Originality/value

This is one of the first studies to examine the potential measurement model misspecification in organizational creativity research. We examined this potential using data from three domains and across two domain-specific samples. The results were robust across all samples and settings and suggest concern with respect to current methods used for measuring organizational creativity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consistent with most, recent, organizational creativity research we employ a product-focused definition of creativity (Amabile 1982) that includes both novelty and usefulness. We do, however, acknowledge that creativity has been studied from other foci including the process and the person and these perspectives may employ different definitions of creativity. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.

  2. We included stylistic appeal as a comparative dimension for several reasons. First, consistent with Amabile’s (1982) consensual assessment technique, the judges were asked to make assessments on other appropriate dimensions, such as aesthetical appeal. Second, recent creativity research has suggested that domains such as art, advertising, product design, product improvement, team processes, and business model development might benefit from including stylistic appeal as a dimension of creativity (O’Quin and Besemer 2006). Finally, the inclusion of this facet allows for a rigorous comparison of the appropriateness of different measurement models.

  3. We would like to thank the editor and an anonymous reviewer for helping us to clarify this point.

  4. Note a scale item including all novelty and usefulness items correlated with the overall creativity item (creative–uncreative) at r = .91 in art, r = .86 in advertising, and r = .90 in entrepreneurship.

References

  • Aldrich, H. W., Carter, N. M., & Ruef, M. (2004). Teams. In W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, N. M. Carter, & P. D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation (pp. 299–310). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 221–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963–970.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equation program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products—Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 95, 380–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassie, B. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 196–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., Glynn, M., & Kazanjian, R. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1016–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26, 705–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C., & Sullivan, D. M. (2004). A time for everything: How the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, Transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P. Q., & Messick, S. (1967). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning (pp. 1–19). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International. Chicago: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. H. (2006). Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 145–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of Management Review, 33, 649–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Madjar, N., & Oldham, G. (2002). Preliminary tasks and creative performance on a subsequent task: Effects of time on preliminary tasks and amount of information about the subsequent task. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madjar, N., Oldham, G., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and non-work sources of creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 392–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results-oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 24–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). The mismeasurement of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 615–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter-Palmon, R., Illies, M. Y., Cross, L. K., Buboltz, C., & Nimps, T. (2009). Creativity and domain specificity: The effect of task type on multiple index of creative problem-solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3, 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O’Connor Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conversation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10, 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creativity resources: A multi-level model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1972). Predictors and criteria of creativity—A Utah progress report. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Climate for creativity (pp. 149–165). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Nordenflycht, A. (2007). Is public ownership bad for professional service firms? Ad agency ownership, performance, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijnberg, N. M., & Gemser, G. (2000). Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts. Organization Science, 11, 323–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 413–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation through a Partnerships for Innovation project with the University of Central Florida.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management and Marketing Department, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH, 45469-2271, USA

    Diane M. Sullivan

  2. Department of Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    Cameron M. Ford

Authors
  1. Diane M. Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cameron M. Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane M. Sullivan.

Additional information

Diane M. Sullivan and Cameron M. Ford contributed equally to the development of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sullivan, D.M., Ford, C.M. The Alignment of Measures and Constructs in Organizational Research: The Case of Testing Measurement Models of Creativity. J Bus Psychol 25, 505–521 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9147-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9147-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation