Advertisement

A Market-Based Procedure for Assessing and Improving Content Validity

  • Gary F. GebhardtEmail author
  • François A. Carrillat
  • Robert J. Riggle
  • William B. Locander
Research Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Psychometric validity requires construct, predictive, and content validity. However, existing methods for ensuring content validity are limited in their ability to identify attributes missing from a content domain or attributes that should be removed from a content domain. In particular, rather than capturing how consumers conceptualize a market construct, existing methods capture how consumers respond to how researchers conceptualize a market construct. The authors propose a market-based procedure for capturing how consumers conceptualize market constructs, including metrics for (1) identifying attributes missing from a content domain and (2) attributes consumers consider outside a content domain.

Keywords

Psychometrics Content validity Construct validity Socially constructed Market measures Repertory grid 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mike Barnett, Greg Carpenter, Rajiv Dant, Bob Forsythe, Bryant Hudson, Dawn Iacobucci, David Johnson, Patrick Kelly, Anand Kumar, Julie Langford, Jim Lee, Carol Pilon Osborne, Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan for helpful comments and advice.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldlaigan AH, Buttle FA (2002) SYSTRA-SQ: a new measure of bank service quality. Int J Serv Ind Manag 13(3/4):362–381Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnould EJ, Thompson CJ (2005) Consumer culture theory (CCT): twenty years of research. J Consum Res 31(4):868–882Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger PL, Luckmann T (1967) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge, 3rd edn. Anchor Books, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bitner MJ, Booms BH, Tetreault MS (1990) The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable. J Mark 54(1):71–84Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borman WC (1983) Implications of personality theory and research for the rating of work performance in organizations. In: Landy FJ, Zedeck S, Cleveland J (eds) Performance measurement and theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 127–165Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borman WC (1987) Personal constructs, performance schemata, and ‘Folk Theories’ of subordinate effectiveness: explorations in an army officer sample. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 40(3):307–322Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brady MK, Cronin JJJ (2001) Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. J Mark 65(3):34–49Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bristol T, Fern EF (2003) The effects of interaction on consumers’ attitudes in focus groups. Psychol Mark 20(5):433–454Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carpenter GS, Glazer R, Nakamoto K (2001) Market-driving strategies: toward a new concept of competitive advantage. In: Iacobucci D (ed) Kellogg on Marketing. Wiley, New York, pp 103–129Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen GL, Olson JC (2002) Mapping consumers’ mental models with ZMET. Psychol Mark 19(6):477–502Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Churchill GA Jr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cureton EE (1951) Validity. In: Lindquist EF (ed) Educational measurement. American Council on Education, Washington, DC, pp 621–694Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dabholkar PA, Thorpe DI, Rentz JO (1996) A measure of service quality for retail stores: scale development and validation. J Acad Mark Sci 24(1):3–16Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diamantopoulos A (2005) The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: a comment. Int J Res Mark 22(1):1–9Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fern EF (1982) The use of focus groups for idea generation: the effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. J Mark Res 19(1):1–13Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social cognition. McGraw-Hill series in social psychology, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gebhardt GF, Carpenter GS, Sherry JF Jr (2006) Creating a market orientation: a longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. J Mark 70(4):37–54Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gebhardt GF, Farrelly F, Conduit J (2019) Market intelligence dissemination practices. J Mark 83(3):72–90Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haynes SN, Nelson K, Blaine DD (1999) Psychometric issues in assessment research. In: Kendall PC, Butcher JN, Holmbeck GN (eds) Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 125–154Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haynes SN, Richard DCS, Kubany ES (1995) Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 7(3):238–247Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heisenberg W (1958) Physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacoby J (1978) Consumer research: a state of the art review. J Mark 42(2):87–96Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. 1st edn. NortonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28(4):563–575Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewis RG, Klein DM (1985) Personal constructs: their use in the marketing of intangible services. Psychol Mark 2(3):201–216Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lichtenthal JD, Goodwin SA (2006) Product attributes for business markets: implications for selling and sales management. Psychol Mark 23(3):225–251Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindell MK, Brandt CJ (1999) Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: a comparison of CVI, T, rWG(J), and r*WG(J) indexes. J Appl Psychol 84(4):640–647Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lynn MR (1986) Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 35(6):382–385Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McCracken GD (1988) The long interview. Qualitative research methods ; v. 13. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill series in psychology, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parasuraman A, Berry LL, Zeithaml VA (1991) Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. J Retail 67(4):420–450Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J Mark 49(4):41–50Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL (1988) Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions. J Retail 64(1):12–40Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peter JP (1979) Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J Mark Res 16(1):6–17Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Polit DF, Beck CT (2006) The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 29(5):489–497Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV (2007) Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 30(4):459–467Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reid PN, Gundlach JH (1983) A scale for the measurement of consumer satisfaction with social services. J Soc Serv Res 7(1):37–54Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reidenbach RE, Sandifer-Smallwood B (1990) Exploring perceptions of hospital operations by a modified SERVQUAL approach. J Health Care Mark 10(4):47–55Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosa JA, Porac JF, Runser-Spanjol J, Saxon MS (1999) Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. J Mark 63(Special Issue):64–77Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rossiter JR (2002) The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int J Res Mark 19(4):305–355Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rossiter JR (2011) Marketing measurement revolution: the C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. Eur J Mark 45(11/12):1561–1588.  https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111167298 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schuman H, Presser S (1981) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: experiments on question form, wording, and context. Quantitative studies in social relations. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schwarz N (1999) Self-reports - how the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 54(2):93–105Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sherry JF Jr, McGrath MA, Levy SJ (1992) The disposition of the gift and many unhappy returns. J Retail 68(1):40–65Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sireci SG (1998) The construct of content validity. Soc Indic Res 45(1–3):83–117Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stewart JL, Lynn MR, Mishel MH (2005) Evaluating content validity for children’s self-report instruments using children as content experts. Nurs Res 54(6):414–418Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thompson CJ, Locander WB, Pollio HR (1989) Putting consumer experience back into consumer research: the philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. J Consum Res 16(2):133–146Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vogt DS, King DW, King LA (2004) Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychol Assess 16(3):231–243Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA (2003) Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res 25(5):508–518.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903252998 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zaltman G (1997) Rethinking market research: putting people back in. J Mark Res 34(4):424–437Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zaltman G, Coulter RH (1995) Seeing the voice of the customer: metaphor-based advertising research. J Advert Res 35(4):35–51Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HEC MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.UTS Business SchoolUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  3. 3.Tommy & Victoria Baker School of BusinessThe CitadelCharlestonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Marketing and AnalysisLouisiana Tech UniversityRustonUSA

Personalised recommendations