The Application of Rasch in the Validation of Corporate Citizenship Scale

  • Kamala Vainy PillaiEmail author
  • Rajah Rasiah
  • Geoffrey Williams
Conference paper


This paper articulates the application of Rasch measurement in corporate citizenship research. With burgeoning expectation for greater corporate responsibility, studies have found that many companies continue to resort to green washing tactics in order to cope with growing pressures. In the absence of systematic adoption, the concept of corporate citizenship may remain rhetoric. The study is aimed at determining the fundamental attributes that facilitate the internalisation of corporate citizenship within companies. The study had to address two main challenges: First, the small sample size expected as it was based on primary data collection explicitly seeking the views of managers practicing corporate citizenship and second, as the study applied a multidisciplinary approach, there was a lack of prior systematic research available. Rasch modelling was applied to establish a psychometrically sound scale for the purpose of this study. A pilot test was followed with a larger sample set, where a total of 634 companies listed on the Malaysian Exchange were surveyed through online survey, of which 100 companies responded. The instrument’s reliability and validity were conducted using Winsteps version 3.49. The results of Rasch modelling analysis indicated the items measured reliability (r = 0.93) and persons measured reliability (r = 0.97). In addition, both item separation (3.51) and person separation (5.27) were found to be statistically significant. Further, all items measured in the same direction (point-measure correlation > 0.30) and valid items showed good item fit and constructed a continuum of increasing intensity. This study’s significance stands on its contribution towards the application of Rasch by future researchers in diverse social science and industrial settings in developing and validating sound scales.


Rasch model Corporate citizenship Sustainability Public listed companies 


  1. Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. 68. USA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Antony, J. P., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2010). Measuring organizational performance and organizational excellence of SMEs—Part 1: A conceptual framework. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamber, C. J., Sharp, J. M., & Hides, M. T. (2000). Developing management systems towards integrated manufacturing: A case study perspective. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 11(7), 454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2010). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Taylor and Francies Group.Google Scholar
  5. Castka, P., Bamber, C. J., Bamber, D. J., & Sharp, J. M. (2004). Case Study: Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into ISO Management Systems – in search of a feasible CSR management system framework. The TQM Magazine, 16(3), 216–224.Google Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Duncan, O. D. (1984). Rasch measurement: Further examples and discussion. In Turner C. F., & Martin E. (Eds.) Surveying Subjective Phenomena (Vol. 2, Chapter 12, pp. 367–403). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, A. R. H., Frewer, L. J., & Nauta, M. A. (2006). Toward improving food safety in the domestic environment: A multi-item Rasch scale for the measurement of the safety efficacy of domestic food-handling practices. Risk Analysis, 26, 1323–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frankental, P. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility – a PR invention? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 5–17. doi:  10.1002/ev.1068.
  13. Hermel, P., & Ramis-Pujol, F. (2003). An evolution of Excellence some main trends. The TQM Magazine, 15(4), 23–40.Google Scholar
  14. Islam, A. Y. M. (2011). Online database adoption and satisfaction model – factors influencing the adoption of an online database among students and their satisfaction in using it. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Jung, J. Y., & Hong, S. (2008). Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), TQM and performance at the maquiladora, Emerald 25. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  16. Mcintosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipziger, D., & Coleman G. (2003). Living Corporate Citizenship: Strategic Routes to Socially Responsible Business. London, UK: Prentice Hall, Financial Times (Pearson Education Limited).Google Scholar
  17. Mcintosh, K., Earleywine, M., & Dunn, M. E. (2006). Alcohol expectancies for social facilitation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 2207–2212.Google Scholar
  18. Olsen, J. E. (2002). Global Ethics and the Alian Tort Claims Act: A Summary of Three Cases with the Oil and Gas Industry. Management Decision (Emerald publishing) ©MCB UP Ltd, 40(7), 720–724.Google Scholar
  19. Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). The British Journal of Clinical Psychology., 46, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pillai, K. V. K. (2013). The influence of corporate conduct and stakeholder empowerment on corporate citizenship in Malayisa: A mixed methods research. Doctoral dissertation. Open University Malaysia.Google Scholar
  21. Searing, L. M. (2008). Family functioning scale validation: A Rasch analysis. Dissertation. Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, R. (1993). Guessing and the Rasch model. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6(4), 262–263.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, R. M. (1999). Rasch measurement models: Interpreting WINSTEPS/Bigsteps and Facets output. Morgan Hill, CA: JAM Press.Google Scholar
  24. SUHAKAM. (2011). Suhakam annual report 2011. Kuala Lumpur: Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.Google Scholar
  25. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: SageGoogle Scholar
  27. United Nations. (2009). State of the world’s indigenous peoples. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Wright, B. D. (1984). Despair and hope for educational measurement. Contemporary Education Review, 3(1), 281–288.Google Scholar
  29. Wright, B. D. (1996). Comparing Rasch measurement and factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating Scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kamala Vainy Pillai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rajah Rasiah
    • 2
  • Geoffrey Williams
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Business and HumanitiesCurtin UniversityMiriMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Development Studies, Faculty of Economics and AdministrationUniversity of MalayaKuala lumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Education ManagementUniversity Tun Abdul RazakKuala lumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations