Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications

By Richard G. Netemeyer, Subhash Sharma, W. O. Bearden. 2003

2,719 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2f93b359b9de15796a1f4ec74b98c7eeb21e439d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The Influence of Consumer–Brand Relationship on the Personalized Advertising Privacy Calculus in Social Media (2021, background): “…Zaichkowsky (1994) Perceived vulnerability (a = 0.964) To what extent did the advertisement make you feel…“exposed,” “unprotected,” “susceptible,” “unsafe,” and “vulnerable” Netemeyer et al. (2003) beginning of the questionnaire, which was subsequently integrated into the exposed stimuli.”
Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument (2006, methodology): “The process was iterative, with each model undergoing EFAs until all items loaded at .40 or higher (Netemeyer et al., 2003).”
How Do Employees Perceive Corporate Responsibility? Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility Scale (2018, methodology): “Nevertheless, we dropped four items that did not meet the retention criteria (Netemeyer et al., 2003).”
The Role of Customer Engagement in Building Consumer Loyalty to Tourism Brands (2016, methodology): “Standardized factor loadings for all 44 items achieved the suggested threshold of .70 (Hair et al. 2006), and the critical ratios for all standardized factor loadings were well above 2.57 (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003), providing strong support for convergent validity.”
Development of the human interaction dimension of the Self‐Regulated Learning Questionnaire in asynchronous online learning environments (2009, methodology): “The EFA was used for two purposes: to reduce the number of items in the scale in order to maximise the explained variance and the scale’s reliability; and to identify potential underlying dimensions (Netemeyer et al., 2003).”
Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors (2014, methodology): “This model fit well ( 2 = 2,938.08, df = 251, CFI = 96, NNFI = .96) and a 95% confidence interval around the correlation between financial literacy and numeracy did not contain a value of “1,” supporting discriminant validity (DeVellis 2012; Netemeyer et al. 2003).”