Scale Adaptation in Organizational Science Research: A Review and Best-Practice Recommendations
By Eric D. Heggestad, David J. Scheaf, G. Banks, Mary Monroe Hausfeld, Scott Tonidandel, Eleanor B. Williams. Journal of Management, 2019
367 citations recorded by the source corpus.
In describing measures used in their research, authors frequently report having adapted a scale, indicating that they changed something about it. Although such changes can raise concerns about validity, there has been little discussion of this practice in our literature. To estimate the prevalence and identify key forms of scale adaptation, we conducted two studies of the literature. In Study 1, we reviewed the descriptions of all scales (N = 2,088) in four top journals over a 2-year period. We found that 46% of all scales were reported by authors as adapted and that evidence to support the validity of the adapted scales was presented in 23% of those cases. In Study 2, we chose six scales and examined their use across the literature, which allowed us to identify unreported adaptations. We found that 85% of the administrations of these scales had at least one form of adaptation and many had multiple adaptations. In Study 3, we surveyed editorial board members and a select group of psychometricians to evaluate the extent to which particular adaptations raised concerns about validity and the kinds of evidence needed to support the validity of the adapted scales. To provide guidance for authors who adapt scales and for reviewers and editors who evaluate papers with adapted scales, we present discussions of several forms of adaptations regarding potential threats to validity and recommendations for the kinds of evidence that might best support the validity of the adapted scale (including a reviewer checklist).
Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/87a6250a230117fb31825827188a4dd93bba6e5a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Citations in the corpus
- Ethical Leadership and Ethical Voice: The Mediating Mechanisms of Value Internalization and Integrity Identity (2021, methodology): “Nevertheless, we followed recommendations made by Heggestad et al. (2019), and more importantly, we used these scales in three different studies collecting both self-reported and peer-reported data (i.e., ethical voice) and in different occupational contexts.”
- Working on my own: Measuring the challenges of gig work (2021, methodology): “…gig work based on foundational theories and the most recent data regarding the nature of gig work, this study addresses methodological concerns about applying or adapting existing measures in contexts for which they were not designed (see, for review, Cortina et al., 2020; Heggestad et al., 2019).”