ISSUES AND STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THE LENGTH OF SELF‐REPORT SCALES

By Jeffrey M. Stanton, Evan F. Sinar, W. Balzer, P. C. Smith. 2002

619 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Education, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d479949e6c85725fb82b4e2129566717f17d6938

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Networks and Communications

1. E. Thompson
2. Marsha L. Richins
3. Joaquín Alegre
4. Andrés Salas‐Vallina
5. Thomas Goetz
6. Marianne Peeters
7. Manuel Alector Ribeiro
8. Adamantios Diamantopoulos

In Education

1. E. Thompson
2. Marsha L. Richins
3. Marko Sarstedt
4. Joaquín Alegre
5. Andrés Salas‐Vallina
6. Wilmar B. Schaufeli
7. Marianne Peeters
8. B. I. van der Heijden

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. James Avey
2. Bruce J. Avolio
3. E. Thompson
4. Marsha L. Richins
5. Marko Sarstedt
6. Arnold B. Bakker
7. Joaquín Alegre
8. Andrés Salas‐Vallina

Citations in the corpus

• Customer Inspiration: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Validation (2017, methodology): “Following established guidelines for scale shortening (Richins 2004; Stanton et al. 2002), we inspected the remaining 18 items, considering their internal consistency as well as face validity and domain representativeness.”
• The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. (2006, background): “…guidelines concerning the development of short forms are in their infancy (see Marsh, Ellis, Parada, Richards, & Heubeck, 2005; Smith et al., 2000; Stanton et al., 2002); nonetheless, using short forms with poor or poorly understood psychometric properties will likely slow down scientific…”
• Psychological ownership: theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes (2009, methodology): “We followed the guidelines of Stanton, Sinar, Balzer, and Smith (2002) for item reduction.”
• “My Questionnaire is Too Long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures (2014, methodology): “The selection of these two items was based on factor loadings as an item level index of internal item quality (Stanton et al., 2002).”
• Balancing Work and Home: How Job and Home Demands Are Related to Burnout (2005, background): “Essentially, Stanton et al. (2002) recommended that researchers reduce scales on the basis of indices of internal, external, and judgmental item qualities.”
• Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (2007, methodology): “…above .30 are in bold. report for the original PANAS, suggesting that the 10-item I-PANAS-SF compares well with the full 20-item original in terms of both correlating with the original full form and temporal stability, both important aspects of short form development (Stanton et al., 2002).”
• Development and validation of the short-form employability five-factor instrument (2018, background): “In a traditional factor-analytic approach, this may result in selecting items with strong similarities regarding content, which in turn leads to an unintentionally narrowed content domain (Clark & Watson, 1995; Stanton et al., 2002).”