Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific progress in measurement theory?

  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is a response to the March, 2013, special issue of the AMS Review, which was purportedly about “scientific progress in marketing” but in fact was about measurement in marketing. Even narrower than that, the special issue was about “formative measurement” in marketing. The present article contends that the problems raised by the special issue’s authors were solved earlier by Rossiter’s C-OAR-SE measurement theory. Four key references on C-OAR-SE theory (Rossiter in Int J Res Mark 19(4):305–335, 2002; Bergkvist and Rossiter in J Mark Res 44(2):175–184, 2007; Rossiter’s 2011a book; Rossiter in Eur J Market 45(11/12):1589–1600, 2011b) are revisited to explain how continued ignorance of C-OAR-SE principles has stifled progress in measurement in all the social sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

General References

  • Ambler, T., & Hollier, E. A. (2005). The waste in advertising is the part that works. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 375–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R.P. (1994). Structural equation models in marketing research: basic principles. In R.P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 317–385). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

  • Blalock, H. M. (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1), 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, N., & Keats, J. A. (2003). Ordinal measurement in the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, R. P. (1983). The continuing significance of social class to marketing. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crittenden, V. L., & Peterson, R. A. (2013). Scientific progress in marketing. AMS Review, 3(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). MIMIC models and formative measurement: some thoughts on Lee, Cadogan & Chamberlain. AMS Review, 3(1), 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, R. D. (2013). Conceptual clarity in measurement – constructs, composites, and causes: a commentary on Lee, Cadogan and Chamberlain. AMS Review, 3(1), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N., Cadogan, J. W., & Chamberlain, L. (2013). The MIMIC model and formative variables: problems and solutions. AMS Review, 3(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55(2), 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michell, J. (1986). Measurement scales and statistics: a clash of paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 398–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michell, J. (2009). Invalidity in validity. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications. Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigdon, E. E. (2013). Lee, Cadogan, and Chamberlain: an excellent point…but what about that iceberg? AMS Review, 3(1), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2012). A new measure of social classes. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(2), 89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R., & Foxall, G. R. (2008). Hull-Spence Behavior Theory as a paradigm for consumer behavior. Marketing Theory, 8(2), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising communications & promotion management (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1959). Science and human behavior. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, W., Meeker, M., Eells, K. (1949); reprinted 1960 with extra material. Social Class in America. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Westen, D. (1988). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 333–371.

    Google Scholar 

References on C-OAR-SE theory and applications * Key reference

  • Althuizen, N., Wierenga, B., & Rossiter, J. R. (2010). The validity of two brief measures of creative ability. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J.R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item vs. single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.*

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2009). Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 607–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowley, E., & Rossiter, J. R. (2005). Range model of judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 250–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolnicar, S., & Rossiter, J. R. (2008). The low stability of brand-attribute associations is partly due to market research methodology. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(2), 104–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolnicar, S., Rossiter, J. R., & Grün, B. (2012). ‘Pick any’ measures contaminate brand image studies. International Journal of Market Research, 54(6), 821–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J.R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335.*

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2003a). Qualifying the importance of findings. Journal of Business Research, 56(1), 85–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2003b). How to construct a test of scientific knowledge in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2005). Reminder: a horse is a horse. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(1), 23–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2007a). Toward a valid measure of e-retailing service quality. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 2(3), 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2007b). Identifying and measuring Australian values. Australasian Marketing Journal, 15(1), 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2008a). Content validity of measures of abstract constructs in management and organizational research. British Journal of Management, 19(4), 380–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2008b). Defining the necessary components of creative, effective ads. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 139–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2009a). Qualitative marketing research: theory and practice. Australasian Journal of Market and Social Research, 17(1), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2009b). ER-SERVCOMPSQUAL: a measure of e-retailing service components quality. Service Science, 1(4), 212–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2010). Marketing measurement revolution: C-OAR-SE to replace psychometrics. Transfer: Werbeforschung & Praxis, 56(1), 66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J.R. (2011a). Measurement for the social sciences: The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. New York: Springer.*

  • Rossiter, J.R. (2011b). Marketing measurement revolution: the C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1589–1600.*

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2012b). Further comment on “market orientation”. Australasian Marketing Journal, 20(1), 108–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2012c). A new C-OAR-SE-based content-valid and predictively valid measure that distinguishes brand love from brand liking. Marketing Letters, 23(2), 905–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R., & Bergkvist, L. (2009). The importance of choosing one good item for single-item measures of attitude towards the ad and attitude towards the brand and its generalization to all measures. Transfer Werbeforschung & Praxis, 55(2), 8–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R., & Braithwaite, B. (2013). C-OAR-SE-based single-item measures for the two-stage Technology Acceptance Model. Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, 2522

    John R. Rossiter

Authors
  1. John R. Rossiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Rossiter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rossiter, J.R. Scientific progress in measurement theory?. AMS Rev 3, 171–179 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0048-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0048-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation