Avoiding measurement dogma:a response to Rossiter

Purpose – This paper aims to respond to John Rossiter's call for a “Marketing measurement revolution” in the current issue of EJM, as well as providing broader comment on Rossiter's C-OAR-SE framework, and measurement practice in marketing in general. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is purely theoretical, based on interpretation of measurement theory. Findings – The authors find that much of Rossiter's diagnosis of the problems facing measurement practice in marketing and social science is highly relevant. However, the authors find themselves opposed to the revolution advocated by Rossiter. Research limitations/implications – The paper presents a comment based on interpretation of measurement theory and observation of practices in marketing and social science. As such, the interpretation is itself open to disagreement. Practical implications – There are implications for those outside academia who wish to use measures derived from academic work as well as to derive their own measures of key marketing and other social variables. Originality/value – This paper is one of the few to explicitly respond to the C-OAR-SE framework proposed by Rossiter, and presents a number of points critical to good measurement theory and practice, which appear to remain underdeveloped in marketing and social science.

The evolution of "classical mythology" within marketing measure development

Purpose - This paper provides a deeper examination of the fundamentals of commonly-used techniques - such as coefficient alpha and factor analysis - in order to more strongly link the techniques used by marketing and social researchers to their underlying psychometric and statistical rationale. Design/methodology approach - A wide-ranging review and synthesis of psychometric and other measurement literature both within and outside the marketing field is used to illuminate and reconsider a number of misconceptions which seem to have evolved in marketing research. Findings - The research finds that marketing scholars have generally concentrated on reporting what are essentially arbitrary figures such as coefficient alpha, without fully understanding what these figures imply. It is argued that, if the link between theory and technique is not clearly understood, use of psychometric measure development tools actually runs the risk of detracting from the validity of the measures rather than enhancing it. Research limitations/implications - The focus on one stage of a particular form of measure development could be seen as rather specialised. The paper also runs the risk of increasing the amount of dogma surrounding measurement, which runs contrary to the spirit of this paper. Practical implications - This paper shows that researchers may need to spend more time interpreting measurement results. Rather than simply referring to precedence, one needs to understand the link between measurement theory and actual technique. Originality/value - This paper presents psychometric measurement and item analysis theory in easily understandable format, and offers an important set of conceptual tools for researchers in many fields. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.