Validity and Reliability of Empirical Discretion Model
The present chapter holistically assesses the validity and reliability of the study’s calibrated empirical discretion model by applying a new assessment system, i.e. a cascading hierarchy of five evaluation criteria and numerous assessment tests and thres
- PDF / 1,819,898 Bytes
- 112 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 56 Downloads / 214 Views
Validity and Reliability of Empirical Discretion Model
The purpose of this chapter is to assess the validity and reliability of the empirical discretion model, which is the empirical version of the theoretical discretion model that was developed as a synthesis of the various theories from the literature pertinent to the study’s research objective (see Chap. 4). This chapter establishes the model’s validity and reliability by systematically applying five widely-used criteria for assessing the suitability of research designs derived based on Cook and Campbell (1979): statistical conclusion validity, reliability, construct validity, internal validity, external validity. For these five criteria, a large number of assessment tests are defined in this chapter based on a broad synthesis of the literature.1
1 See Sect. 5.1 on statistical conclusion validity (e.g. Albers and Hildebrandt 2006, pp. 2–33; Arteaga et al. 2010, p. 164; Backhaus et al. 2006, p. 97; Barroso et al. 2010, p. 437; Baumgartner and Homburg 1996; Bentler and Chou 1987; Bentler and Weeks 1980; Betzin and Henseler 2005, p. 50; Bliemel et al. 2005, pp. 10–11; Bollen 1989, pp. 1–9; Bollen and Davis 1994; Boßow-Thies and Albers 2010, pp. 595–596; Carte and Russell 2003, pp. 480–495; Chin 1995, pp. 315–319, 1998, pp. 318–320, 2000, pp. 1–2, 2001, 2002, p. 94, 2010, p. 670; Chin and Newsted 1999, pp. 309–314; Chow 1960, pp. 595–604; Cohen 1988, pp. 410–413; Coheris Spad 2007; Cortina et al. 2001, pp. 334–359; Diamantopoulos and Schlegelmilch 2006, p. 217; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2006, p. 271; Duarte and Raposo 2010, p. 463; Efron and Gong 1983, pp. 40–46; Efron and Tibshirani 1993, pp. 145–147; Eggert et al. 2005, pp. 102–108; Esposito Vinzi et al. 2010, pp. 48–66; Falk and Miller 1992, p. 5; Fassott 2005, pp. 24–29; Fassott and Eggert 2005, pp. 26–32; Finkelstein and Boyd 1998, p. 186; Fornell 1987; Fornell and Bookstein 1982a, pp. 289–302, 1982b, pp. 440–451; Fornell and Larcker 1981, pp. 45–46; Fu 2006; Gallese and Prugent 2007; Garson 2002, p. 144; Go¨tz and Liehr-Gobbers 2004, pp. 727–731; Henseler and Fassott 2010, p. 721; Herrmann et al. 2006, p. 61; Homburg and Baumgartner 1995b; Homburg and Dobratz 1998, p. 450; Hsieh et al. 2008, p. 108; Irwin and McClelland 2001, p. 105; James et al. 1982, pp. 110–112; Jo¨reskog 1970, 1981; Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom 1982, 1988; Kaplan 2000, pp. 1–12; Krafft et al. 2005, pp. 73–83; Krzanowski 2003, p. xv; Yuan Li 2005; Lohmo¨ller 1987, 1988, p. 126, 1989; MacCallum and Browne 1993, pp. 533–540; Ping 2005, p. 2; Qureshi and Compeau 2009, p. 199; Ringle 2009; Ringle et al. 2005, 2010, p. 205; Rodgers and Pavlou 2003, p. 25; Sa´nchez 2009, p. 3; Satorra and Bentler 2001; Schepers et al. 2005, p. 504; Scholderer and Balderjahn 2005, pp. 88–94; Temme and Kreis 2005, p. 195; Temme et al. 2006, pp. 1–2; Tenenhaus et al. 2004, pp. 739–742; Tenenhaus et al. 2005, pp. 173–190; van Oppen et al. 2005, p. 19; Wold 1966, 1973,
H. Wu¨lferth, Managerial Discretion and Performance in China, Contributions to Management Science, DOI 1
Data Loading...
