) 兰州大学管理学院, 兰州 730000
收稿日期:2018-08-31出版日期:2019-07-15发布日期:2019-05-22通讯作者:张亮花E-mail:zlh331@qq.com基金资助:* 教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(16YJC630132);国家自然科学基金青年项目(71602080);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目(17LZUJBWZD007);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目(18LZ UJBWZY007);兰州大学“一带一路”专项项目(2018 ldbryb024);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金科研创新团队项目资助Single-item measures: Queries, responses and suggestions
WEI Xuhua, ZHANG Lianghua() School of Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
Received:2018-08-31Online:2019-07-15Published:2019-05-22Contact:ZHANG Lianghua E-mail:zlh331@qq.com摘要/Abstract
摘要： 研究者关于单题项测量的争论已久。支持者认为单题项测量具有时间和效率上的优势, 而反对者则认为单题项测量的信效度均无法得到保障。通过定性和定量的回顾, 归纳了单题项测量的优缺点, 剖析了以往研究对单题项测量的种种质疑并逐一进行回应。通过系统梳理, 发现单题项测量具有可以接受的信度和效度水平, 且多题项测量的效标关联效度并没有显著优于单题项测量。最后, 指出了单题项测量开发和使用过程中应该注意的事项。尽管多题项测量仍是当前研究界的主流测量方法, 但未来研究者应当更加客观地看待单题项测量。学界应当充分理解单题项测量潜在的优点和适用范围, 从而使单题项测量在管理心理学和社会科学研究中发挥其应有的作用。
图/表 3
表1单题项测量的信度统计
| 信度区间 | 单维构念 | 多维构念 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 再测信度 | 最小信度 | 再测信度 | 最小信度 | |||||
| 数量 | 百分比 | 数量 | 百分比 | 数量 | 百分比 | 数量 | 百分比 | |
| 小于0.60 | 8 | 13.33% | 2 | 15.38% | 1 | 33.33% | 3 | 100% |
| 0.60~0.69 | 11 | 18.33% | 5 | 38.46% | 2 | 66.67% | — | — |
| 0.70~0.79 | 26 | 43.33% | 4 | 30.77% | — | — | — | — |
| 0.80~0.89 | 11 | 18.33% | 1 | 7.69% | — | — | — | — |
| 0.90~1.00 | 4 | 6.67% | 1 | 7.69% | — | — | — | — |
| 中位数 | 0.73 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.50 | ||||
表1单题项测量的信度统计
| 信度区间 | 单维构念 | 多维构念 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 再测信度 | 最小信度 | 再测信度 | 最小信度 | |||||
| 数量 | 百分比 | 数量 | 百分比 | 数量 | 百分比 | 数量 | 百分比 | |
| 小于0.60 | 8 | 13.33% | 2 | 15.38% | 1 | 33.33% | 3 | 100% |
| 0.60~0.69 | 11 | 18.33% | 5 | 38.46% | 2 | 66.67% | — | — |
| 0.70~0.79 | 26 | 43.33% | 4 | 30.77% | — | — | — | — |
| 0.80~0.89 | 11 | 18.33% | 1 | 7.69% | — | — | — | — |
| 0.90~1.00 | 4 | 6.67% | 1 | 7.69% | — | — | — | — |
| 中位数 | 0.73 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.50 | ||||
表2单题项测量的聚合效度与区分效度检验
| 构念关系 | k | N | r | ρ | 95%置信区间 | QW | 失安全系数 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低 | 高 | |||||||
| 单题项测量与多题项测量 (聚合效度) | 45 | 36930 | 0.64 | 0.72*** | 0.66 | 0.77 | 2790.85*** | 151303 |
| 单题项测量与相似构念 (区分效度) | 51 | 25225 | 0.20 | 0.22*** | 0.18 | 0.26 | 502.70*** | 12479 |
表2单题项测量的聚合效度与区分效度检验
| 构念关系 | k | N | r | ρ | 95%置信区间 | QW | 失安全系数 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低 | 高 | |||||||
| 单题项测量与多题项测量 (聚合效度) | 45 | 36930 | 0.64 | 0.72*** | 0.66 | 0.77 | 2790.85*** | 151303 |
| 单题项测量与相似构念 (区分效度) | 51 | 25225 | 0.20 | 0.22*** | 0.18 | 0.26 | 502.70*** | 12479 |
表3单题项测量与多题项测量的效标关联效度比较
| 构念关系 | k | N | r | ρ | 95%置信区间 | QW | QB | 失安全系数 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低 | 高 | ||||||||
| 单题项测量与效标 | 63 | 70478 | 0.11 | 0.12*** | 0.07 | 0.18 | 2514.96*** | 0.92 | 8323 |
| 多题项测量与效标 | 79 | 71872 | 0.14 | 0.16*** | 0.11 | 0.21 | 3954.72*** | 20413 | |
表3单题项测量与多题项测量的效标关联效度比较
| 构念关系 | k | N | r | ρ | 95%置信区间 | QW | QB | 失安全系数 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低 | 高 | ||||||||
| 单题项测量与效标 | 63 | 70478 | 0.11 | 0.12*** | 0.07 | 0.18 | 2514.96*** | 0.92 | 8323 |
| 多题项测量与效标 | 79 | 71872 | 0.14 | 0.16*** | 0.11 | 0.21 | 3954.72*** | 20413 | |
参考文献 57
| [1] | *Abdel-khalek A. M . (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(2), 139-150. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.139URL |
| [2] | Aiken L. R . (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955-959. doi: 10.1177/001316448004000419URL |
| [3] | Ang L., & Eisend M. , (2017). Single versus multiple measurement of attitudes: A meta-analysis of advertising studies validates the single-item measure approach. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(3), 1-10. |
| [4] | Bergkvist L. , (2015). Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay. Marketing Letters, 26(3), 245-255. doi: 10.1007/s11002-014-9325-yURL |
| [5] | Bergkvist L., & Rossiter J. R . (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175-184. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175URL |
| [6] | Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P. T., & Rothstein H. R . (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. |
| [7] | *Cheung F., & Lucas R. E . (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23(10), 2809-2818. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4URL |
| [8] | Churchill G. A., & Peter J. P . (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 360-375. doi: 10.1177/002224378402100402URL |
| [9] | Credé M., Harms P., Niehorster S., & Gaye-Valentine A . (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the big five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 874-888. doi: 10.1037/a0027403URL |
| [10] | * de Boer A. G. E. M., van Lanschot J. J. B., Stalmeier J. W., van Sandick J. W., Hulscher J. B. F., de Haes J. C. J. M., & Sprangers M. A. G ., (2004). Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 311-320. |
| [11] | *Denissen J. J. A., Geenen R., Selfhout M., & van Aken M. A. G ., (2010). Single-item big five ratings in a social network design. European Journal of Personality, 22(1), 37-54. |
| [12] | Diamantopoulos A., Sarstedt M., Fuchs C., Wilczynski P., & Kaiser S . (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434-449. doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3URL |
| [13] | Elo A. L., Leppänen A., & Jahkola A . (2003). Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 29(6), 444-451. |
| [14] | Fisher C. D., & To M. L . (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865-877. doi: 10.1002/job.1803URL |
| [15] | *Fisher G. G., Matthews R. A., & Gibbons A. M . (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(1), 3-23. |
| [16] | Franke G. R., Rapp A., & Andzulis J. M . (2013). Using shortened scales in sales research: Risks, benefits, and strategies. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 33(3), 319-328. |
| [17] | Fu Y-C . (2005). Measuring personal networks with daily contacts: A single-item survey question and the contact diary. Social Networks, 27(3), 169-186. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2005.01.008URL |
| [18] | Fuchs C., & Diamantopoulos A. , (2009). Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research: Conceptual issues and application guidelines. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 195-210. |
| [19] | *Gardner D. G., Cummings L. L., Dunham R. B., & Pierce J. L . (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898-915. doi: 10.1177/0013164498058006003URL |
| [20] | *Gogol K., Brunner M., Goetz T., Martin R., Ugen S., Keller U., … Preckel F . (2014). "My questionnaire is too long!" The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188-205. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002URL |
| [21] | Gorsuch R. L., & Mcfarland S. G . (1972). Single vs. Multiple-item scales for measuring religious values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(1), 53-64. doi: 10.2307/1384298URL |
| [22] | *Gosling S. D., Rentfrow P. J., & Swann W. B . (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1URL |
| [23] | Hinkin T. R . (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121. doi: 10.1177/109442819800100106URL |
| [24] | *Hoeppner B. B., Kelly J. F., Urbanoski K. A., & Slaymaker V . (2011). Comparative utility of a single-item vs. Multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41(3), 305-312. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.04.005URL |
| [25] | *Jordan J. S., & Turner B. A . (2008). The feasibility of single-item measures for organizational justice. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(4), 237-257. doi: 10.1080/10913670802349790URL |
| [26] | *Kim H-J., & Abraham I. , (2017). Measurement of fatigue: Comparison of the reliability and validity of single-item and short measures to a comprehensive measure. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 65, 35-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.10.012URL |
| [27] | *Konrath S., Meier B. P., & Bushman B. J . (2018). Development and validation of the single item trait empathy scale (SITES). Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 111-122. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.009URL |
| [28] | *Konrath S., Meier B. P., & Bushman B. J . (2014). Development and validation of the single item narcissism scale (SINS). Plos One, 9(8), e103459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103459URL |
| [29] | Konstabel K., Lönnqvist J-E., Leikas S., García V. R., Qin H., Verkasalo M., & Walkowitz G . (2017). Measuring single constructs by single items: Constructing an even shorter version of the "short five" personality inventory. Plos One, 12(8), e0182714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182714URL |
| [30] | Konstabel K., Lönnqvist J-E., Walkowitz G., Konstabel K., & Verkasalo M . (2012). The ‘short five’ (S5): Measuring personality traits using comprehensive single items. European Journal of Personality, 26(1), 13-29. doi: 10.1002/per.v26.1URL |
| [31] | *Kwon H., & Trail G. , (2005). The feasibility of single-item measures in sport loyalty research. Sport Management Review, 8(1), 69-88. doi: 10.1016/S1441-3523(05)70033-4URL |
| [32] | *Loo R. , (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 68-75. doi: 10.1108/02683940210415933URL |
| [33] | *Macias C., Gold P. B., Öngür D., Cohen B. M., & Panch T . (2015). Are single-item global ratings useful for assessing health status? Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 22(4), 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s10880-015-9416-9URL |
| [34] | *Matthias S., & Magdalena B. , (2014). Meta-analytic guidelines for evaluating single-item reliabilities of personality instruments. Assessment, 21(3), 272-285. doi: 10.1177/1073191113498267URL |
| [35] | Mosel J. N . (1953). Single-item tests for personnel screening. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 179-192. doi: 10.1177/001316445301300204URL |
| [36] | Nair A., Ataseven C., Habermann M., & Dreyfus D . (2016). Toward a continuum of measurement scales in just-in-time (JIT) research - an examination of the predictive validity of single-item and multiple-item measures. Operations Management Research, 9(1-2), 35-48. doi: 10.1007/s12063-016-0108-xURL |
| [37] | *Nagy M. S . (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77-86. |
| [38] | *Nichols A. L., & Webster G. D . (2013). The single-item need to belong scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(2), 189-192. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.018URL |
| [39] | *Núñez-Peña M. I., Guilera G., & Suárez-Pellicioni M . (2014). The single-item math anxiety scale (SIMA): An alternative way of measuring mathematical anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 60(4), S75-S76. |
| [40] | Oshagbemi T . (1999). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single versus multiple-item measures? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(5), 388-403. doi: 10.1108/02683949910277148URL |
| [41] | *Postmes T., Haslam S. A., & Jans L . (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597-617. doi: 10.1111/bjso.2013.52.issue-4URL |
| [42] | *Reysen S., Katzarska-Miller I., Nesbit S. M., & Pierce L . (2013). Further validation of a single-item measure of social identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(6), 463-470. |
| [43] | Riordan B. C., Cody L., Flett J. A. M., Conner T. S., Hunter J., & Scarf D . (2018). The development of a single item FoMO (Fear of Missing Out) scale. Current Psychology, doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9824-8. |
| [44] | *Robins R. W., Hendin H. M., & Trzesniewski K. H . (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151-161. doi: 10.1177/0146167201272002URL |
| [45] | Roelen C. A., van Rhenen W., Groothoff J. W., van der Klink J. J., Twisk J. W., & Heymans M. W . (2014). Work ability as prognostic risk marker of disability pension: Single-item work ability score versus multi-item work ability index. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 40(4), 428-431. |
| [46] | Roelen C. A. M., Heymans M. W., Twisk J. W. R., Laaksonen M., Pallesen S. L., Magerøy N., … Bjorvatn B . (2015). Health measures in prediction models for high sickness absence: Single-item self-rated health versus multi-item SF-12. European Journal of Public Health, 25(4), 668-672. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku192URL |
| [47] | *Russell J. A., Weiss A., Mendelsohn G. A . (1989). Affect grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 493-502. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493URL |
| [48] | Sarstedt M., Diamantopoulos A., & Salzberger T . (2016). Should we use single items? Better not. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3199-3203. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.040URL |
| [49] | Sarstedt M., Diamantopoulos A., Salzberger T., & Baumgartner P . (2016). Selecting single items to measure doubly concrete constructs: A cautionary tale. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3159-3167. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.004URL |
| [50] | Spörrle M., & Bekk M. , (2014). Meta-analytic guidelines for evaluating single-item reliabilities of personality instruments. Assessment, 21(3), 272-285. doi: 10.1177/1073191113498267URL |
| [51] | van der Linden S., & Rosenthal S. A . (2016). Measuring narcissism with a single question? A replication and extension of the single-item narcissism scale (SINS). Personality and Individual Differences, 90(3), 238-241. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.050URL |
| [52] | *van der Linden, S., & Rosenthal S. A . (2016). Measuring narcissism with a single question? A replication and extension of the single-item narcissism scale (SINS). Personality and Individual Differences, 90(3), 238-241. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.050URL |
| [53] | *Wanous J. P., & Hudy M. J . (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4(4), 361-375. doi: 10.1177/109442810144003URL |
| [54] | *Wanous J. P., Reichers A. E., & Hudy M. J . (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247URL |
| [55] | Wohlgemuth V., & Wenzel M. , (2016). Dynamic capabilities and routinization. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1944-1948. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.085URL |
| [56] | * Woods S. A., & Hampson S. E . (2005). Measuring the big five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality, 19(5), 373-390. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0984URL |
| [57] | Zimmerman M., Ruggero C. J., Chelminski I., Young D., Posternak M. A., Friedman M., … Attiullah N . (2006). Developing brief scales for use in clinical practice: The reliability and validity of single-item self-report measures of depression symptom severity, psychosocial impairment due to depression, and quality of life. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(10), 1536-1541. doi: 10.4088/JCP.v67n1007URL |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 陈浩彬, 汪凤炎. 老年人的智慧[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 885-893. |
| [2] | 苏悦, 刘明明, 赵楠, 刘晓倩, 朱廷劭. 基于社交媒体数据的心理指标识别建模: 机器学习的方法[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(4): 571-585. |
| [3] | 杨玲, 刘文鑫, 张炀, 张建勋, 牛禄霖. 物质成瘾领域延迟折扣研究中的外部效度问题[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 140-149. |
| [4] | 朱海腾. 多层次研究的数据聚合适当性检验:文献评价与关键问题试解[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(8): 1392-1408. |
| [5] | 杨晓梦, 王福兴, 王燕青, 赵婷婷, 高春颍, 胡祥恩. 瞳孔是心灵的窗口吗?——瞳孔在心理学研究中的应用及测量[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1029-1041. |
| [6] | 江静, 董雅楠, 李艳, 杨百寅. 让建言更多含金量：员工建言质量的前因机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1093-1107. |
| [7] | 唐倩, 毛秀珍, 何明霜, 何洁. 认知诊断计算机化自适应测验的选题策略[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(12): 2160-2168. |
| [8] | 王阳, 温忠麟, 付媛姝. 等效性检验——结构方程模型评价和测量不变性分析的新视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(11): 1961-1969. |
| [9] | 胥彦, 李超平. 人口统计学特征对公共服务动机有什么影响?来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(10): 1631-1649. |
| [10] | 蔡玉清, 董书阳, 袁帅, 胡传鹏. 变量间的网络分析模型及其应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(1): 178-190. |
| [11] | 张坤坤, 张珂烨, 张火垠, 罗文波. 面孔可信度加工的时间进程和影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(8): 1394-1403. |
| [12] | 陈冠宇, 陈平. 解释性项目反应理论模型：理论与应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(5): 937-950. |
| [13] | 朱海腾, 李川云. 共同方法变异是“致命瘟疫”吗?——论争、新知与应对[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(4): 587-599. |
| [14] | 温聪聪, 伍伟平, 林光杰. 对齐(Alignment) —— 一种新的多群组分析法[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(1): 181-189. |
| [15] | 张倩, 陈林林, 杨群. 审判决策过程中的面孔特征效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(4): 698-709. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4724
