2007•SSRN Electronic JournalOpen access

The Validity of Attribute-Importance Measurement: A Review

Koert van Ittersum, J.M.E. Pennings, Brian C. Wansink, J.C.M. van Trijp

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

A critical review of the literature demonstrates a lack of validity among the ten most common methods for measuring the importance of attributes in behavioral sciences. The authors argue that one of the key determinants of this lack of validity is the multi-dimensionality of attribute importance. Building on the notable work of Myers and Alpert (1968) [Myers JH, Alpert MI. Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and measurement. J Mark 1968;32(July):13-20], they propose that different methods measure different dimensions of attribute importance and, more specifically, what methods measure which specific dimensions. A re-examination of existing research reveals convergent and nomological validity among methods that are proposed to measure the same dimensions of attribute importance and discriminant validity between methods that are proposed to measure different dimensions of attribute importance. Acknowledging the multi-dimensionality of attribute importance substantially reduces the apparent lack of validity reported in the literature and forms an important first step enabling practitioners and scholars to improve the validity of attribute-importance measurement.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A critical review of the literature demonstrates a lack of validity among the ten most common methods for measuring the importance of attributes in behavioral sciences. The authors argue that one of the key determinants of this lack of validity is the multi-dimensionality of attribute importance. Building on the notable work of Myers and Alpert (1968) [Myers JH, Alpert MI. Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and measurement. J Mark 1968;32(July):13-20], they propose that different methods measure different dimensions of attribute importance and, more specifically, what methods measure which specific dimensions. A re-examination of existing research reveals convergent and nomological validity among methods that are proposed to measure the same dimensions of attribute importance and discriminant validity between methods that are proposed to measure different dimensions of attribute importance. Acknowledging the multi-dimensionality of attribute importance substantially reduces the apparent lack of validity reported in the literature and forms an important first step enabling practitioners and scholars to improve the validity of attribute-importance measurement.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A critical review of the literature demonstrates a lack of validity among the ten most common methods for measuring the importance of attributes in behavioral sciences. The authors argue that one of the key determinants of this lack of validity is the multi-dimensionality of attribute importance. Building on the notable work of Myers and Alpert (1968) [Myers JH, Alpert MI. Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and measurement. J Mark 1968;32(July):13-20], they propose that different methods measure different dimensions of attribute importance and, more specifically, what methods measure which specific dimensions. A re-examination of existing research reveals convergent and nomological validity among methods that are proposed to measure the same dimensions of attribute importance and discriminant validity between methods that are proposed to measure different dimensions of attribute importance. Acknowledging the multi-dimensionality of attribute importance substantially reduces the apparent lack of validity reported in the literature and forms an important first step enabling practitioners and scholars to improve the validity of attribute-importance measurement.

Key concepts: Nomological network, Discriminant validity, Convergent validity, Measure (data warehouse), Psychology, External validity, Criterion validity, Incremental validity

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Validity of Attribute-Importance Measurement: A Review — Research Paper | ScholarLens