Tailor-made single-item measures

of doubly concrete constructs

Lars Bergkvist
Stockholm University
John R.Rossiter
University of Wollongong

The present study addresses how to measure three constructs commonly used in adver-
tising research, namely attitude towards the ad, brand attitude and brand purchase
intention. The study replicates and extends Bergkvist and Rossiter's (2007) finding that
single-item measures are equally predictively valid as multiple-item measures of basic
(doubly concrete - see Rossiter's 2002 C-OAR-SE procedure) constructs in marketing,
namely A^^ and \^^^¿. One extension is that the finding holds for free-standing, tailor-
made single-item measures, whereas the previous study establishes this result only for
single-item measures extracted from multiple-item measures. Another extension is that
single-item equivalence of predictive validity further holds for another widely employed
dependent variable construct, Plß^^^j. The present study goes beyond Bergkvist and
Rossiter's study in that it shows that items commonly used in multiple-item measures of
A^j and Ag^^^^ vary in their predictive validity and that, in some cases, the differences are
substantial. The main finding is the further empirical proof that multiple-item scales are
unnecessaiy for validly measuring basic constructs.

Introduction
Multiple-item measures of all constructs have been the norm in academic
marketing research, including research on advertising, for the last 30
years. Recent research challenges this norm on theoretical grounds for not
being applicable to all types of constructs of interest in the social sciences
(Rossiter 2002) as well as on empirical grounds (Drolet & Morrison 2001;
Bergkvist & Rossiter 2007). Specifically, Rossiter (2002) argues that single-
item measures provide valid measurement of 'doubly concrete' constructs
- that is, constructs for which both the object of measurement and the
attribute of measurement are clear and unambiguous for those rating

International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), pp. 607-621

© 2009 Advertising Association
Published by the World Advertising Research Center, www.warc.com
DOI: 10.2501/S0265048709200783 607
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OE ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

the object on the attribute. Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) show that this
argument holds empirically by demonstrating that the predictive validity
of single-item measures of the doubly concrete constructs attitude towards
the ad (A^^) and brand attitude {\^^„J is equal to the predictive validity
of multiple-item measures of the same constructs. Moreover, Drolet and
Morrison (2001) demonstrate mathematically that increasing the number
of items in a measure of a doubly concrete construct (in their study, A^^)
will actually decrease its validity compared with a measure with one,
or at most two, good items, although they did not test this relationship
empirically. The multiple items were attempted synonyms of the attribute
descriptor, which is the typical way of generating multiple-item measures
of doubly concrete constructs.
In their study of A^^ and \^^^¿, Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) extract
one of the items from the multiple-item battery to compare the predictive
validity of single-item and multiple-item measures - that is, they do not
test free-standing single-item measures. Potentially, extracted single-item
measures could be 'contaminated' by being rated in a battery of similar
items. The purpose of the present study is to compare the predictive
validity of single-item measures, extracted from the multiple-item meas-
ures as well as free-standing, of A^^ and A^^^^^, with the predictive validity
of traditional multiple-item measures of the same constructs. In addition
to replicating the findings of Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007), and thereby
strengthening confidence in their conclusions (Evanschitzky et al. 2007),
the study adds to the literature by suggesting and validating tailor-made
single-item measures of A^^, \^^^¿ and purchase intention (PIQ,^^¿). In
particular, the study makes a contribution to the literature as the valida-
tion of the tailor-made measures is made not only vis-à-vis multiple-item
measures, as in the study by Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007), but also vis-
à-vis four extracted single-item measures, thereby making it possible to
evaluate which attribute descriptor (e.g. 'like-dislike' or 'good-bad') is the
more valid of those tested.

The measurement of doubly concrete constructs

The three focal constructs in the present study, A. ,, A,, , and PL .,
^ •" Ad' Brand Brand'
are 'doubly concrete' in the terminology of Rossiter's (2002) C-OAR-SE
procedure. 'Concrete', in the C-OAR-SE procedure, refers to objects and

608
TAILOR-MADE SINGLE-ITEM MEASURES OF DOUBLY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTS

attributes that nearly all the raters (e.g. consumers in a survey) describe
identically. Rossiter (2002) argues that multiple-item measures are not
necessary' for doubly concrete constructs since the raters agree on the defi-
nition of both the object and attribute of the construct. The agreement
between raters means that these constructs are not 'elusive, intangible phe-
nomena' that require multiple-item measures (cf. DeVellis 1991, p. 7) and
that they do not have different 'facets' to be tapped into (cf. Baumgartner
& Homburg 1996). In the C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development,
the measurement requirements are different for constructs with an
'abstract' object (e.g. materialism or capitalism) or an 'abstract' attribute
(e.g. service quality or extraversion). Both these cases require multiple-
item measures. However, these types of construct are not evaluated in the
present study and will not be discussed further here (see Rossiter 2002 for
a discussion of the measurement of constructs with an abstract object, an
abstract attribute, or both). Furthermore, given that single-item measures
are sufficient for doubly concrete constructs, one of the main arguments
for the use of multiple-item measures - that they are more reliable in
the sense of internal consistency than single-item measures in that they
allow for the computation of coefficient alpha (e.g. Churchill 1979) - is
irrelevant. Rossiter (2002) argues that the only meaningful use of the term
'reliability' is the precision of a score obtained from a measure in a specific
application. The only case in which the number of items affects reliability
is the case of an 'eliciting' attribute, which is one type of abstract attribute,
and which most attributes in marketing constructs are not. For an eliciting
attribute (e.g. the personality trait of extraversion), the items are a sample
and larger sample size means greater precision. See Rossiter (2002, p. 328)
for a thorough discussion of reliability.

Predictive validity as the criterion

Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) use predictive validity as the criterion in
their comparisons based on the arguments that a measure cannot be pre-
dictively valid without being reliable (Gorsuch & McFarland 1972), that
predictive validity is more important than internal-consistency reliability
(acknowledged by the father of coefficient alpha, Cronbach 1961), which
are both arguments based on traditional psychometrics, and that predic-
tive validity is the most important criterion for managerial decision making

609
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OE ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

(Aaker et al. 2005). Moreover, Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007), consistent

with Rossiter (2002), argue that although expert judges' evaluations of
content validity is the main criterion to be used in scale development,
content validity cannot be evaluated after the fact for existing multiple-
item or single-item measures because ex post evaluations do not consider
rejected items. Therefore, predictive validity remains the best criterion for
evaluating existing measures of doubly concrete constructs. The present
study adopts the criterion of predictive validity for evaluating measures of
the doubly concrete constructs A,,, A„ , and PI„ ,.
•' Ad' Brand Brand

Common-methods bias
Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) investigate the additional issue of whether
common-methods bias (see, e.g., Williams et al. 1989) spuriously inflates
the correlation between multiple-item measures. Inflated correlations
could occur if two multiple-item measures are made up of identical-format
items - for example, 'semantic differential' items - or if two single-item
measures use the same adjectives to describe the attribute of interest (e.g.
'like-dislike' in both or 'good-bad' in both). Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007)
find no support for common-methods bias in any of these forms, but they
caution that their results with respect to multiple-item measures may not
hold for multiple-item measures with more than the three items, which
was the number of multiple items they tested in their study. The present
study investigates multiple-item measures made up of four items.

Method for the empirical study

Participants and procedure

The data in this study come from a survey of 117 undergraduate business
students. The mean age of the participants was 20 years, with an age range
from 18 to 31 years; 43% were men and 57% were women. Participants
responded to a printed questionnaire in class and received no reward other
than thanks for their participation.

610
TAILOR-MADE SINGLE-ITEM MEASURES OE DOUBLY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTS

Sample of ads
The questionnaire contained four different ads with brands from four
different product categories: beer, breakfast cereal, wine and painkillers.
To maximise the effect of A^^ on Ag^^^^^, the ads were taken from foreign
magazines and the brands were not available in the local market where the
survey was conducted, which means that the only possible causes of Ag^^^^
would be the information in the ad and the participants' attitude towards
the ad itself (cf. Campbell & Keller 2003; Bergkvist & Rossiter 2007). The
order of the ads was rotated to average out possible order effects.

Measures and order of measurement

For each ad, participants rated A^^, Ag^^^^ and Plßj^^j on single-item
measures and on multiple-item measures with four items. All measures
pertaining to an ad followed immediately after the ad in the question-
naire, with the single-item measure preceding the multiple-item meas-
ure in every case to avoid likely bias if the reverse order of measurement
were used.
The single-item measures of A^^ and Ag^^^^ were bipolar seven-point
measures developed for the present study. The attribute description for
the A^j measure was 'like-dislike' and the attribute description for the
^Brand "^^^sure was 'good-bad'. These two descriptors were chosen as
they appear to be the most frequently used in measures of these two con-
structs. The response alternatives were clearly labelled using 'neither',
'slightly', 'quite' and 'extremely'. These adverbs have been shown to be
perceptually equidistant (Cliff 1959), and (Rossiter 2002, p. 324) recom-
mends these as the best labels for measuring degrees of an attribute. The
single-item measure of Plg^.^^^^ was a shortened version of Juster's (1966)
purchase intention scale. The items for the multiple-item measures were
standard 'semantic differential' items used in several previous studies. For
the mulciple-item measures, the response alternatives, which were the
same as for the single-item measures for A^^ and Ag^.^^^^, were labelled at
the top of each set of questions (see Heise 1969). The questionnaire also
contained some measures not included in the present study; for example,
measures of brand benefit beliefs. The single-item and multiple-item
measures of A^^, Ag^^^^ and Plß^^j^j are shown in Table 1.

611
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Table 1 Single- and multiple-item measures of A^^ A ^nri PI

Brand' " " ' Brand

Operationali-
sation and
Construct variable name Question Answer scale

A^j Single-item, Thinking about the ad for /BRAND/, Q 1 disliked it extremely

A which of the following statements • 1 disliked it quite
"Ad(Single)
best describes your feeling about • 1 disliked slightly
the ad? Q 1 neither liked it nor disliked it
O 1 liked it slightly
• 1 liked it quite
O 1 liked it extremely

Ajj Multiple-item, Below you will find four pairs of Dislike : : : : : : : : Like
A adjectives. Indicate how well one Good : : : : : : : : Bad
"Ad(Multiple)
or the other adjective in each pair Pleasant : : : ; : : : : Unpleasant
describes how you perceived the ad Uninformative : : : : : : : : Informative
for/BRAND/.

ABrand Single-item, Thinking about the /BRAND/ O 1 think it is extremely bad

A /PRODUCT CATEGORY/, which
"Brand(Single)
of the following statements best
describes your feeling about
/BRAND/?
n 1 think it is quite bad
• 1 think it is slightly bad
Cl 1 think it is neither good nor bad
D 1 think it is slightly good
O 1 think it is quite good
Q 1 think it is extremely good

ABrand Multiple-item, Below you will find four pairs of
adjectives. Indicate how well one
or the other adjective in each pair
describes how you feel about
/BRAND/.
Bad : : : : : : : : Good
Like : : : : : : : : Dislike
Pleasant : : : : : : : : Unpleasant
Useful : : : : : : : : Useless

P'Brand Single-item, If you were going to buy /PRODUCT Cl Certain or practically certain
CATEGORY/, how likely would you Cl Very probable
be to try /BRAND/? Cl Probable
n Fairly good possibility
n Some possibility
Û Slight possibility
O No chance or almost no chance

PiBrand Multiple-item, Below you will find four pairs of Unlikely : : : : : : : : Likely

°'Brand(Mulliple)
adjectives. Indicate how well one Probable : : : : : : : : Improbable
or the other adjective in each pair Uncertain : : : : : : : : Certain
describes the likelihood that you Impossible : : : : : ; : : Possible
would try /BRAND/ if you were to
buy /PRODUCT CATEGORY/.

Notes: Single-item measures coded 1 to 7, where 7 is the 'positive' response. Items in multiple-item measures coded - 3 to +3,
where +3 is the 'positive' response. In the questionnaire, the semantic differential items were labelled at the top of the set
using the adverb 'neither' in the middle and the adverbs 'slightly,' 'quite,' and 'extremely' on either side.

612
TAILOR-MADE SINGLE-ITEM MEASURES OF DOUBLY GONCRETE GONSTRUGTS

The three multiple-item measures performed well according to (tradi-

tional) psychometric criteria. All three scales were unidimensional by fac-
tor analysis and the coefficient alphas were 0.77 for A^^, 0.84 for Ag^^^^ and
0.81 for Plßrand- ^ ^ ^ alpha internal-consistency computations showed that
alpha for A^^ could be improved from 0.77 to 0.85 by dropping the item
'uninformative-informative' and, similarly, that alpha for Plß^^j^j could
be improved from 0.81 to 0.87 by dropping the item 'uncertain-certain.'
However, additional analyses showed that dropping these items does not
alter the predictive validity results of the study and the four-item measures
of A^j and Plg^anj were retained, which made testing for common-methods
bias with multiple-item measures with four items possible.
In the analysis, in addition to the single-item and multiple-item opera-
tionalisations of the constructs, the individual items in the multiple-items
measures were extracted - that is, used separately, one at a time, as alter-
native single-item measures to replicate the method used in Bergkvist
and Rossiter's (2007) study. The extracted single items were denoted
using the 'positive' adjective from the item - for example, A^j^j^jj^^^ and
^BrandiGood) ~ ^^ distinguish them from the single-item and multiple-item
operationalisations, which were denoted as such - for example,
and

Results

Overview of the analysis

The overall aim of the analysis is to compare the predictive validity of sin-
gle-item measures and multiple-item measures of A^^, Ag^^^j and Plß^and-
Predictive validities are assessed by comparing validity coefficients, the
bivariate correlation, r, between A^^ and \^^¿, and Ag^^^^ and Plg^^^j,
respectively. As would be expected, the results are the same if the other
traditional statistic, R^, is used and to report these would just be a dupli-
cation (see Bergkvist & Rossiter 2007). The four ads in the study were
analysed separately since correlations between the constructs may vary
between ads (products). Fisher's ^'-transformations of the r's (cf. Cohen &
Cohen 1975; Howell 1992) made 2-tests of the significance of the differ-
ences in the validity coefficients possible.

613
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Ad as predictors of A
In the first analysis, A^^ is used to predict A^^^^^. The results of the analy-
sis show that the single-item measure, A^^^gj ,^^, performs equally as well
as the multiple-item measure, A^j^j^^|^¡ j^^, irrespective of which opera-
tionalisation of the dependent variable, Ag^^^^, is used (see Table 2, first
two rows). In only two instances was the correlation between AAd(Single) ( g )
and the dependent variable significantly different from the correlation li
between A^j^j^^,^¡p|^^ and the dependent variable; the correlation is signifi-
cantly lower (p < 0.05) for A^^^gj^g,^^ in the model for the cereal ad with
^Branci(Muitipie) ^^ ^^^ dependent variable, and the correlation is significantly
higher for A^^^gj^g,^, {p < 0.05) in the model for the beer ad with \,,^^(^,^,,^
as the dependent variable. The results also show that the validity coef-
ficients, r, are the same no matter whether the dependent variable,
is measured with multiple items, \,,,^(umpw o^ ^ «ingle item, ^J^
In sum, the results do not indicate at all that the multiple-item measure
of A^j has higher predictive validity than the single-item measure when
^Brand '« ^^^ dependent variable. The most important overall result is
that the single-item 'doubles' - that is, the validity coefficients between
a single-item measure independent variable and a single-item measure
dependent variable, which is the worst approach according to advo-

Table 2: Validity coefficients (r) for multiple-item and single-item measures of A^j
as predictors of multiple-item and single-item Ag^^^^

Dependent variable A^,^^^

A
"Brand(Multiple) AB and(Single)

Beer Cereal Wine Painkillers Beer Cereal Wine Painkillers

A 0.64 0.79 0.47 0.70 0.54 '• 0.67

"Ad(Multiple)
0.57 0.60
A 0.66 0.66 0.63
"Ad(Single)
0.55 0.71 0.71 0.48 0.66

"Ad(Uke) 0.70 0.70 0.52 0.62 0.65 0.71 0.62 0.66

A 0.59 0.66
Ad(Good)
0.43 0.58 0.48 0.52 0.45 0.59

"Ad(Pleasant) 0.52 0.62 0.39 0.62 0.36 0.55 0.38 0.37

A 0.27 0.51 0.08 0.45 0.24 0.34
Ad(lnformalrve)
0.23 0.29

n 115 112 117 113 115 112 117 116

Notes: All correlations are significantly (p < 0.05) larger than zero, with the exception of the one correlation emboldened. Tinted
correlations are significantly (p < 0.05) different from the corresponding A^jp^^^i^, correlation.

614
TAILOR-MADE SINGLE-ITEM MEASURES OE DOUBLY GONGRETE GONSTRUGTS

cates of multiple-item scales - produce the same validity coefficients as

the multiple-item 'doubles', that is, the validity coefficients between a
multiple-item measure independent variable and a multiple-item meas-
ure dependent variable, which is the approach favoured almost universally
in academic studies. This result can be seen by comparing the set of cor-
relations in the flrst row on the left-hand side of Table 2 with those in the
second row on the right-hand side.

\rand measures as predictors of Pl^^^^^

In the second analysis, Ag^^^^ is used to predict Plgr^^d- ^^^ results show
that the single-item measure, Ag_.^^j^gj^g,^j, performs equally as well as the
multiple-item measure, Ag^^^j^^^|^jp,^j, again irrespective of which opera-
tionalisation of the dependent variable, Plß^and' '^ ^^^^ (Table 3, first two
rows). A comparison of the extreme 'doubles' in the case of A^^^^^ predict-
ing PlBr,jnj (the set of correlations in the first row on the left-hand side
of Table 3 versus those in the second row on the right-hand side) shows
that the single-item 'doubles', for three of the four ads, appear to produce
lower validity coefficients than the multiple-item 'doubles'. However, for
only one of these three ads - the wine ad - is the 'double' single-item
validity coefficient significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the corresponding
'double' multiple-item validity coefficient..

Table 3: Validity coefficients (r) for multiple-item and single-item measures of

'^Brand ^^ predictors of multiple-item and single-item Plg^nd

Dependent variable Pl^ rand

PI PI
^ 'Brand(Multiple) •^'BrandlSingle)
Beer Cereal Wine Painkillers Beer Cereal Wine Painkillers

ABrand(Multi|,le) °-^° 0.52 0.57 0.57 0.49 0.38 0.39 0.40

"Brand(Singls) ^-^^ 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.45

"Brand(Good) . ^'^^ 0.43 0.54 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.36 0.35

AerandiLike) °-^^ 0.49 0.45 0.58 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.44

A 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.46 0.41 0.24 0.25 0.36

^BrandíUseful) "'^^ 0.33 0.48 0.38 0.41 0.27 0.34 0.26

n 113 114 116 112 115 114 117 113

Notes; All correlations are significantly (p <0.05) larger than zero. Tinted correlations are significantly (p < 0.05) different from
the corresponding Aj^j^jj;, i,,) correlation.

615
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Extracted vs. tailor-made single-item measures

In the third analysis, extracted single-item measures of A., are compared
for predictive validity with the separately administered, tailor-made
single-item measure, A^j,g¡^ |^„ for the dependent variable, Ag^^^^. The
results for all four extracted single items, 'like', 'good', 'pleasant' and
'informative', are shown in the lower rows of Table 2. The best extracted
single-item measure should be A^^-j^j,^^. because this measure corresponds
exactly with the attribute description in the tailor-made A^^^gj^ j^^ measure.
The results support this prediction. A comparison of the second and third
rows of correlations shows that the extracted measure, A^^.J^Ü^^« produces
the same validity coefficients as the tailor-made measure, A^^-gj^ ^.. The
other extracted measures overall perform worse, and significantly so in
many cases when the dependent variable is A^^^^^.g.^ ,^.. In particular, the
fourth extracted single-item measure, ^/^d(i„fo,^^avey seems to be measur-
ing a more cognitive interpretation of the construct A^^, whereas the other
extracted items are more affective, consistent with the more usual 'ad
likeability' interpretation of A^^ (Brown & Stayman 1992). The results
demonstrate the importance of selecting a good - that is, content-valid -
item for the single-item measure, and shows that a 'like-dislike' response
scale will outperform other commonly used answer scales. The results also
demonstrate that a good single item is impervious to being placed adjacent
to similar items, as occurred in Bergkvist and Rossiter's (2007) initial study.
A fourth analysis compares extracted single-item measures of Ag^^^^ with
the separately administered, tailor-made measure, Ag^^^j,g¡^ ,^> in predict-
ing Plßrand- This time, the best single item should be Ag^^^j,ç,^^j, because
'good-bad' is the specific attribute description in Ag^^^j,g¡^ |^,. The lower
rows of Table 3 show the results for all four extracted items, 'good', 'like',
'pleasant' and 'useful'. A comparison of the second and third rows shows
that the extracted single-item, \,^n¿^Q^¿y predicts Plßr^nd equally as well
as the tailor-made single item Ag^^^^.gj^ ,^,. This time, the other extracted
single items, Ag^^^.^j^;,^, and Ag^^^.^p.^^^^^^,, also predict well - in all cases
for AB,,nd(Like) ^nd in seven out of eight cases for Ag^^^^^p,^^^^,^^). So also does
the more cognitive item, Ag^^^j.jj^^^^j,, in seven out of eight cases, which
could be because Plß^and is conative and 'considered', reflecting the joint
operations of the cognitive and affective components of attitude. Even if
the results are less clear than for A^^, the comparison of Ag^^^^ measures

616
TAILOR-MADE SINGLE-ITEM MEASURES OE DOUBLY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTS

shows that Ag^^^^ measures with a 'good-bad' response scale have predic-
tive vahdity that is better than or equal to measures with the other three
commonly used response scales in the comparison. Thus, answer scales
with 'good-bad' are most likely to be the best available choice for meas-
uring Ag_.^^j. Also, again, an important finding is that a good single-item
measure, this time of A^^^^^, is impervious to being placed among similar
adjacent items.

Tests for common-methods bias

The final set of analyses examines the possibility of common-methods
bias. The foregoing results from Table 2 and Table 3 (above) show no dif-
ferences, in seven out of eight cases, between single-item 'doubles' and
multiple-item 'doubles'. This lack of differences is strong evidence that
the use of multiple items in the same format, in this case the semantic
differential format, does not infiate correlations and would seem to rule
out one source of potential common-methods bias, this time for four-item
scales versus the three-item scales used in Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007).
The tests for a second possible source of common-methods bias - use of
the same descriptor - are shown in Table 4. The correlations between

Table 4: Validityr coefficients (r) for multiple-item and single-item measures of A^^
as predictors o extracted measures of single-item Ag

[)ependent variable A^ rand

AB rand(Like) As rand(Good)

Beer Cereal Wine Painkillers Beer Cereai Wine Painkillers

^AdiMultiple)
0.61 0.67 0.43 0.66 0.58 0.61 0.44 0.61
A
"Ad(Single)
0.54 0.64 0.53 0.53 0.65 0.63 0.57 0.49
A
"Ad(Uke)
0.65 0.56 0.47 0.61 0.64 0.67 0.53 0.58
A 0.56
"Ad(Good)
0.59 0.44 0.56 0.49 0.45 " 0.36 ^ 0.48

"Ad(Pleasant)
0.50 0.53 0.39 0.59 0.38 0.41 0.31 0.53
A Í 0.27 0.44
"Ad(lnformative)
0.01 0.38 0.37 0.40 0.10 0.38

n 115 112 117 113 115 112 117 113

Notes; All correlations are significantly (p < 0.05) larger than zero, with the exception of the two correlations emboldened.
Tinted correlations are significantly (p < 0.05) different from the corresponding f<f^¡^^¿¡ correlation.

617
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

significantly higher than the correlations

between and A^j,ç,^^j, and ^^¡^„¿n\^^e) Similarly, the correlations between
^Ad(Good) ^"'^ ^Brand(Good) ^^^ ^^^ significantly higher than the correlations
between and A^^^^ji^^^ and Ag^^^j^^^^^j. Thus, using the same descriptor
adjective in the independent as well as the dependent variable does not
appear to spuriously inflate the correlation between them.

Conclusions
This study replicates and extends the study by Bergkvist and Rossiter
(2007). The present results show that tailor-made single-item measures of
^Ad' "^Brand ^^'^ ^^Brand ^^^ ^^ predictively Valid as traditional multiple-item
measures of these doubly concrete constructs. The results extend those of
Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) for A^^ and Ag^^^^ to another doubly concrete
construct widely used in marketing studies, Plßrand" "^^^ present study also
extends Bergkvist and Rossiter's (2007) study by comparing the predictive
validity of different single-item measures. The results show that items
commonly used in multiple-item measures of A^^ and Ag^^^^ vary in their
predictive validity and that, in some cases, the differences are substantial.
Moreover, the results show that 'extracted' single-item measures, as long
as the extracted item is a valid one, are not affected by other adjacent
items that appear in a multiple-item battery, and that they perform the
same as stand-alone, tailor-made single-item measures. Finally, the results
also show that common-methods bias is not a problem for either the
multiple-item measures or the single-item measures.
The present study strengthens the conclusion in Bergkvist and Rossiter
(2007) that carefully crafted single-item measures - of doubly concrete
constructs - are at least as valid as multiple-item measures of the same
constructs, and that the use of multiple items to measure them is unnec-
essary. The recommendation for advertising researchers measuring A^^,
^Brand '^^ ^^Brand '^ '"'-* ^^^ ^^^ tailor-made single-item measures validated
in the present study. The recommendation for journal editors and review-
ers is not to reject submitted manuscripts on the grounds that they used
single-item measures to measure doubly concrete constructs.
The large differences in the predictive validity of the different single-
item measures of A^^ that were evaluated in the study emphasise the
importance of carefully selecting the adjective descriptor in measures of

618
TAILOR-MADE SINGLE-ITEM MEASURES OF DOUBLY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTS

marketing constructs. Clearly, 'informative' and 'pleasant' are not good

descriptors when measuring A^^. Although the differences between items
were smaller, the results also suggest that 'pleasant' and 'useful' may be
less good as descriptors in measures of Ag^.^^^. Rossiter (2002) recommends
that items should be selected a priori by expert judgement. This expert
judgement should weed out, for example, items that measure an ante-
cedent or consequence of the construct, or items that are likely to show
concept-scale interaction (Osgood et al 1957) - that is, that the descrip-
tor in the item takes on a different meaning depending on what object is
being evaluated.
The present study looked at only three doubly concrete constructs.
Future research should identify additional doubly concrete constructs
relevant to advertising research, and evaluate single-item measures of
these constructs. Doubly concrete constructs of interest could include, for
example, brand interest (e.g. MachleitÉ-/^?/. 1993) and attitude confidence
(e.g. Lehmann 1977). As in the present study, the candidate items would
be synonyms of the attribute in the construct.
Abstract constructs, on the other hand, consist of components that are
doubly concrete but are not synonyms because the components have
different objects and attributes. A contemporary example is e-retailing
service quality - think Amazon, for instance - where the components are
single items such as perceived ease of navigation of the e-retailer's web-
site, adequacy of the range of products offered on the website, perceived
privacy protection by the retailer, convenience of payment, perceived
value of each shipping-speed option, and liberalness of crediting returns.
These are essentially tailor-made, stand-alone items. Instead, researchers
typically add semantically similar (synonymous) items and statistically
delete items (via factor analysis and coefficient alpha) that were originally
included as items that define the construct (Rossiter 2007 illustrates these
problems with existing measures of e-retailing service quality). There is a
great research opportunity, therefore, to develop content-valid, tailor-made
single items for use in multiple-item measures of abstract constructs.

References
Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., Day, G.S. & Lawley, M. {Z^^S) Marketing Research, The Pacific
Rim Edition. Milton, Queensland: Wiley.

619
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2009, 28(4)

Baumgartner, H. & Homburg, C. (1996) Applications of structural equation modeling

in marketing and consumer research: a review. International]ournal of Research in
Marketing, 13(April), pp. 139-161.
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(May), pp. 175-184.
Brown, S.P. & Stayman, D.M. (1992) Antecedents and consequences of attitude
toward the ad: a metz-dinuysK. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(June), pp. 34-51.
Campbell, M.C. & Keller, K.L. (2003) Brand familiarity and advertising repetition.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30(September), pp. 292-304.
Churchill, G.A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), pp. 64—73.
Cliff, N. (1959) Adverbs as multipliers. Psychological Review, 66(1), pp. 27^14.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1975) Applied Multiple RegressionlCorrelation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cronbach, L.J. (1961) Essentials of Psychological Testing (2nd edn). New York: Harper &
Row.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991) Scale Development, Vol. 26. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Drolet, A.L. & Morrison, D.G. (2001) Do we really need multiple-item measures in
service XÇ,SC2LXC\\1 Journal of Service Research, 3(February), pp. 196-204.
Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C , Hubbard, R. & Armstrong, J.S. (2007) Replication
research's disturbing trend. Journal of Business Research, 60(April), pp. 411^15.
Gorsuch, R.L. & McFarland, S.G. (1972) Single versus multiple-item scales for
measuring religious values. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(1),
pp. 53-64.
Heise, D.R. (1969) Some methodological issues in semantic differential research.
Psychological Bulletin, 72, pp. 406^22.
Howell, D.C. (1992) Statistical Methods for Psychology (3rd edn). Belmont, CA:
Duxbury Press.
Juster, FT. (1966) Consumer buying intentions and purchase probability: an
experiment in survey design. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61(315),
pp. 658-696.
Lehmann, D.R. (1977) Responses to advertising a new car. Journal of Advertising
Research, 17(August), pp. 23-27.
Machleit, K.A., Allen, C.T. & Madden, T.J. (1993) The mature brand and brand
interest: an alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect. Journal of Marketing,
67(October), pp. 72-82.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J. & Tannenbaum, PH. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Rossiter, J.R. (2002) The C-OAR-SF procedure for scale development in marketing.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(December), pp. 305-335.
Rossiter, J.R. (2007) Toward a valid measure of e-retailing service quality. Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 2(December), pp. 3 6 ^ 8 .
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. & Buckley, M.R. (1989) Lack of method variance in self-
reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact.? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(June), pp. 462^68.

620
TAILOR-MADE SINGLE-ITEM MEASURES OF DOUBLY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTS

About the authors

Lars Bergkvist is Assistant Professor in the Department of Advertising
and PR, Stockholm University, Sweden. His research interests include
advertising and marketing communications, consumer behaviour, brand
management and research methodology. He has published in interna-
tional journals such as the Journal of Marketing Research and the Journal
of Advertising. He is also Associate Editor of the International Journal of
Advertising.
John R. Rossiter is Research Professor of Marketing, Faculty of
Commerce, University of Wollongong, Australia, and co-founder of
the Marketing Research Innovation Centre at that university. He is
also Visiting Research Professor of Marketing at Bergische University
Wuppertal, Germany. John Rossiter received his PhD from the University
of Pennsylvania in 1974 and has been a faculty member of the University
of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, the Columbia University Graduate
School of Business, the University of Technology, Sydney, and the
Australian Graduate School of Management. John is well-known for his
books on advertising management, co-authored with Larry Percy, Peter
Danaher, and most recently Steve Bellman. His current publications are
on marketing knowledge, branding strategy, advertising effectiveness, and
measurement theory.
Address correspondence to: Lars Bergkvist, Department of Advertising
and PR, Stockholm University, Universitetsvägen lOd, 106 91 Stockholm,
Sweden
Email: Lars.Bergkvist@reklampr.su.se

621