Construct validity in survey-based management accounting and control research

Bedford, DS; Speklé, RF

Construct validity in survey-based management accounting and control research

Bedford, DS

Speklé, RF

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2018, 30 (2), pp. 23 - 58
Issue Date:: 2018-06-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	ContentServer (15).pdf	Published Version	851.52 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bedford, DS https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5895-7241	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Speklé, RF	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-06-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2018, 30 (2), pp. 23 - 58	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1049-2127	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/130203
dc.description.abstract	© 2018, American Accounting Association. All rights reserved. The capacity for survey-based research to advance theoretical knowledge is heavily dependent on the degree to which the measures used capture the constructs that they are intended to represent. Despite the importance of construct validity, the management accounting and control (MAC) literature tends to devote less attention to construct validity than other areas of organizational research. In this article, we discuss contemporary thinking about construct validity and examine how this compares to established practice in MAC research through a systematic review of survey studies from 1996 to 2015. Based on this review, we identify four areas where greater attention is warranted: specifying construct dimensionality, justifying the choice of the measurement model, distinguishing between causal indicators and composite indicators in formative measurement models, and being judicious in the use of single item measures. We discuss the implications of each issue and provide suggestions on how they can be addressed.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Management Accounting Research	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.2308/jmar-51995	en_US
dc.title	Construct validity in survey-based management accounting and control research	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	30	en_US
utslib.for	0104 Statistics	en_US
utslib.for	1501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Accounting Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	30	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018, American Accounting Association. All rights reserved. The capacity for survey-based research to advance theoretical knowledge is heavily dependent on the degree to which the measures used capture the constructs that they are intended to represent. Despite the importance of construct validity, the management accounting and control (MAC) literature tends to devote less attention to construct validity than other areas of organizational research. In this article, we discuss contemporary thinking about construct validity and examine how this compares to established practice in MAC research through a systematic review of survey studies from 1996 to 2015. Based on this review, we identify four areas where greater attention is warranted: specifying construct dimensionality, justifying the choice of the measurement model, distinguishing between causal indicators and composite indicators in formative measurement models, and being judicious in the use of single item measures. We discuss the implications of each issue and provide suggestions on how they can be addressed.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/130203