Designing a Formative Measure for Corporate Reputation

Helm, Sabrina

doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540242

Cited by 198 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As is customary in formative measurement models, indicators covaried with each other (e.g., Bledow & Frese, 2009;Brown, n.d.;Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001;Helm, 2005). When we checked for data normality, we found no skewness or kurtosis concerns with the individual measures; no skewness measures were greater than 3 or less than −3, and no kurtosis measures were greater than 10 or less than −10.…”

Section: Rq1: What Are the Formative And Reflective Indicators Of Mesmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Message Credibility

Appelman

Sundar

2015

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

388

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite calls to conceptualize credibility as three separate concepts-source credibility, message credibility, and media credibility-there exists no scale that exclusively measures message credibility. To address this gap, the current study constructs and validates a new scale. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis suggest that message credibility, specifically in the context of news, can be measured by asking participants to rate how well three adjectives describe content: accurate, authentic, and believable. Validity and reliability tests are reported, and contributions to credibility research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Rq1: What Are the Formative And Reflective Indicators Of Mesmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The maximum variance inflation factor was 2.841, which is well below the common cutoff of 10 (e.g., Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001;Helm, 2005).…”

Section: Rq1: What Are the Formative And Reflective Indicators Of Mesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Message Credibility

Appelman

Sundar

2015

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

388

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several works that globally analyze the construct of reputation: conceptually defining it (Fombrun, 1996;Fombrun & Riel, 1997), observing how it is created (Cramer & Ruefi, 1994;Fombrun & Shanley, 1990;Rao, 1994), and proposing the way to measure it, (Helm, 2005;Ponzi, Fombrun & Gardberg, 2011). Others focus on a single dimension of the construct: environmental reputation (Cho et al, 2012;Toms 2002), good quality reputation (Dana & Fong, 2011); product reputation (Rao, 1994).…”

Section: Background and Development Of The Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-financial reports, anti-corruption performance and corporate reputation

Odriozola

Álvarez

Calvo

2015

RBGN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective -This paper analyzes whether the anti-corruption reporting practices of the companies are a reflection of adequate anti-corruption systems put in place by companies, or whether the disclosure is merely a tool for companies to improve their reputation and thus maintain their legitimacy.Design/methodology/approach -We apply the PLS method to the collected data in a content analysis of the sustainability reports of 31 companies within the Ibex 35 in December 2008.Theoretical foundation -In the analysis, we use both the legitimacy theory and the stakeholder theory, because we consider them as complementary theories and consistent with our approach.Findings -The results show that regarding the corruption issue there is a negative relationship between disclosure and performance, that is, companies with poor performance disclose more. On the other hand, the results reflect the existence of a positive relationship between disclosure and reputation, i.e. report information to interested parties enhances the perception of stakeholders about the company. This finding could be justified by the above two theories. However, we can't conclude that companies with good performance disclose information to key stakeholders in order to strengthen relations, as stated by the stakeholder theory.Practical implications -this study provides evidence of how companies use non-financial reporting-specifically anti-corruption data-to improve corporate reputation. It is also noted that reporting practices not necessarily have to be in accordance with the actual anticorruption practices of firms.

show abstract

“…In structural equation modeling, every construct or latent variable is assigned a set of indicators that may be refl ective or formative leading to different epistemic structures of the constructs (eg Bollen and Lennox, 1991 ;Jarvis et al ., 2003 ;MacKenzie et al ., 2005 ;Helm, 2005 ). In the refl ective case, the unobserved latent variable effects the indicators, meaning that all indicators ' measure the same thing and should covary at a high level if they are good measures of the underlying variable ' ( Bagozzi, 1994: 331 ).…”

Section: Scale Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%