Measuring Culture of Innovation: A Validation Study of the Innovation Quotient Instrument (Part One)

Abstract

The ability for an organization to innovate has become one of the most important capabilities needed in the new knowledge economy. An organization's culture of innovation, in particular, predicts organizational innovativeness across multiple industries. While researchers have developed instruments to measure culture of innovation to inform organizational opportunities for improvement, few of these instruments have been validated or replicated beyond their initial use. The current article, which is part one of a two‐part investigation, employs confirmatory factor analytic methods to validate the factor structure of the six models defined in the Innovation Quotient instrument developed by Rao and Weintraub (2013) and assess the extent to which the models are reliable across organizational groups. While each model demonstrated adequate model fit, a lack of discriminant validity was identified for each model, as well as a lack of reliability across some organizational groups. Recommendations for model respecification are presented.

Measuring Culture of Innovation: A Validation Study of the Innovation Quotient Instrument (Part 2)

“…It has been shown that the Innovation Quotient instrument in the study captured the more comprehensive view of innovation culture, but with 54 or fewer items (Danks et al, 2017 ). Th e integrated model of culture of innovation for the current study is shown in Figure 2 and is composed of the factors of values , resources , behaviors , processes , climate , and success .…”

“…The current investigation took place in two stages using a split sample design-first, to confirm the proposed six-factor model, and second, to explore alternative models, as necessary. First, to evaluate the extent to which the factor structure of the integrated six-factor model fit the data, a CFA was conducted using LISREL 9.2 (Scientific Software International, 2015 ) for the first half of individuals ( n 1 = 9,860)-the same sample utilized in Part 1 of this investigation (Danks et al, 2017 ). An additional n 2 = 9,921 were set aside for the cross-validation stage of analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 22; 32 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly IBM Corp., 2013 ), which is consistent with best practice in conducting research to evaluate model fit and estimate other psychometric properties of instruments (Osborne, 2008 ).…”

“…A full review of the literature-including a discussion of the construct of a culture of innovation, a review of available instruments, previous efforts to validate those instruments, and a detailed summary of the Innovation Quotient instrument-is presented in part one of this study (Danks et al, 2017 ). This review of the literature will build on those findings and explore the tenability of a global measure of the culture of innovation, which is consistent with previously discussed instruments (i.e., Aiman-Smith, Goodrich, Roberts, & Scinta, 2005 ;Dobni, 2008 ).…”

“…While instruments have been developed to measure organizational culture of innovation, few of these instruments have validated beyond their proposed use. In a follow-up to a two-part investigation by Danks, Rao, and Allen ( 2017 ), exploratory methods were used to propose a more plausible factor structure of the Innovation Quotient instrument, and to assess the extent to which the proposed model was reliable across organizational groups. It was identifi ed that a global, fi ve-factor model best fi t the data and increased reliability across groups, but the lack of discrimination across factors illustrated the need for additional research about the predictors of innovativeness and showed the importance of common-method variance testing with self-report measures.…”

“…Aiman-Smith et al 's ( 2005 ) instrument consisted of nine factors-learning, customer orientation, business intelligence, business planning, meaningful work, risk-taking culture, empowerment, open communication, and agile decision making-but reflected a less comprehensive view of the contributors to a culture of innovation and overlapped with other organizational culture constructs. Dobni ' s ( 2008 ) instrument tapped into each of the critical areas of innovation culture with seven factors-value orientation, creativity and empowerment, implementation context, innovation propensity, market orientation, organizational constituency, and organizational learning -but required 70 items to measure these factors.It has been shown that the Innovation Quotient instrument in the study captured the more comprehensive view of innovation culture, but with 54 or fewer items (Danks et al, 2017 ). Th e integrated model of culture of innovation for the current study is shown in Figure 2 and is composed of the factors of values , resources , behaviors , processes , climate , and success .…”