View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How Cloudy a Crystal Ball: A Psychometric Assessment of Concept Testing.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Cloudy a Crystal Ball: A Psychometric Assessment of Concept Testing.
Authors: Peng, Ling1 (AUTHOR), Finn, Adam2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Journal of Product Innovation Management. Mar2010, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p238-252. 15p. 11 Charts.
Subjects: Psychometrics, Psychological techniques, Psychological tests, Product management, New product development, Decision theory, Manufacturing processes, Variances, Statistics
Abstract: Although traditional and conjoint forms of concept testing play an important role in the new product development process, they largely ignore data quality issues, as evidenced by the traditional reliance on the percent Top-2-Box scores heuristic. The purpose of this research is to reconsider the design of concept testing from a measurement theory (generalizability theory) perspective and to use it to suggest some ways to improve the psychometric quality of concept testing. Generalizability theory is employed because it can account for the multiple facets of variation in concept testing, and it enables a concept test to be designed to provide a required level of accuracy for decision making in the most effective way, whether the purpose of measurement is to scale concepts or something else, such as to scale respondents. The paper identifies four types of sources—concept-related factors, response task factors, situational factors, and respondent factors—that can contribute to the observed variation in concept testing and develops six research propositions that summarize what is known or assumed about their contribution to observed score variance. Four secondary data sets from different concept testing contexts are then used to test the propositions. The results provide new insights into the design of concept tests and the psychometric quality of the concept testing data: (1) the concepts facet is not a major contributor to response variation; (2) of the response task factors, concept formulations are a trivial source of variance, but items are not always a trivial source of variance; (3) the situational factors that are investigated are trivial sources of variance; (4) respondents are always a major contributor to the total variation; (5) concepts by respondents are not always a major contributor and the other interactions are often not trivial; and (6) residual error is always a major source of variance. Additionally, the analyses of the secondary data sets enable some useful managerial conclusions to be drawn about the design of concept testing. First, the sample size needed to reliably scale concepts depends on the types of concepts being tested. Second, averaging over items provides considerably more reliable information than relying on a single item. Third, which specific item performs best is inconsistent and very context specific. The popular purchase intention item is never the best single item to use. Fourth, not much is gained by sampling levels of the response task factors. Finally, concept testing should be designed to meet the needs of specific managerial tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Product Innovation Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 47829545
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How Cloudy a Crystal Ball: A Psychometric Assessment of Concept Testing.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Peng%2C+Ling%22">Peng, Ling</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Finn%2C+Adam%22">Finn, Adam</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Journal+of+Product+Innovation+Management%22">Journal of Product Innovation Management</searchLink>. Mar2010, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p238-252. 15p. 11 Charts.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+techniques%22">Psychological techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+tests%22">Psychological tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Product+management%22">Product management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+product+development%22">New product development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+theory%22">Decision theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Manufacturing+processes%22">Manufacturing processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Variances%22">Variances</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistics%22">Statistics</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Although traditional and conjoint forms of concept testing play an important role in the new product development process, they largely ignore data quality issues, as evidenced by the traditional reliance on the percent Top-2-Box scores heuristic. The purpose of this research is to reconsider the design of concept testing from a measurement theory (generalizability theory) perspective and to use it to suggest some ways to improve the psychometric quality of concept testing. Generalizability theory is employed because it can account for the multiple facets of variation in concept testing, and it enables a concept test to be designed to provide a required level of accuracy for decision making in the most effective way, whether the purpose of measurement is to scale concepts or something else, such as to scale respondents. The paper identifies four types of sources—concept-related factors, response task factors, situational factors, and respondent factors—that can contribute to the observed variation in concept testing and develops six research propositions that summarize what is known or assumed about their contribution to observed score variance. Four secondary data sets from different concept testing contexts are then used to test the propositions. The results provide new insights into the design of concept tests and the psychometric quality of the concept testing data: (1) the concepts facet is not a major contributor to response variation; (2) of the response task factors, concept formulations are a trivial source of variance, but items are not always a trivial source of variance; (3) the situational factors that are investigated are trivial sources of variance; (4) respondents are always a major contributor to the total variation; (5) concepts by respondents are not always a major contributor and the other interactions are often not trivial; and (6) residual error is always a major source of variance. Additionally, the analyses of the secondary data sets enable some useful managerial conclusions to be drawn about the design of concept testing. First, the sample size needed to reliably scale concepts depends on the types of concepts being tested. Second, averaging over items provides considerably more reliable information than relying on a single item. Third, which specific item performs best is inconsistent and very context specific. The popular purchase intention item is never the best single item to use. Fourth, not much is gained by sampling levels of the response task factors. Finally, concept testing should be designed to meet the needs of specific managerial tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Journal of Product Innovation Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=47829545
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00712.x
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 238
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Product management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New product development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Manufacturing processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Variances
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How Cloudy a Crystal Ball: A Psychometric Assessment of Concept Testing.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Peng, Ling
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Finn, Adam
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Text: Mar2010
              Type: published
              Y: 2010
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 07376782
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Product Innovation Management
              Type: main
ResultId 1