In a recent study, Dussault, Frenette, and Fernet (2013) developed a 21-item self-report instrument to measure leadership based on Bass's (1985) transformational/transactional leadership paradigm. The final specification included a third-order dimension (leadership), two second-order dimensions (transactional leadership and transformational leadership), and a first-order dimension (laissezfaire leadership). This note focuses on the need for assessing convergent and discriminant validity of the scale, and on ruling out the potential for common method bias.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
2.
BassB. M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
3.
DussaultM.FrenetteE.FernetC. (2013) Leadership: validation of a self-report scale. Psychological Reports, 112, 419–436.
4.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
5.
GarverM. S.MentzerJ. T. (1999) Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20, 33–57.
6.
MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffP. M.PodsakoffN. P. (2011) Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35, 293–334.
7.
PhillipsJ. S.LordR. G. (1986) Notes on the practical and theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories for the future of leadership measurement. Journal of Management, 12, 31–41.
8.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.PodsakoffN. P. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
