A Comparison of Selected Reputation Measures’ Convergent and Criterion Validity

Abstract

Companies are increasingly becoming aware that competitive advantages are obtainable more from intangible assets than from product-related sources. Numerous authors identify corporate reputation as the most important intangible asset (e.g., Ruth and York 2004, Eberl and Schwaiger 2005) as various studies show that reputation can give rise to lasting company success. Consequently, many researchers have measured corporate reputation in past years, leading to a variety of approaches (Chun 2005). However, research has not yet provided an empirical comparison of such approaches of corporate reputation with regard to their psychometric properties. The present article closes this research gap by reviewing and comparing six measurement approaches which emerge from different research concepts, including social expectations, corporate personality and trust (Berens and van Riel 2004). These measurement approaches are the America’s Most Admired Companies index [AMAC] (Hutton 1986), Reputation Quotient [RQ] (Fombrun et al. 2000), Schwaiger’s approach [SCH04] (Schwaiger, 2004), Helm’s approach, [HEL05] (Helm 2005), Corporate Character scale [CCH] (Davies et al. 2004), as well as the Corporate Credibility scale [CCR] (Newell and Goldsmith 2001). To assess and compare their validities, we check the explanatory power of the scales when measuring relevant outside criteria. More specifically, we establish separate structural equation models and assess the impact of the measures on an overall single-item measure for corporate reputation as well as on customer satisfaction which is a well-established relationship in marketing research (e.g., Wiertz et al. 2004, Helm 2006).