Métodos de Escalamiento en la Obtención de Evidencias de Validación de ContenidoLa Construcción de una Escala para Evaluar Responsabilidad Social Corporativa

  1. Cuesta González, Marta de la
  2. Paredes Gázquez, Juan Diego
  3. Holgado Tello, Francisco Pablo
  4. Barbero García, María Isabel
Revista:
Acción psicológica

ISSN: 1578-908X

Año de publicación: 2013

Título del ejemplar: Validación de Contenido desde metodologías cualitativas y cuantitativas

Volumen: 10

Número: 2

Páginas: 27-40

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5944/AP.10.2.11822 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Acción psicológica

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

The aim of this study is test the validity of a scale for measuring the economic dimension of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The final scale, composed by 14 items, is constructed attending to judgments of experts, companies and stakeholders. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a methodology for dealing with complex constructs like CSR, is applied to the scale in order to assess the items. AHP methodology also allows applying Thurtone�s pairwise comparisons methodology for the scale validation, showing that pairwise comparisons obtain multiple evidences of validity and eases working with complex constructs.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • AccoutAbility (2008). AA1000 Accountability Principles standard 2008. AccoutAbility.
  • AccoutAbility (2006). The Materiality Report: Aligning strategy, Performance and Reporting. London: AccoutAbility.
  • AECA (2010). Normalización de la Información sobre Responsabilidad social corporativa [standardization of Information on corporate social Responsibility]. Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas (AECA), serie Responsabilidad social Corporativa: Documento n.º 7.
  • American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association and national Council on Measurement in Education (1966, 1985, 1999). standards for educational and psychological test. Washington: Author.
  • Argandoña, A. (2009). ¿Puede la responsabilidad social corporativa ayudar a entender la crisis financiera? [can corporate social responsibility help understand the financial crisis]. Documento de investigación DI-790, IEsE Business school Universidad de navarra.
  • Barbero, M. I. (1993). Psicometría II: Métodos de elaboración de escalas [Psychometry II: scaling methods]. Madrid, España: UnED.
  • Barbero, M. I. (2007). Métodos de elaboración de escalas [scaling methods]. Madrid, España: UnED.
  • Barbero, M. I. (2010). Introducción a la Psicometría. En I. Barbero (Coord.), E. Vila y F. P. Holgado, Psicometría (pp. 1-44) [Psychometry]. Madrid, España: sanz y Torres.
  • Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Van Liedekerke, L., De Moor, L. y Christiaens, J. (2011). Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture? Accounting Forum, 35(3), 187-204.
  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social Responsibility. Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.
  • CIMA y PWC (2011). Tomorrow’s corporate report- ing A critical system at risk. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
  • Cohen, J. (2010). Philanthropy. En W. Visser, D. Matten, M. Pohl, M. y n. Tolhurst (Eds.), The A to Z of corporate social responsibility (pp. 315- 316). West sussex, England: Wiley.
  • Comisión Europea (2011). Estrategia renovada de la UE para 2011-2014 sobre la responsabilidad social de las empresas [Renewed EU strategy for 2011-2014 on the social responsibility of business]. Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas, COM (2011) 681 final, Bruselas.
  • Comisión Europea (2001). Fomentar un marco europeo para la responsabilidad social de las empresas [Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility]. Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas, COM (2001) 366 final, Bruselas.
  • Coombs, C. H. (1950). Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. Psychological Review, 57, 145-158.
  • Coombs, C. H. (1952). A theory of psychological scaling. Engineering Research Institute Bulletin, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Coombs, C. H. (1953). Theory and methods of social measurement. En L. Festinger y D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. nueva York: Dryden Press.
  • Crocker, L. y Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. nueva York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • De la Cuesta, M. y Valor, C. (2003). Responsabilidad social de la empresa. Concepto, medición y desarrollo en España [social responsibility of business. Concept, measurement and development in spain]. Boletín IcE Económico, (2755), 7-19.
  • Freeman, R. (1984). strategic Management: A stakeholder Perspective. Boston: Pitman.
  • Hammond, K. y Milles, s. (2004). Assessing quality assessment of corporate social reporting: UK perspectives. Accounting Forum, 28(1), 61–79.
  • GRI (2011). sustainability Reporting guidelines (Version 3.1.). Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
  • Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American sociological Review, 9, 139-150.
  • Guttman, L. (1947). On Festinger´s evaluation of scale analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 44, 451- 465.
  • Guttman, L. (1950). The basics of scalogram analysis. En s. A stouffer, L. Guttman y E. suchman (Eds.), Measurement in social science. Princenton: Princenton University Press.
  • Haynes, s., Richard, D. y Kubany, E. s. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238-247.
  • Henriques, A. (2010). corporate Impact. Measuring and Managing Your social Footprint. London, Whasingston: Earthscan.
  • Hess, D. (2008). The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 447-482.
  • Ioannou, I. y serafeim, G. (2011). What Drives corporate social Performance? International Evidence from social, Environmental and governance scores. Working paper 11-016, Harvard Business school, Cambridge.
  • Kakabadse, n. K., Rozuel, C. y Lee-Davies, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder approach: a conceptual review. International Journal of Business governance and Ethics, 1(4), 277-302.
  • Likert, R. s. (1932). Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 140, 44-53.
  • Moneva (2007). El marco sobre información de la responsabilidad social de las organizaciones. Ekonomiaz, 65(2), 284-317.
  • Moneva, J. M., Archel, P. y Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30(2), 121–137.
  • Netemeyer, R., Bearden, W. y sharma, s. (2005). scaling procedures. Issues and applications. Londres, UK: sage.
  • Netemeyer, R. G., Pulling, C. y Bearden, W. (2002). Observations on some key psychometric properties of paper-and-pencil measures. En A. G. Woodside y E. M. Moore (Eds.), Essays by distinguished marketing scholars of the society for Marketing Advances (pp. 115-138). Amsterdam, Países Bajos: JAI.
  • O’Dwyer, B. y Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement Practice in Environmental, social and sustainability Reporting. British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.
  • Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising Corporate social Re- sponsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613-627.
  • Painter-Morland, M. (2006). Redefining Accountability as Relational Responsiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 89-98.
  • Pérez-Gil, J. A., Chacón, s., Holgado, F. P., sanduvete, s., Lozano, J. A., sánchez, M. y Muñoz, n. (2009, septiembre). Validez de Contenido: Índice de Osterlind restringido. Una propuesta de modificación para el cálculo de adecuación de los ítems de un test. Comunicación presentada en el XI congreso de Metodología de las ciencias sociales y de la salud. Málaga.
  • Robinson, s. y stafford, M. (2006). Testing and measurement. A user–friendly guide. Londres, UK: sage.
  • Saaty, T. L. y Vargas, L. G. (2001): Models, Methods, concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Sireci, s. G. (2006). Content validity. En n. J. salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. Londres, UK: sage.
  • Stevens, s. s. (1951). Handbook of experimental psychology. nueva York: Wiley.
  • Suppes, P. y Zinnes, J. L. (1963). Basic measurement theory. En R. D. Luce, R. R. Brush y E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 1-76). nueva York: Wiley
  • Thurstone, R. (1925). A method of scaling psychological and educational test. Journal of educational psychology, 16, 433-451.
  • Thurstone, R. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 272-286.
  • Torgerson, W. s. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. nueva York: Wiley.
  • Trochim, A. (2002). construct validity. Recuperado de http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/constval.htm.
  • Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring Corporate social Performance: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84.
  • Wood, D. J. y Jones, R. E. (1995). stakeholder Mismatching: A Theorical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate social Performance. The International Journal of organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet