Researchers in disciplines other than sport have attempted to make a case for single-item measures of cognitive and affective dimensions in instances when simplicity, brevity, or global measurement is of paramount importance. This study compared and contrasted two separate multiple-item measures to two single-item measures referent to two specified constructs: (1) affective commitment to a team, represented by the Psychological Commitment to Team scale, and (2) team identification represented by the Team Identification Index. Data were collected from 146 college students (72 men and 74 women) at a large American university. It was determined that multiple-item scales had the advantage of breadth of measurement and scale, and that single-item scales had the advantage of simplicity and brevity or ease of use. The study also examined one of the greatest criticisms of single-item measures and one of the greatest advantages of the multiple-item scales: reliability and concurrent validity. The Team Identification Index had better reliability (0.92 vs. 0.83) but explained less variance in behavioural items than its referent single-item measure. The Psychological Commitment to Team had better reliability (0.96 vs. 0.90) and explained more variance than its referent single-item measure. In general, all single-item measures should be tested before use and only used in certain circumstances. Specifically for the Team Identification Index and the Psychological Commitment to Team scale, sport marketers may be able to use the referent single-item measures in certain situations.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 97 citations exist upstream.