Measurement in the Social Sciences: Where C-OAR-SE Delivers and Where It Does Not

Purpose – This paper aims to critically comment Rossiter’s “How to use C-OAR-SE to design optimal standard measures” in the current issue of EJM and provides a broader perspective on Rossiter’s C-OAR-SE framework and measurement practice in marketing in general.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is conceptual, based on interpretation of measurement theory.
Findings – The paper shows that, at best, Rossiter’s mathematical dismissal of convergent validity applies to the completely hypothetical (and highly unlikely) situation where a perfect measure without any error would be available. Further considerations cast serious doubt on the appropriateness of Rossiter’s concrete object, dual subattribute-based single item measures. Being immunized against any piece of empirical evidence, C-OAR-SE cannot be considered a scientific theory and is bound to perpetuate, if not aggravate, the fundamental flaws in current measurement practice. While C-OAR-SE indeed helps generate more content valid instruments, the procedure offers no insights as to whether these instruments work properly to be used in research and practice.
Practical implications – This paper concludes that great caution needs to be exercised before adapting measurement instruments based on the C-OAR-SE procedure, and statistical evidence remains essential for validity assessment.
Originality/value – This paper identifies several serious conceptual and operational problems in Rossiter’s C-OAR-SE procedure and discusses how to align measurement in the social sciences to be compatible with the definition of measurement in the physical sciences.