It is very common to find a certain variable differently operationally defined and measured in various research. In this case, is it allowed for a researcher to cite a study examining the same variable but has different operational definition and measurement?
Yeah. I think that is normal to cite. You can also check the plagiarism of your final manuscript through some free websites:
Free Online Plagiarism Checker - Check Plagiarism (check-plagiarism.com)
@Ali Behrad Vakylabad
I think I don't write my question clear enough. What I meant is that I need findings from past research to support the arguments, results, or even as the background of my research. However, my variable has been differently defined in many articles that I wanted to cite. Is it still ok though to use those articles findings to support my research even if the variable has different operational definitions?
It's perfectly normal to do so, and a prime example in psychology is how different researchers conceptualize the Big Five personality differently. Consider the various operationalizations of openness to experience (Connelly, Ones, & Chernyshenko, 2014). If you read the article you'll find that there are diverse interpretations of openness as evident in the different personality facets, and it highlights the indeterminate (as in unique conditions for the genesis of an instrument, such as variations in individual understanding or idiosyncratic item-writing) nature behind the construction of every psychological measure. This is perfectly fine, and there really is no inherent basis between two equally-sound psychometric properties to be the best operationalization of a construct.
Also, if a similar outcome is predicted by two or more similar measurement tools (e.g life satisfaction is predicted by both the Coopersmith and Rosenberg self-esteem instruments), one could argue that the association between the constructs is more robust. In fact, you can apply this concept of methodological pluralism to non-psychometric research studies, e.g experimental social or cognitive psychology where different designs and different stimuli can corroborate the same theory. Eventually the decision to cite or not to cite results of two different instruments is up to the researcher in judging whether two operationalizations are sufficiently different or not, in addition to other considerations (e.g psychometric).
Connelly, B. S., Ones, D. S., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2014). Introducing the special section on openness to experience: Review of openness taxonomies, measurement, and nomological net. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 1-16.
- Badges
- Science topic