Entrepreneurial Orientation Scaleadaptation to Spanish

  1. Joan Boada-Grau 1
  2. José Carlos Sánchez-García 2
  3. Eric Viardot 3
  4. Maria Boada-Cuerva 4
  5. Andreu Vigil-Colet 4
  1. 1 Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Spain)
  2. 2 Universidad de Salamanca (Spain)
  3. 3 EADA, Business School (Spain)
  4. 4 Universitat Jaume I (Spain)
Show affiliations +
Journal:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 19

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2016.19 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Entrepreneurship is linked to the perception of opportunities, to orientation, to attitudes, to the fear of failure and to entrepreneurial motivations. Entrepreneurial orientation is a fundamental construct for understanding the phenomenon of entrepreneurship. What is more, it is multidimensional and has attracted considerable attention from researchers in recent years. The objective of this study was to adapt the original 12-item English scale to Spanish and to analyze its psychometric properties. The participants in the present study were 925 Spanish employees (48.2% men, 51.5% women, M age = 42.49 years, SD age = 11.25) from the Autonomous Communities of Catalonia and Castilla-León. After applying an ESEM (RMSEA = .06; CFI = .97 and TLI = .95) a structure was determined made up of four factors which corroborated the structure of the original scale: Autonomy (α = .71 and CI = .68 – .73), Innovativeness (α = .70 and CI = .67 – .73), Risk Taking (α = .72 and CI = .68 – .74) and Competitive Aggressiveness (α = .70 and CI = .67 – .73). The four factors displayed suitable reliability. The study also found evidences of validity in relation to a series of external correlates and various scales which refer to workaholism, irritation and burnout. The scale presented here may prove useful for satisfactorily identifying, in Spanish, the entrepreneurial orientation of the working population.

Bibliographic References

  • Asparouhov T., & Muthén B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
  • Avlonitis G. J., & Salavou H. E. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation of SMEs, product innovativeness, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 60, 566–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.001
  • Belousova O. (2011). The influence of organizational characteristics on intentions of employees towards corporate entrepreneurship. In O. J. Borch, A. Fayole, P. Kyör, & E. Ljunggren (Eds.), Entrepreneurship research in Europe. Envolving concepts and processes (pp. 228–250). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Byrne B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.
  • Boada-Grau M., Sánchez-García J. C., & Boada-Cuerva M. (2011). An empirical approach to entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial motivation. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Social Psychology, Universidad Rovira I Virgili (Spain).
  • Boada-Grau J., Sánchez-García J. C., Prizmic-Kuzmica A-J., & Vigil-Colet A. (2012). Work health and hygiene in the transport industry (TRANS-18): Factorial structure, reliability and validity. The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 15, 357–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012. v15.n1.37342
  • Boada-Grau J., Prizmic-Kuzmica A. J., SerranoFernández M. J., & Vigil-Colet A. (2013). Factorial structure, reliability and validity of the workaholism scale (WorkBAT): Spanish version. Anales de Psicología, 29, 923–933.
  • Bolton D. L., & Lane M. D. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument. Education + Training, 54, 219–233.
  • Callaghan C., & Venter R. (2011). An investigation of the entrepreneurial orientation, context and entrepreneurial performance of inner-city Johannesburg street traders. Southern African Business Review, 15, 28–48.
  • Certo S. T., Moss T. W., & Short J. C. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation: An applied perspective. Business Horizons, 52, 319–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.02.001
  • Cheung G. W., & Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  • Condon L., Morales-Vives F., Ferrando P. J., & Vigil-Colet A. (2006). Sex differences in the full and reduced versions of the Aggression Questionnaire: A question of differential item functioning? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 92–97. http://dx.doi. org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.2.92
  • Chahin N., Cosi S., Lorenzo-Seva U., & Vigil-Colet A. (2010). Stability of the factor structure of Barrat’s Impulsivity Scales for children across cultures: A comparison of Spain and Colombia. Psicothema, 22, 983–989.
  • Covin J. G., & Lumpkin G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 855–872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-6520.2011.00482.x
  • Covin J. G., & Slevin D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16, 7–24.
  • Covin J. G., & Wales W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 677–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-6520.2010.00432.x
  • DeVellis R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications, Newbury Park, UK: Sage Publications.
  • Edmond V., & Wiklund J. (2010). The historic roots of entrepreneurial orientation research. In H. Landstrom & F. Lohrke (Eds.), The historical foundations of entrepreneurship research (pp. 142–160). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.
  • Gartner W. (1989). “Who is an entrepreneur?” Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13, 47–68.
  • GEM (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 Global Report. Santiago, Chile: Universidad del Desarrollo, Global Entrepreneurship Research Center at School of Business and Economics.
  • Hambleton R. K., Merenda P. F., & Spielberger C. D. (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. London, UK: Erlbaum.
  • Hambleton R. K., & Zenisky A. L. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46–70). Nueva York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hernández A., & González-Romá V. (2003). Evaluating the multiple-group mean and covariance structure analysis model for the detection of differential item functioning in polytomous ordered items. Psicothema, 15, 322–327.
  • Highhouse S., & Gillespie J. Z. (2008). Do samples really matter that much? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 247–266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Hughes M., & Morgan R. E. (2007). Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 651–661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.04.003
  • International Test Commission (2005). ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Test. Version 1.0. Retrieved from International Test Commission Webpage www.intestcom. org/files/guideline_test_adaptation.pdf
  • Kerlinger F. N. (2001). Investigación del comportamiento: Métodos de investigación en ciencias sociales [Behavior research: Research methods in social sciences]. México DF, México: McGraw-Hill.
  • Khandwalla P. (1977). The design of organizations. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Knight G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 213–225. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00065-1
  • Kreiser P. M., Marino L. D., & Weaver K. M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientations scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26, 71–94.
  • Lee S. M., Lim S., & Pathak R. D. (2011). Culture and entrepreneurial orientation: A multi-country study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-009-0117-4
  • Lorenzo-Seva U., & Ferrando P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 38, 88–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ BF03192753
  • Lumpkin G. T., & Dess G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21, 135–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1996. 9602161568
  • Lumpkin G. T., & Dess G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing 16, 429–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S08839026(00)00048-3
  • Mai Y., & Wen Z. (2013). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): An integration of EFA and CFA. Advances in Psychological Science, 21, 934–939.
  • Marsh H. W., Liem G. A. D., Martin A. J., Morin A. J. S., & Nagengast B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0734282911406657
  • Marsh H. W., Lüdtke O., Nagengast B., Morin A. J. S., & Von Davier M. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a rightCamouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA Models. Psychological Methods, 18, 257–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032773
  • McMillan L. H. W., Brady E. C., O’Driscoll M. P., & Marsh N. V. (2002). A multifaceted validation study of Spence and Robbins’ (1992). Workaholism battery. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 357–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/ 096317902320369758
  • Meredith W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02294825
  • Merino E., Carbonero M. A., Moreno B., & Morante M. E. (2006). Irritation: Analysis of an instrument to assess stress at work. Psicothema, 18, 419–424.
  • Merz G. R., & Sauber M. H. (1995). Profiles of managerial activities in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 551–564. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/smj.4250160705
  • Meyer G. J., Finn S. E., Eyde L. D., Kay G. G., Moreland K. L., Dies R. R., … Reed G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.128
  • Miller D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29, 770–791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
  • Mischel W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
  • Mohr G., Müller A., Rigotti T., Aycan Z., & Tschan F. (2006). The assessment of psychological strain in work contexts: Concerning the structural equivalency of nine language adaptations of the Irritation-scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 198–206. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.198
  • Morin A. J. S., Marsh H. W., & Nagengast B. (2013). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling: A second course (pp. 2–8) Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
  • Oliver A., & Galiana L. (2015). Development and Validation of the Escala de Actitudes Emprendedoras para Estudiantes (EAEE). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, E14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ sjp.2015.14
  • Pearce J. A. II., Fritz P., & Davis P. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and the performance of religious congregations as predicted by rational choice theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 219–248. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00315.x
  • Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  • Rauch A., Wiklund J., Lumpkin G. T., & Frese M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 761–787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-6520.2009.00308.x
  • Salanova M., Schaufeli W. B., Llorens S., Peiró J. M., & Grau R. (2000). Desde el ’burnout’ al ’engagement’: ¿Una nueva perspectiva? [From burnout to engagement: A new perspective?]. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y las Organizaciones, 16, 117–134.
  • Suárez J., Pedrosa I., García E., & Muñiz J. (2014). Screening enterprising personality in youth: An empirical model. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E60. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/sjp.2014.61
  • Tarabishy A., Solomon G., Fernald L., & Saghkin M. (2005). The entrepreneurial leader’s impact on the organization’s performance in dynamic markets. Journal of Private Equity, (Fall), 20–29.
  • Venkataraman S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Wales W. J., Gupta V. K., & Mousa F. T. (2013). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31, 357–383. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0266242611418261
Data source: Dialnet