How fine is C-OAR-SE? A generalizability theory perspective on Rossiter’s procedure Adam Finn a , Ujwal Kayande b, * a University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2R6, Canada b Pennsylvania State University, 707B-BAB, University Park, PA 16802, USA Abstract In an important contribution to the measurement literature, Rossiter [Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (December), 305–335] proposes a new procedure, labeled as C-OAR-SE, for the development of scales to measure constructs in marketing. In this commentary on the procedure, we first take a historical perspective on scale development in marketing to suggest that while Rossiter’s procedure makes us refocus on the conceptualization of constructs, it has the potential to create an important gap by advocating against empirical validation of constructs. We then suggest that multivariate generalizability theory integrates the two competing perspectives by requiring a balanced emphasis on conceptual rigor and empirical validation of constructs. D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Scale development; Validity; Reliability; Generalizability theory 1. Introduction In an important contribution to the measurement literature, Rossiter (2002) proposes a new procedure for the development of scales to measure constructs in marketing. Labeled as the C-OAR-SE procedure, to reflect its concern with construct definition (C), object classification (O), attribute classification (A), rater identification (R), scale formation (S) and enumera- tion and reporting (E), it challenges the Churchill (1979) paradigm that has dominated marketing scale development for nearly 25 years. In this comment on Rossiter’s procedure, we acknowledge that it fills an important gap in the extant scale development literature in marketing, but warn that it may create another important gap. Churchill (1998, p. 30) has recognized that many applications of his paradigm have become a rote process, lending legitimacy to what seems thoughtless, rather than thoughtful. Our discipline has paid little attention to the conceptualization of marketing constructs, instead focusing on producing numbers that seem to suggest that our scales have validity. Rossiter’s timely and important message is to refocus on the conceptualiza- 0167-8116/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.03.001 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 863 4250; fax: +1 814 865 3015. E-mail address: ukayande@psu.edu (U. Kayande). Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 11– 21 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijresmar