IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02016518.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analyse comparative de deux échelles de mesure du leadership d'opinion : Validité et interprétation

Author

Listed:
  • H. Miled

    (CEREM - Centre d'étude et de recherche en marketing - UP1 UFR06 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - UFR Gestion & économie d'entreprise - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

  • P. Le Louarn

Abstract

L'objectif de cette recherche est de valider puis de comparer deux échelles de mesure du leadership d'opinion, afin de proposer un instrument de mesure présentant des qualités psychométriques satisfaisantes. La conclusion de l'étude est que les deux échelles retenues ont une bonne fiabilité et une bonne validité mais qu'elles appréhendent le construit à deux niveaux complémentaires, la première le mesurant globalement, la deuxième permettant d'analyser plus finement le leadership d'opinion à travers deux dimensions, ce qui semble conforme à la tendance de la littérature actuelle.

Suggested Citation

  • H. Miled & P. Le Louarn, 1994. "Analyse comparative de deux échelles de mesure du leadership d'opinion : Validité et interprétation," Post-Print hal-02016518, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02016518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandre Steyer & Renaud Garcia-Bardidia & Pascale Quester, 2007. "Modélisation de la structure sociale des groupes de discussion sur Internet: Implications pour le contrôle du marketing viral," Post-Print hal-02054899, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02016518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.