Taking communication science and research methodology seriously

References

• Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W., & Hunter, J. E. (1987). On the assessment of unidimensional measurement: Internal and external consistency, and overall consistency criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378702400412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, C. R., Roloff, E. R., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. (2010). What is communication science? In C. R. Berger, E. R. Roloff, & D. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 2–21). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Buehling, K. (2023). Message deletion on telegram: Affected data types and implications for computational analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2183188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burleson, B. (1992). Taking communication seriously. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. A., & Dollellan, M. B. (2021). What if apples become oranges? A primer on measurement invariance in repeated measures research. In J. F. Rauthmann (Ed.), The handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 838–854). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
   Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G. (2012). There is nothing so theoretical as a good method. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611434210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But … Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A. L., Brewer, D. … Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J., Marquart, F., Naderer, B., Arendt, F., Schmuck, D., & Adam, K. (2015). Questionable research practices in experimental communication research: A systematic analysis from 1980 to 2013. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(4), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J., Niedderdeppe, J., & Shen, F. C. (2016). Reflections on the need for a journal devoted to communication research methodologies: Ten years later. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1136514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802204677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (Ed.). (1999). Test homogeneity, reliability, and generalizability. In Test theory: A unified approach (pp. 76–120). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Raykov, T. (in press). Coefficient alpha and reliability of communication science measurement scales: A note on Hayes and Coutts. Communication Methods and Measures.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Świątkowski, W., & Dompnier, B. (2017). Replicability crisis in social psychology: Looking at the past to find new pathways for the future. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Atteveldt, W., & Peng, T. (2018). When communication meets computation: Opportunities, challenges, and pitfalls in computational communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1458084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeulen, I., & Hartmann, T. (2015). Questionable research and publication practices in communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(4), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1096331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar