Purpose As a core variable in omni-channel marketing, channel diversity was measured differently, namely through counting, Likert scaling, and entropy. This study examines the reliability and validity of these measurement methods, enhancing the operability and comparability of subsequent research in omni-channel marketing. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 216 manufacturers across China through questionnaires that incorporated all three measurement methods. The study assessed the reliability, face validity, content validity, and instrument validity of each measurement method, along with correlation analyses between them. Heterogeneity analysis was conducted across different contexts to examine method applicability. Findings Results demonstrate that all three measurement methods exhibit good reliability, face validity, content validity, and instrument validity. Despite differences in data accuracy and acquisition difficulty, the methods show consistency in reflecting channel diversity levels. The entropy method provides mathematical rigor with the highest complexity, the Likert scaling method captures quality differences with medium complexity, while the counting method offers cost-effectiveness with lowest complexity. Originality/value This study provides a comparison of channel diversity measurement methods, offering confidence and guidance for omni-channel marketing research. The findings enable researchers to select appropriate methods based on their specific research context, balancing measurement accuracy against data acquisition costs, thereby enhancing cross-study comparability and facilitating knowledge accumulation in omni-channel marketing research. This research addresses methodological fragmentation in channel diversity literature and provides contextual guidance for method selection.
Li et al. (Fri,) studied this question.