3.

 alidating a theory of planned

V
behavior questionnaire to measure
entrepreneurial intentions
Samuel Rueda, Juan A. Moriano and
Francisco Liñán

INTRODUCTION

The decision to become an entrepreneur is a deliberate and conscious deci-

sion (Krueger et al., 2000). Creating a new company requires time, involv-
ing both considerable planning and a high degree of cognitive processing
(Baron, 2004). Thus, an entrepreneurial career decision can be considered
the type of planned behavior for which intention models are ideally suited
(Bird, 1988). Entrepreneurial intentions, in turn, are a deciding factor for
performing entrepreneurial behavior (Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006).
This research embraces the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) devel-
oped by Ajzen (1991), which takes into account personal and social
factors to explain intentional behaviors. The TPB is an important socio-­
cognitive theory that has been successfully applied in a wide variety
of fields (e.g. Beck and Ajzen, 1991; Harland et al., 1999). It explains
entrepreneurial intentions in a more detailed and consistent way than
alternative models (Krueger et al., 2000). The TPB integrates two lines
of research on entrepreneurial intentions: research on the relationships
between attitudes and entrepreneurial intention (Douglas and Shepherd,
2002), and research on the connections between self-­efficacy and entre-
preneurial intention (Jung et al., 2001). The TPB has been used suc-
cessfully in the past to describe entrepreneurial intentions of students in
the U.S. (Autio et al., 2001; Krueger et al., 2000), the Netherlands (van
Gelderen et al., 2008), Norway (Kolvereid, 1996), Russia (Tkachev and
Kolvereid, 1999), Finland, Sweden (Autio et al., 2001), Germany (Jacob
and Richter, 2005), Poland, Spain, India, Iraq (Moriano et al., 2012),
Taiwan (Liñán and Chen, 2009), and South Africa (Gird and Bagraim,
2008).
However, as Autio et al. (2001) have noted, the measurement of

60

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 60 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­61

individual entrepreneurial intent has been characterized by disparate

metrics, and no rigorously-­developed and psychometrically-­validated
measurement scale has so far been developed (Thompson 2009). A
good part of these differences may have been due to measurement
issues (Chandler and Lyon, 2001). In fact, measuring cognitive vari-
ables implies considerable difficulty (Baron, 1998). Thus, empirical tests
have differed widely. Krueger et al. (2000) used single-­item variables to
measure each construct. Kolvereid (1996) used a belief-­based measure
of attitudes. More recently, Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006) have used
an aggregate measure for attitudes, but a single-­item one for inten-
tion. Similarly, some of these studies used an unconditional measure
of intention (Autio et al., 2001, Kickul and Zaper, 2000, Kolvereid and
Isaksen, 2006, Krueger et al., 2000, Zhao, Siebert, and Hills, 2005),
while others forced participants to state their preferences and esti-
mated likelihoods of pursuing a self-­employment career ‘as opposed
to organizational employment’ (Erikson, 1999; Fayolle et al., 2006;
Kolvereid, 1996). Besides, as Thompson (2009) explains, several differ-
ent multi-­item measures have in fact been used in past research alluding
to entrepreneurial intent. Mueller and Thomas (2001), for instance,
use a combination of Rotter’s (1966) external–internal locus of control
and Jackson’s (1994) innovativeness scales. Schmitt-­Rodermund and
Vondracek (2002) use a scale based on three subscales adapted from
Holland’s (1985) vocational interests, skills, and behavioral measures.
Reitan (1997) reports using a 21-­item scale, Chen et al. (1998) report
using a five-­item measure, and Vesalainen and Pihkala (1999) report
using three different continuous measures of entrepreneurial intent, one
a single item and two multi-­item scales. More recently, Audet (2004)
uses a two-­item scale and Thompson (2009) uses a six-­item scale based
in four categories: intentions or plans to start a firm, learning about
starting a firm, looking for business opportunities, and active behaviors
to gathering initial resources to start a firm.
Therefore, there is work to be done to produce a standard measure-
ment instrument for entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents. In this
sense, this article develops an Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire
(EIQ), based on an integration of psychology and entrepreneurship lit-
erature, as well as previous empirical research in this field. The EIQ tries
to overcome the main shortcomings of previous research instruments
while, at the same time, following the recommendations by Ajzen (2006).
The thus produced instrument will allow a more theoretically and psy-
chometrically sound measurement of the entrepreneurial intention and
its antecedents.

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 61 18/12/2014 16:21

 62 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR (TPB)

EXPLAINING ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS

Intentionality as well as forethought are acknowledged to be core features

of human beings (Bandura, 2001). Intention constitutes a representation
of the direction of future action. It affects individuals’ choices as well
as directs and maintains behavior. Research to date in areas as diverse
as health-­related behavior, voting behavior, spare-­time activity, or job
seeking demonstrates that intention is a strong predictor of behavior (see
Armitage and Conner, 2001 for a review).
Entrepreneurial intention is defined as the conscious state of mind that
precedes action and directs attention towards a goal such as starting a
new business (Bird, 1988; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Forming an inten-
tion to develop an entrepreneurial career is the first step in the often-­long
process of venture creation (Gartner et al., 1994). Several models aim
to explain entrepreneurial intentions such as Shapero’s Entrepreneurial
Event Model (Shapero and Sokol, 1982), the Model of Implementing
Entrepreneurial Ideas (Bird, 1988) or Maximization of the Expected
Utility (Douglas and Shepherd, 2002). Although these models represent a
step forward in entrepreneurial behavior research, they have not been as
influential as the TPB in examining entrepreneurial intention (Moriano
et al., 2012; Kibler, 2012; van Gelderen et al., 2008; Kolvereid and Isaksen,
2006; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Krueger et al., 2000; Autio et al., 2001;
Kolvereid, 1996; Tkachev and Kolvereid, 1999; Jacob and Richter, 2005;
Liñán and Chen, 2009; Gird and Bagraim, 2008). Unlike other models
mentioned above, the TPB is a broader socio-­cognitive theory that has
been successfully applied in a wide variety of fields (e.g. Beck and Ajzen,
1991; Harland et al., 1999). Indeed, the TPB offers a coherent and gener-
ally applicable theoretical framework, which enables us to understand and
predict entrepreneurial intention by taking into account not only personal
but also social factors. As such, personal history and characteristics and
skills can predispose individuals towards entrepreneurial intentions, as
well as the social context (social support and culture). However, according
to the TPB, only the three TPB components – attitude towards behavior,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control – predict behavioral
intentions directly. All other factors are theorized to influence intentions
indirectly, through these three components (Ajzen, 1991).
The attitude towards behavior within the TPB is defined as an individ-
ual’s overall evaluation of a behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Previous studies on
the subject of entrepreneurial intention have measured attitudes by using
only one item, which focuses on the personal interest in starting a business
(Autio et al., 2001; Krueger et al., 2000). However, single-­item measures

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 62 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­63

are prone to measurement unreliability (DeVellis, 1991). According to

the TPB, the attitude toward a behavior is determined by the total set of
accessible behavioral beliefs linking the behavior to various outcomes and
other attributes. In addition, the strength of each belief is weighted by the
evaluation of the outcomes (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, two people may hold an
equally strong belief that entrepreneurship involves facing new challenges,
but one of them may view these challenges positively while the other may
consider them unpleasant. This two-­element process of attitude formation
allows us to explain why persons holding different beliefs may exhibit
identical attitudes, and vice versa.
The second component of the TPB is the subjective norm, which is
defined as the individual’s perception of the social pressures to engage
(or not to engage) in entrepreneurial behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The sub-
jective norm consists of two components: normative beliefs and the
motivation to comply with these beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).
Normative beliefs concern the perceived probability that important
referent individuals or groups will approve or reject a given behavior;
they set the norm that specifies how the subject should behave. The
second component, motivation to comply, reflects a person’s willingness
to conform to these norms, i.e. to behave in keeping with the expecta-
tion of important referents. Depending on the social environment, these
pressures can become a trigger or a barrier to the development of an
entrepreneurial career.
The third TPB component, perceived behavioral control (PBC), refers
to people’s perceptions of their ability to perform a given behavior.
Individuals usually choose to perform behaviors that they think they will
be able to control and master. This concept is therefore very similar to
self-­efficacy (or even the same; see Bandura, 1982). Both concepts con-
cerned the perceived ability to perform a behavior, e.g., starting a new
business. In their review of TPB, Armitage and Conner (2001) conclude
that self-­efficacy is more clearly defined and more strongly correlated with
intentions than PBC. In fact, self-­efficacy has replaced PBC in numerous
studies (Krueger et al., 2000; Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006; van Gelderen
et al., 2008; Moriano et al., 2012), and a recent meta-­analysis showed that
it is strongly positively related to business creation and entrepreneurial
success (Rauch and Frese, 2007).
The intention to perform a given behavior constitutes the central
element of TPB (Ajzen, 1991): the stronger the intention to perform a given
behavior, the greater the probability of its effective performance. Reviews
of existing research show that intention accounts for approximately
30 per cent of the variance in behavior (Armitage and Conner, 2001).
Furthermore, past research shows that the individual TPB ­components

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 63 18/12/2014 16:21

 64 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

(attitude, subjective norms, PBC) in turn together explain between 21 per

cent (Autio et al., 2001) and 55 per cent (Liñán and Chen, 2009) of the
variance in the intention to develop an entrepreneurial career. However,
the strength of their influence on intention varies from study to study.
This research, therefore, aims to establish the psychometric properties
of the EIQ (item and construct reliabilities, convergent and discriminant
validities). At the same time, it also aims to establish the predictive validity
of the EIQ by testing the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The attitude toward entrepreneurship will have a positive

effect on the entrepreneurial intention.

Hypothesis 2: The subjective norms will have a positive effect on the

entrepreneurial intention.

Hypothesis 3: The entrepreneurial self-­efficacy will have a positive effect

on the entrepreneurial intention.

Attitude

H1

Sub. H2 Ent.
Norm Intention

H3

Self-
efficacy

Figure 3.1 Theoretical model

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 64 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­65

METHOD

Sample

Participants in this study are 3223 Spanish university graduates (mean age
28.08; SD 5 4.98) from 15 different universities in Spain.1 Table 3.1 shows
some of the main sample characteristics.

Procedure

Participation in the study was voluntary. All questionnaires were com-

pleted anonymously to ensure confidentiality. Questionnaires were com-
pleted over the internet, as part of the development of the VIE Project
([Link] The VIE Project attempts to
assess the influence of personal and cultural values, together with socio-
economic variables, in the formation of entrepreneurial attitudes and
intentions.
All 74 universities in Spain have been contacted, asking them to dis-
tribute the information about the project and the questionnaire to their
alumni. Collaboration was achieved with 15 of them. Data collection
stretched from February to October 2010.

Measurement Instruments

The TPB questionnaire comprises four subscales: attitudes towards entre-

preneurship, subjective norms, PBC, and entrepreneurial intention. Unlike
other questionnaires used in the field (Autio et al., 2001; Krueger et al.,
2000; Liñán and Chen, 2009), EIQ follows Ajzen’s (2006) methodological
recommendations of how to construct a TPB questionnaire using compos-
ite measures of attitudes and subjective norms. All items in the question-
naire were measured on a seven-­point Likert scale (from 0 to 6). The EIQ
instrument is available from the authors upon request.
Attitudes towards entrepreneurship were measured with two sets of six
items that assess expected outcomes of an entrepreneurial career (example
item: ‘Creating a new company or becoming an entrepreneur would mean
for you: facing new challenges’) as well as desirability of these outcomes
(example item: ‘Please indicate how desirable this is for you in your eve-
ryday life: facing new challenges’). Following Ajzen, (2006), outcome
expectations were multiplied by their desirability and then divided by six
to obtain scale average scores, with higher scores reflecting more positive
attitudes towards an entrepreneurial career.
Subjective norms were measured with two sets consisting of three items

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 65 18/12/2014 16:21

 Table 3.1 Sample characteristics

Mean Std dev. 0 1 2 3 4

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 66

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Age 28.08 4.98
Female Male
Gender 0.43 0.49 57.5 42.5
No Yes
Labor experience 0.90 0.30 9.8 90.2
Self-­employment experience 0.13 0.34 86.6 13.4

66
Family role model 0.62 0.49 37.9 62.1
Contact entrepreneurship 0.19 0.39 80.8 19.2
center
Lower Lower-­middle Middle Upper-­middle Upper
Socioeconomic level 1.89 0.65 2.6 19.1 65.1 13.1 0.2
Private sector Public sector Self-­employed Unemployed Other
employee employee
Occupational status – – 40.8 16.3 7.1 28.2 7.5

Note: Family role model refers to entrepreneurial family background (‘Do any of your family members (including mother, father, brother, sister,
aunt, uncle, cousin, grandfather, or grandmother) own a business?’)

18/12/2014 16:21
 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­67

each measuring how significant others (i.e., closest family members, closest
friends and colleagues or classmates) would view their entrepreneurial
career choice as well as their motivation to comply with these reference
people (i.e., ‘Please indicate to what extent you care about what they think
as you decide on whether or not to pursue a career as an entrepreneur’).
These two sets were multiplied and then divided by three to obtain average
scale scores. Higher scores are reflective of more positive subjective norms.
The EIQ measures PBC through entrepreneurial self-­efficacy in line
with other research on entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger et al., 2000;
Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006; Moriano et al., 2007; van Gelderen et al.,
2008). In this study, we used a six-­item entrepreneurial self-­efficacy scale.
Some examples of items are: ‘Define your business idea and strategy of
your company’ and ‘Recognize new market opportunities for new prod-
ucts/services’. High scores indicate high entrepreneurial self-­efficacy.
Entrepreneurial intention was measured using a four-­item scale in which
each item assesses the perceived likelihood of an individual to choose
an entrepreneurial career. Some examples of items are: ‘It is likely that
someday I will create a new business’ and ‘I am willing to make every
effort to become an entrepreneur’. Higher scores reflect stronger entrepre-
neurial intentions.
Career choice intentions were evaluated to track the career choice trends
of Spanish university graduates. Using a seven-­point Likert scale from 0
(not interested at all) to 6 (very interested), respondents assessed the level
of their preferences towards the following career options: becoming an
entrepreneur, working in a private company, working as a civil servant,
and working in a non-­profit organization.

Data Analysis

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the validity and the
reliability of each scale included in the questionnaire. SEM is a statistical
methodology that takes a hypothesis testing (i.e., confirmatory) approach
to the multivariate analysis of a structural theory bearing on some
phenomenon (Byrne, 2001). Further, SEM is an especially appropriate
method for analysing the inter-­relationships in a model (Hair et al., 2006).
The analyses were carried out using the matrix of the original data
as input and the maximum likelihood procedure. The goodness-­of-­fit
of the models was evaluated using the chi-­square (c2) statistic. Low chi-­
square values, with insignificant levels . .05 or .01, provide evidence
that there are no statistically significant differences between the actual
and predicted input matrices. Due to the sensitivity of the c2 statistic to
sample size and the deviations from normality of the data, other absolute

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 67 18/12/2014 16:21

 68 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

and incremental fit indices were proposed. The Normed Fit Index (NFI)
and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are relative fit indices for which,
as a rule of thumb, values greater than .90 are considered as indicating
a good fit (Byrne, 2001). In addition, the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) is computed for which values lower than .07
indicate a reasonable fit of the model (Hu and Bentler, 1995).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix are shown in Table 3.2. They
show provisional support for the hypotheses. As predicted by the TPB, atti-
tude (r 5 .50, p , .01), subjective norm (r 5 .35, p , .01) and self-­efficacy
(r 5 .56, p , .01) were positively correlated with entrepreneurial intention.
In relation to alternative career paths for university graduates in
Spain, the entrepreneurial career choice had the lowest score (M 5 3.20,
SD 5 1.97) and it is followed by working in a non-­profit organization
(M 5 3.30, SD 5 1.75). On the contrary, graduates still prefer to work as
civil servants (M 5 4.07, SD 5 1.91) or in a private company (M 5 3.98,
SD 5 1.63).

Measurement Model

The measurement model is based on the relationships between the

manifest variables (indicators) and the hypothesized latent variables (con-
structs). The proposed model involved 19 indicators loading onto three
exogenous constructs (attitudes, subjective norms and self-­efficacy) and
one endogenous constructs (entrepreneurial intention). A confirmatory

Table 3.2 Means, standard deviations, correlations, and discriminant

validity

Constructs Mean SD 1 2 3 5
1. Attitude 2.90 0.90 .70
2. Subjective Norm 2.83 1.15 .36** .83
3. Entrepreneurial Self-­efficacy 3.85 1.17 .54** .34** .81
5. Entrepreneurial Intention 2.92 1.65 .50** .35** .56** .83

Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of AVE between the constructs and their
indicators. Off-­diagonal elements are correlations: * p < .05; ** p < .01. For discriminant
validity, diagonal elements should be greater than off-­diagonals elements in the same row
and column.

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 68 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­69

factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to assess reliability and validity of
the scales used in this research.
Measure reliability. Firstly, the individual reliability of each indicator
is given by loading or correlations between the indicator and the con-
struct (l). Researchers postulate that a latent variable should explain a
substantial part of each indicator’s variance (usually at least 50 per cent).
Accordingly, the standardized outer loadings should be higher than .60
(Hair et al., 2006). After running the first analysis, items A2 (‘To create
employment for other people’) and A4 (‘To have a high income’) obtained
low loadings (l 5 .56 and l 5 .50, respectively) on to the attitude scale.
Item A4 was removed from the model and the analysis was run again. As
a result, item A2 increased its loading up to .58, very close to the cutoff
value (.60); therefore we decided to keep this item in the final measurement
model.
Secondly, the scale reliability allows measuring internal consistency of
all indicators in relation with the construct. The composite reliability (rc)
is a preferred alternative to Cronbach’s a as a measure of internal consist-
ency reliability. While Cronbach’s a assumes that all indicators are equally
reliable, rc prioritizes indicators according to their reliability, resulting in
a more reliable composite (Henseler et al., 2009). The acceptable cutoff
for rc would be the same as the researcher sets for Cronbach’s a since
both attempt to measure internal consistency reliability. Consequently,
the rc value should be above .70, whereas a value below .60 indicates a
lack of reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Table 3.3 shows the results of the
measurement model and indicates that the constructs of attitude toward
entrepreneurship, subjective norm, entrepreneurial self-­efficacy, and
entrepreneurial intention exceeded the minimum requirements.
Convergent and discriminant validity. The convergent validity represents
the common variance between the indicators and their construct, and it
means that a set of indicators are measuring the same underlying construct
(Henseler et al., 2009). Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend using the
average variance extracted (AVE) as a criterion. The higher the AVE
value, the more representative the indicators are of the construct on which
they load. In general, its value should be above .50 (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). As shown in Table 3.3, the AVE for each construct was satisfactory.
To assess discriminant validity among constructs, the AVE square root
should be higher than the squared correlation with all other constructs
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, each construct should share more
variance with its own block of indicators than with another construct rep-
resenting a different block of indicators (Henseler et al., 2009). Table 3.2
shows the correlations between the constructs and, along the diagonal,
the AVE square roots. In view of this data, there is discriminant validity

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 69 18/12/2014 16:21

 70 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

Table 3.3 Individual loadings (2), composite reliabilities (rc), and AVE

Construct Indicators l AVE rc

Attitude A1 .79 .50 .82
A2 .58
A3 .68
A4* .50
A5 .68
A6 .68
Subjective norm SN1 .85 .70 .87
SN2 .88
SN3 .76
Entrepreneurial self-­efficacy ESE1 .82 .66 .92
ESE2 .82
ESE3 .80
ESE4 .80
ESE5 .77
ESE6 .86
Entrepreneurial intention I1 .92 .70 .96
I2 .93
I3 .94
I4 .91

Note: * Item removed from the model due to the low loading on the attitude scale.

among the constructs assessed, although all variables are significant and
positively correlated, which is in line with previous studies (Kolvereid,
1996; Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Krueger
et al., 2000; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Liñán et al., 2011; Tkachev and
Kolvereid, 1999; van Gelderen et al., 2008).

Structural Model

We tested our hypotheses by estimating the model shown in Figure 3.1.

The model fit was satisfactory. Although the c2 was significant (c2 (126) 5
1587.46, p , .01), the RMSEA of .06 indicated an acceptable fit, and
the NFI and the CFI were also above the commonly recommended level
(NFI 5 .95, CFI 5 .96). Therefore, we did not conduct post-­hoc modifica-
tions because of the good fit of the data to the model.
As shown in Figure 3.2, the entrepreneurial self-­efficacy had the great-
est effect on the entrepreneurial intention (b 5 .44, p , .01), whereas the
subjective norms had the lowest impact on the entrepreneurial intention

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 70 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­71

Attitude

0.26**
R2 = 0.46

Sub. 0.08** Ent.

Norm Intention

0.44**

Self-
efficacy

Figure 3.2 Structural model

(b 5 .08, p , .01). These findings are in line with previous research that
has pointed out the weak role of the subjective norms to predict the entre-
preneurial intention (Liñán and Chen, 2009; Liñán et al., 2011; Autio
et al., 2001; Krueger et al., 2000). Overall, the TPB factors were able
to explain a high percentage of the entrepreneurial intention’s variance
(R2 5 .46), which is a significant indication of the predictive validity of the
TPB questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

The TPB is widely used and accepted in entrepreneurship research. In

general, results strongly support its validity in explaining the entrepre-
neurial intention of individuals. The research questions should no longer
be whether TPB is applicable, but more subtle and refined ones: are there
any differences in the values of the parameters between diverse groups of
individuals? Are there additional variables that should be considered, at
least for some specific populations? Are there any socio-­cultural variables

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 71 18/12/2014 16:21

 72 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

that may mediate the effect of motivational antecedents on entrepreneur-

ial intentions? In which way?
However, and precisely to answer these questions, a reliable and valid
measure that may be confidently used in this field was clearly lacking. We
truly believe the EIQ could be such a measure. Using a standard instru-
ment may be very useful to assess the similarities and differences in the
intention-­formation process between different groups of individuals. The
EIQ has a strong theoretical basis and has also exhibited sound psycho-
metric properties.
Similarly, some authors are recently calling for more evolved entrepre-
neurial intention models (Krueger, 2009). It has been argued that subjec-
tive norms may partly explain attitude and self-­efficacy (Liñán and Chen,
2009; Liñán et al., 2011). Likewise, the possibility that some interaction
effects may be present between some of the motivational antecedents of
intention (Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2011) deserves further investigation.
In this sense, the use of SEM analysis on different samples to compare
both structural models (basic TPB model and modified model) should be
needed. The EIQ renders these comparisons possible, offering a guarantee
of comparable and trustworthy results.
The EIQ has been tested on a large sample of university graduates.
This is an important difference with regard to other previous instru-
ments that were used on student samples. The use of students, although
very accessible, is subject to criticism (Robinson et al., 1991). Students
are a very special group of the population with little real experience and
limited responsibilities. It may, therefore, not be representative of the
general adult population. In contrast, university graduates tend to enter
the labor market just after graduation, and assume responsibilities at
work relatively sooner than other less educated groups. Besides, people
with university education in the 25–34 age group are especially inclined
towards entrepreneurship (Bosma et al., 2008). In Spain, 24.8 per cent of
this age group (25–34 years) has university education (2001 census data).
Therefore, our sample is representative of a large and significant popula-
tion segment.
The self-­employment experience in the sample (see Table 3.1) is rela-
tively high (13 per cent) considering this age bracket (M 5 28; SD 5
4.98). This leads to the question of ‘push vs pull’ entrepreneurs (Amit and
Muller, 1995). Considering the Spanish labor market situation, it could be
thought that Spanish university graduates just worked as self-­employed
due to the lack of other career opportunities within enterprises (i.e., ‘push’
entrepreneurs). To assess this aspect of entrepreneurial motivation, we
included the following bipolar item at the end of the survey: ‘If you finally
decided to create your own company, you would do it because. . .’. The

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 72 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­73

item was rated on a seven-­point scale, the possible score ranged from -­3
(‘lack of a better alternative’) to 3 (‘taking advantage of a business oppor-
tunity’). The minus sign did not appear in the item to avoid directional
bias in the responses. According to the results of this item (M 5 2.20;
SD 5 0.61), Spanish university graduates are mainly motivated by ‘pull’
factors towards entrepreneurship.
University graduates’ entrepreneurial intention could be explained
better by keeping in mind alternative career choices. In Spain, the entrepre-
neurial career choice has long been considered a risky one, not especially
attractive, and less gratifying from the social point of view than many
traditional professions (Moriano et al., 2007). Indeed, the educational
systems in Spain have not been oriented to promote entrepreneurship until
recently; rather, students have been urged to seek out stable work, prefer-
ably as civil servants. In fact, Spanish graduates do not feel that they have
been educated to be entrepreneurs (Alemany et al., 2011). Therefore, as it
has been shown in this study, they still prefer to work for the government
or for private companies.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This chapter represents an ambitious attempt to validate a research instru-

ment with methodological rigor and a wide and carefully selected sample.
However, this sample is limited to university graduates. Although, as
mentioned above, this group is especially relevant in entrepreneurship, it
may not be fully representative of the whole adult population. Therefore,
further research should be carried out that would serve to confirm the EIQ
validity, and also to analyze differences in the intention-­formation process
between subgroups of the population.
During the validation process, item A4 (‘To have a high income’) did
not fulfill item-­reliability conditions. This situation deserves closer atten-
tion. The attitude scale is based on salient beliefs about what is like to be
an entrepreneur, and how desirable these outcomes are for the individual.
People may have different beliefs about entrepreneurship. Therefore, the
different items in the scale need not be highly correlated. At least theo-
retically, the attitude scale could present a formative character, instead of
being reflective in nature (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). This
possibility should be considered and tested in subsequent research.
Another limitation of this study that should be acknowledged is that
differences in entrepreneurial intention regarding field of study were not
considered. Previous research has found variation in the entrepreneurial
intention level between university students of different fields of study
(Schwarz et al., 2009). In particular, university students of business-­related

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 73 18/12/2014 16:21

 74 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

fields of study are more likely to pursue a career as entrepreneurs (Müller,

2011). The EIQ could be used in future research to analyze the differences
in entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents (i.e., attitudes, subjective
norms and self-­efficacy) for various fields of study.
Once the EIQ has been validated and starts to be used in comparative
research, it will shed light on the specific details involved in the intention-­
formation process (parameters, interactions, mediation effects, etc.). In
particular, comparisons between different groups of the population and
cross-­national and cross-­cultural comparisons may now be made. Results
from this and future research will help explain in which ways personal-
ity, demographics, culture or institutions affect the way people perceive
entrepreneurship.

Practical Implications

Entrepreneurship is one of the most important factors contributing to

economic and social development, that is, it is a main driver of employ-
ment creation and national wealth (van Praag and Versloot, 2007).
Consequently, many policy initiatives attempt to pull people toward
an entrepreneurial career choice (European Commission, 2003). In this
regard, intention models (e.g., TPB) demonstrate their utility for under-
standing entrepreneurship and the psychosocial factors that can influence
it, offering a coherent, parsimonious, and robust theoretical framework
that provides an excellent opportunity to increase our capacity to com-
prehend and predict entrepreneurial activity from a perspective that takes
into account both people and the contexts in which they operate (Krueger
et al., 2000).
Likewise, models based on intention permit us to improve the identifi-
cation of personal viability and the credibility of opportunities. Teachers,
advisors, careers guidance counselors and entrepreneurs should take
advantage of the EIQ as tool for understanding how attitudes, subjective
norms and self-­efficacy beliefs are combined in the intention to start a new
venture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study is part of the VIE Project (Cultural Values and Socioeconomic
Factors as determinants of the Entrepreneurial Intention), which has
been financed by the regional government of Andalusia (Department of
Innovation, Science and Enterprise; Grant Number: P08-­SEJ-­03542).

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 74 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­75

We are also grateful to the universities collaborating in the data gather-

ing (a complete list is on the project website: [Link]

NOTE

1. The complete list of collaborating universities is on the project website: [Link]

[Link]/vie.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). ‘Theory of planned behavior.’ Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50: 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2006). ‘Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and methodologi-
cal considerations.’ Available at [Link]
[Link] (last accessed 12 October 2014).
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall.
Alemany, L., Planellas, M., Alvarez, C. and Urbano, D. (2011). White Paper on
Entrepreneurship in Spain. Available at: [Link]
Amit, R. and Muller, E. (1995). ‘“Push” and “pull” entrepreneurship.’ Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 12: 64–80.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001). ‘Efficacy of the theory of planned
behavior: a meta-­analytic review.’ British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (4):
471–99.
Audet, J. (2004). ‘A longitudinal study of the entrepreneurial intentions of univer-
sity students.’ Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 10 (1): 3–16.
Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G.G.C. and Hay, M. (2001).
‘Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA.’
Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2 (2): 145–60.
Bandura, A. (1982). ‘Self-­efficacy mechanism in human agency.’ American
Psychologist, 37 (2): 122–47.
Bandura, A. (2001). ‘Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective.’ Annual
Review of Psychology, 52 (1): 1–26.
Baron, R.A. (1998). ‘Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when
entrepreneurs think differently than other people.’ Journal of Business Venturing,
13 (4): 275–94.
Baron, R.A. (2004). ‘The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering
entrepreneurship’s basic “why” questions.’ Journal of Business Venturing, 19 (2):
221–39.
Beck, L. and Ajzen, I. (1991). ‘Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of
planned behavior.’ Journal of Research in Personality, 25 (3): 285–301.
Bird, B. (1988). ‘Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention.’
Academy of Management Review, 13 (3): 442–53.
Bosma, N., Acs, Z.J., Autio, E., Coduras, A. and Levie, J. (2008). Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2008 Executive Report. Wellesley, MA and London:
Global Entrepreneurship Research Consortium (GERA).

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 75 18/12/2014 16:21

 76 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

Byrne, B.M. (2001). ‘Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and
LISREL.’ International Journal of Testing, 1 (1): 55–86.
Chandler, G.N. and Lyon, D.W. (2001). ‘Issues of research design and construct
measurement in entrepreneurship research: the past decade.’ Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 25 (4): 101–13.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998). ‘Does entrepreneurial self-­efficacy
distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?’ Journal of Business Venturing, 13 (4):
295–316.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001). ‘Index construction with
formative indicators: an alternative to scale development.’ Journal of Marketing
Research, 38: 269–77.
Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. (2002). ‘Self-­employment as a career choice: atti-
tudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization.’ Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 26 (3): 81–90.
Erikson, T. (1999). ‘A study of entrepreneurial career choices among MBAs: the
extended Bird model.’ Journal of Enterprising Culture, 7 (1): 1–17.
European Commission (2003). Green Paper – Entrepreneurship in Europe. Brussels:
DG Enterprise. European Commission.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-­Clerc, N. (2006). ‘Assessing the impact of entre-
preneurship education programmes: a new methodology.’ Journal of European
Industrial Training, 30 (9): 701–20.
Fitzsimmons, J.R. and Douglas, E.J. (2011). ‘Interaction between feasibility and
desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions.’ Journal of Business
Venturing, 26 (4): 431–40. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.01.001.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). ‘Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics.’ Journal
of Marketing Research, 18 (3): 39–50.
Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Gatewood, E.J. and Katz, J.A. (1994). ‘Finding the
entrepreneur in entrepreneurship.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18 (3):
5–10.
Gird, A. and Bagraim, J.J. (2008). ‘The theory of planned behavior as predictor
of entrepreneurial intent amongst final-­year university students.’ South African
Journal of Psychology, 38 (4): 711–24.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Harland, P., Staats, H. and Wilke, H. (1999). ‘Explaining proenvironmetal inten-
tion and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior.’
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 (2): 505–28.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). ‘The use of partial least
squares path modeling in international marketing.’ Advances in International
Marketing, 20: 277–319, doi: 10.1108/S1474-­7979.
Holland, J.L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices. A Theory on Vocational
Personalities and Work Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall.
Hu, L.-­T. and Bentler, P.M. (1995). ‘Evaluating model fit.’ In R.H. Hoyle (ed.),
Structural Equation Modeling. Concepts, Issues and Applications. London: Sage,
pp. 77–100.
Jackson, D.N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory – Revised Manual. Port
Heron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc.

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 76 18/12/2014 16:21

 Validating a theory of planned behavior questionnaire ­77

Jacob, K. and Richter, P.G. (2005). ‘Absichten zur Gründung eines

Unternehmens bei Studierenden’ (‘Students’ intentions to found a business’).
Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2: 51–70.
Jung, D.I., Ehrlich, S.B., DeNoble, A.F. and Baik, K.B. (2001). ‘Entrepreneurial
self-­efficacy and its relationship to entrepreneurial actions: a comparative study
between the US and Korea.’ Management International, 6 (1): 41–53.
Kibler, E. (2012). ‘Formation of entrepreneurial intentions in a regional
context.’ Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25 (3–4): 1–31, doi:
10.1080/08985626.2012.721008.
Kickul, J. and Zaper, J.A. (2000). ‘Untying the knot: do personal and organi-
zational determinants influence entrepreneurial intentions?’ Journal of Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, 15 (3): 57–77.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). ‘Prediction of employment status choice intentions.’
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21 (1): 47–57.
Kolvereid, L. and Isaksen, E. (2006). ‘New business start-­up and subsequent entry
into self-­employment.’ Journal of Business Venturing, 21 (6): 866–85.
Krueger, N.F. (2009). ‘Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: long live entrepre-
neurial intentions.’ In A.L. Carsrud and M. Brannback (eds), Understanding the
Entrepreneurial Mind. New York: Springer, pp. 51–72.
Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A.L. (1993). ‘Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the
theory of planned behavior.’ Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5 (4):
315–30.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000). ‘Competing models of
entrepreneurial intentions.’ Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 411–32.
Liñán, F. and Chen, Y.W. (2009). ‘Development and cross-­cultural application of
a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions.’ Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33 (3): 593–617.
Liñán, F., Urbano D. and Guerrero, M. (2011). ‘Regional variations in entre-
preneurial cognitions: start-­up intentions of university students in Spain.’
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23 (3&4): 187–215, doi:
10.1080/0898562090323392.
Moriano, J.A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U. and Zarafshani, K. (2012).
‘A cross-­cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention.’ Journal
of Career Development, 39: 162–85, doi: 10.1177/0894845310384481.
Moriano, J.A., Palací, F.J. and Morales, J.F. (2007). ‘The psychosocial profile of
the university entrepreneur.’ Psychology in Spain, 11 (1): 72–84.
Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2001). ‘Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a
nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness.’ Journal of Business
Venturing, 16 (1): 51–75.
Müller, S. (2011). ‘Increasing entrepreneurial intention: effective entrepreneur-
ship course characteristics.’ International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, 13 (1): 55–74.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-­Hill.
Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2007). ‘Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship
research: a meta-­analysis on the relationship between business owners’ per-
sonality traits, business creation, and success.’ European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 16 (4): 353–85.
Reitan, B. (1997). ‘Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable
and/or profitable? A look at the processes leading to entrepreneurial potential.’
Paper presented at the ICSB World Conference, San Francisco, CA.

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 77 18/12/2014 16:21

 78 Developing, shaping and growing entrepreneurship

Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J. and Hunt, H.K. (1991). ‘An attitude
approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 15 (4): 13–31.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement.’ Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80 (1): 1–28.
Schmitt-­Rodermund, E. and Vondracek, F.W. (2002). ‘Occupational dreams,
choices and aspirations: adolescents’ entrepreneurial prospects and orienta-
tions.’ Journal of Adolescence, 25 (1): 65–78.
Schwarz, E.J., Wdowiak, M.A., Almer-­Jarz, D.A. and Breitenecker, R.J. (2009).
‘The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students’
entrepreneurial intent: an Austrian perspective.’ Education 1 Training, 51 (4):
272–91.
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982). ‘Social dimensions of entrepreneurship.’ In
C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton and K.H. Vesper (eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall, pp. 72–90.
Thompson, E.R. (2009). ‘Individual entrepreneurial intent: construct clarification
and development of an internationally reliable metric.’ Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 33 (3): 669–94.
Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999). ‘Self-­employment intentions among Russian
students.’ Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 11 (3): 269–80.
van Gelderen, M., M. Brand, M. van Praag, W. Bodewes, E. Poutsma and
A. van Gils (2008). ‘Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the
theory of planned behaviour.’ Career Development International, 13: 538–59,
doi: 10.1108/13620430810901688.
van Praag, C.M. and Versloot, P.H. (2007). ‘What is the value of entrepreneur-
ship? A review of recent research.’ Small Business Economics, 29 (4): 351–82.
Vesalainen, J. and Pihkala, T. (1999). ‘Motivation structure and entrepreneur-
ial intentions.’ In P. Reynolds, W.D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C. Maston,
G.D. Meyer, H.J. Sapienza and K.G. Shaver (eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research. Babson Park, MA: Babson College, pp. 73–87.
Zhao, H., Siebert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005). ‘The mediating role of self-­
efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions.’ Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90 (6): 1265–72.

FAYOLLE PRINT (713577) (M3602).indd 78 18/12/2014 16:21