Franchisee-Franchisor Trust–Measurement Model

Description

The Franchisee-Franchisor Trust–Measurement Model (Croonen, Broekhuizen, & Brand, 2025) was created to evaluate trust and control within franchise networks. It employs a dyadic, multi-referent approach to analyze franchisee network exit intentions. The instrument was utilized in a study involving @Home franchisees and franchisor management teams. The constructs were assessed using 45 items, drawing from prior research (e.g., Connelly et al., 2018; Das & Teng, 2001). The study reported structural equation modeling, reliability, and validity results for these items.

Purpose

This measurement model aims to use a dyadic, multi-referent trust perspective to determine how @Home franchisee–franchisor trust (in)congruence and franchisee trust in peers affect franchisee network exit intentions, considering different levels of perceived network control by the franchisee.

Validity

The scales exhibited convergent validity, demonstrated by high standardized loadings. The average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded the 0.5 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), with one exception of 0.48 for a control variable. Evidence of discriminant validity was found, as the square root of the AVE was greater than each of the correlations with other constructs.

Reliability

Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .64 to .92.

Factor Analysis

The authors used variance-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with SmartPLS 4 (Ringle et al., 2020) to assess the validity and reliability of the constructs.

Test Methodology

The study included assessments of test validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, test reliability, internal consistency, measurement model, and structural equation modeling.

Population Details

The study included @Home Franchisees and Franchisor Management Teams located in The Netherlands.

Age Group

Adulthood (18 years & older)

Population Group

Human; Male; Female

Test Type

Original

Instrument Type

Inventory/Questionnaire

Format

Most items are measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree.

Language Available

English

Keywords

Industry Experience; Relationship Duration; ICT Support; Quality Assurance; Strategic Management; Alternatives; Switching Costs; Economic Satisfaction; Perceived Network Control; Franchisee Trust in Peers; Franchisor Trust in Franchisee; Franchisee Trust in Franchisor; Franchisee Network Exit Intention; Measurement Model; @Home Franchise Network

Test Year

2025

Author

Croonen, Evelien P. M.; Broekhuizen, Thijs L. J.; Brand, Maryse J.

Author ORCID Identifier

Croonen, Evelien P. M.: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0350-6061
Broekhuizen, Thijs L. J.: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4692-065X

Affiliation

Croonen, Evelien P. M.: University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Broekhuizen, Thijs L. J.: University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Brand, Maryse J.: University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Email

Croonen, Evelien P. M.: [email protected]

Files

No data is Available

Permissions

May use for Research/Teaching

Fee

No

Correspondence Address

Croonen, Evelien P. M.: University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business, PO Box 800, Groningen, Netherlands, 9700 AV, [email protected]

reference’s

Croonen, E. P. M., Broekhuizen, T. L. J., & Brand, M. J. (2025). Trust and control in franchise networks: A dyadic, multi-referent analysis on franchisee network exit intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 49(1), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587241254724

Items of the Franchisee-Franchisor Trust–Measurement Model

This measure consists of 45 items. Subscales include: Franchisee network exit intention; Franchisee trust in franchisor; Franchisor trust in franchisee; Franchisee trust in peers; Perceived network control; Economic satisfaction; Alternatives; Switching costs; Strategic management; Quality assurance; ICT support; Relationship duration; Industry experience.

Franchisee Network Exit Intention

1. I am thinking about leaving @HOME.

2. I am planning to do something other than being a franchisee of @HOME.

3. I do not want to be part of @HOME much longer.

4. I intend to end my franchise contract.

5. I plan to extend my franchise contract at the end of the contract term (r).

6. I would recommend @HOME to new franchisees (r).

7. Very little would have to change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave @HOME.

Franchisee Trust in Franchisor

1. I trust the good intentions of the @HOME management.

2. I trust the abilities of the @HOME management.

3. I trust the good intentions of the @HOME employees.

4. I trust the abilities of the @HOME employees.

5. I can rely on the management to operate the @HOME network smoothly.

Franchisor Trust in Franchisee

1. Franchisee X has done more for @HOME than could be expected.

2. Franchisee X has not intentionally harmed @HOME.

3. Franchisee X has complied with the rules of @HOME.

Franchisee Trust in Peers

1. I trust my fellow franchisees to help me when needed.

2. I trust that most of my fellow franchisees do what they promise.

3. I trust the expertise of my fellow franchisees.

4. I trust my fellow franchisees to not harm the franchise.

Perceived Network Control

1. @HOME management closely monitors whether franchisees perform according to system rules.

2. When franchisees do not follow the format’s rules, the @HOME management takes effective corrective action.

3. @HOME management closely monitors the performance of each franchisee.

Economic Satisfaction

1. Overall, I would rate my business as successful.

2. I am satisfied with the development of my revenues and profits.

3. In the latest period, I have achieved my financial goals.

4. Compared to the industry, I would rate my performance as above average.

Alternatives

1. Many alternatives appeal to me more than being an @HOME franchisee.

2. Compared to being an @HOME franchisee, I could benefit a lot from an alternative position.

3. Instead of being an @HOME franchisee there are other options available to make a living.

4. There are other attractive ways to earn a living.

Switching Costs

1. I would have to spend a lot of time and money to leave the network.

2. All things considered; I would lose a lot when leaving the network.

Strategic Management

1. @HOME offers customers valuable services for an attractive price.

2. @HOME offers effective promotional activities.

3. @HOME offers a clear positioning strategy toward customers.

4. @HOME management adapts the business format to local circumstances and allows franchisees to do so when necessary.

Quality Assurance

1. New franchisees are selected in a good way.

2. @HOME management provides good training for extant franchisees.

3. @HOME management understands our industry’s quality standards and tries to meet them.

4. @HOME management understands the laws that apply to our industry and complies with them.

ICT Support

1. @HOME management offers high-quality ICT systems.

2. ICT-related problems are effectively resolved.

Relationship Duration

1. Number of years in @HOME network.

Industry Experience

1. Number of years active in the specific industry.

Note. Items are measured on a scale: 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree, unless indicated otherwise. All items were completed by the franchisees, except for the three “Franchisor trust in franchisee” items that were filled in by the franchisor’s management team for every single franchisee.