668
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
====Hagedoorn 2003====
@article{hagedoorn_measuring_2003,
title = {Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?},
volume = {32},
issn = {0048-7333},
shorttitle = {Measuring innovative performance},
doi = {10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00137-3},
abstract = {The innovative performance of companies has been studied quite extensively and for a long period of time. However, the results of many studies have not yet led to a generally accepted indicator of innovative performance or a common set of indicators. So far the variety in terms of constructs, measurements, samples, industries and countries has been substantial. This paper studies the innovative performance of a large international sample of nearly 1200 companies in four high-tech industries, using a variety of indicators. These indicators range from R\&D inputs, patent counts and patent citations to new product announcements. The study establishes that a composite construct based on these four indicators clearly catches a latent variable 'innovative performance'. However, our findings also suggest that the statistical overlap between these indicators is that strong that future research might also consider using any of these indicators to measure the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.},
language = {English},
number = {8},
journal = {Research Policy},
author = {Hagedoorn, J. and Cloodt, M.},
month = sep,
year = {2003},
note = {WOS:000184881000006},
keywords = {acquisitions, exploration, firm level, high-tech industries, impact, industry, innovative performance, inventions, patent citations, patents, research-and-development, spillovers, technology},
pages = {1365--1379}
}
→Hagedoorn 2003
====Cloodt et al 2006====
