Franchisee-Franchisor Trust–Measurement Model

Abstract

The Franchisee-Franchisor Trust–Measurement Model (Croonen, Broekhuizen, & Brand, 2025) is a specialized psychological instrument developed to quantitatively evaluate the dynamics of trust and control within complex franchise networks. Utilizing a dyadic and multi-referent methodology, the model specifically aims to analyze the factors influencing franchisee network exit intentions. The instrument consists of 45 items derived from established prior research and was validated using data collected from @Home franchisees and franchisor management teams in the Netherlands. The psychometric properties, including reliability and validity, were assessed through variance-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Keywords

Franchisee Trust in Franchisor, Franchisor Trust in Franchisee, Franchisee Trust in Peers, Perceived Network Control, Franchisee Network Exit Intention, Trust and Control, Dyadic Measurement, Economic Satisfaction, Switching Costs, Measurement Model, Strategic Management.

Authors

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

Purpose

The core purpose of this measurement model is to investigate the complex interplay of trust relationships within a franchise system and how these relationships predict the likelihood of a franchisee leaving the network. It adopts a novel dyadic, multi-referent trust perspective.

Specifically, the model determines how the congruence (or incongruence) between franchisee–franchisor trust perceptions, combined with the level of franchisee trust in peers, influences franchisee network exit intentions. This analysis is further contextualized by considering the different levels of perceived network control exercised by the franchisor, providing a comprehensive view of relational governance mechanisms.

Construct

The Franchisee-Franchisor Trust–Measurement Model measures 13 distinct constructs relevant to relational dynamics and organizational commitment within a franchise setting. The instrument is unique in its application of a dyadic approach, collecting data not only from the franchisee’s perspective (measuring trust in the franchisor and peers) but also from the franchisor’s perspective (measuring trust in the franchisee).

The 45 items are distributed across several subscales that capture both relational factors and contextual variables critical to business success and retention. These subscales include core relational measures (e.g., Franchisee Trust in Franchisor, Franchisor Trust in Franchisee) and environmental/organizational measures such as Economic Satisfaction, Strategic Management, Quality Assurance, and barriers to exit (Alternatives and Switching Costs).

Validity

The study provided robust evidence supporting the psychometric properties of the scales, confirming both convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Convergent Validity was demonstrated through high standardized loadings across the constructs. Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for nearly all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Only one control variable registered an AVE slightly below this threshold (0.48). Discriminant Validity was established by confirming that the square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than the correlations between that construct and all other measured constructs in the model, indicating that each scale measures a unique element.

Reliability

The instrument demonstrated acceptable to strong internal consistency across its multi-dimensional scales.

Internal Consistency: Reliability estimates, measured using Cronbach’s alpha, ranged from a low of .64 to a high of .92 across the various constructs. This range confirms that most scales possess high internal consistency, ensuring the items within each subscale reliably measure the intended underlying construct.

Factor Analysis

The authors employed advanced statistical techniques to validate the structure and reliability of the measurement model.

The primary method used was variance-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), specifically executed using the SmartPLS 4 software (Ringle et al., 2020). This approach allowed the researchers to simultaneously assess the measurement model (validity and reliability of the constructs) and the structural model (relationships between the constructs) within the complex framework of dyadic franchise relationships.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Format: The majority of items are measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree. Exceptions exist for demographic or objective control variables like Relationship Duration and Industry Experience, which utilize specific numerical inputs.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 years & older)

Population Details: The scale was validated using a specific sample population consisting of @Home Franchisees and Franchisor Management Teams located exclusively in The Netherlands.

Test Methodology: The study encompassed a thorough set of psychometric assessments, including test validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, test reliability, internal consistency, comprehensive measurement model testing, and structural equation modeling.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching purposes.

Fee: No fee is associated with the use of this scale.

Test Year: 2025

Authors

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 Email addresses:

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

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

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

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.