Articles
DOI DOI: 10.52380/ijcer.2026.13.2.953

Measuring Innovation Management in Educational Organizations: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale

Supot Rattanapun1
  1. 1 Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep, International College, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract

This research constructs and evaluates a multidimensional scale for assessing innovation management inside educational institutions. A five-dimensional construct is proposed, informed by innovation management, organizational theory, and higher education research, encompassing strategic innovation planning, innovation process and project management, human and knowledge capabilities, external networks and partnerships, and digital, data, and governance capabilities. A quantitative scale creation process was utilized, incorporating a multi-phase design that encompassed item generation, expert validation, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with independent samples. The findings exhibit robust psychometric characteristics. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) validated a distinct five-factor structure, whilst the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrated a satisfactory model fit (CFI = .956, RMSEA = .054, SRMR = .041). All constructs demonstrated good reliability (CR ≥ .89) and convergent validity (AVE ≥ .55). Discriminant validity was affirmed by the Fornell–Larcker criterion and HTMT ratios (less than .85). A second-order confirmatory factor analysis further validated that the five dimensions significantly contribute to a higher-order innovation management construct (loadings = .78–.91). The results offer strong empirical support for a validated measurement tool relevant to research, institutional leadership, and policy assessment. The scale enhances the philosophy of innovation management in education and facilitates data-driven transformation inside higher education systems.  

How to Cite

Rattanapun, S. (2026). Measuring Innovation Management in Educational Organizations: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 13(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijcer.2026.13.2.953
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0621
  2. Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617745086
  3. Cai, Y., & Mehari, J. (2023). The use of institutional theory in higher education research: A systematic review. Higher Education, 85, 1059–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00867-0
  4. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
  5. Cooper, R. G. (2021). Accelerating innovation: Some lessons from the pandemic. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12565
  6. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
  7. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism. Oxford University Press.
  8. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Du, W., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., & Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
  9. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
  10. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  11. Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  12. George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. D. (2021). Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 999–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721990375
  13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
  14. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
  15. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  16. Janssen, M., van der Voort, H., & Wahyudi, A. (2020). Factors influencing big data decision-making quality. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101387
  17. Khatri, V., & Brown, C. V. (2010). Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629175.1629210
  18. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  19. Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education. Higher Education, 72, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x
  20. Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. Berrett-Koehler.
  21. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press.
  22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b2715bde-en
  23. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115624965
  24. Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
  25. Salerno, M. S., Gomes, L. A. V., Silva, D. O., Bagno, R. B., & Freitas, S. L. T. U. (2015). Innovation processes: Which process for which project? Technovation, 35, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.012
  26. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 1–47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15
  27. Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury.
  28. Teece, D. J. (2020). A capability theory of the firm: An economics and (strategic) management perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers, 54(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2019.1631768
  29. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2021). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (7th ed.). Wiley.
  30. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723
  31. Veletsianos, G., & Johnson, N. (2023). Institutional barriers and digital innovation in higher education: Emerging challenges and collaborative transformation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(4), 2153–2170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10245-7
  32. Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance: How top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Harvard Business School Press.