Development, Validation, and Application of a Scale to Measure the Impact of the Internet on Market Structure and Competition in the Retail Pharmacy Market

REFERENCES

• Lucas H. Strategies for electronic commerce and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy J. DOT.COM: The greatest story ever told. New York: Harper Collins; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Litan R, Rivlin M. Beyond the dot.coms: The economic promise of the Internet. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Kannan K, Kopalle P. Dynamic pricing on the Internet: Importance and impli-cations for consumer behavior. Int J Electronic Commerce. 2001; 5(3):63–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kway M. Searching for search costs. MIT Sloan Manage Rev. 2001; 42(3):8–10.
   Google Scholar
• Violino B. E-business leaders turn Web efforts into profits. InternetWeek. 2001; 865:21–4.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Older, wiser, webbier. Economist. 2001; 359(8228):10–11.
   Google Scholar
• Geyskens I, Gielens K, Dekimpe M. The market valuation of Internet channel additions. J Marketing. 2002; 66(2);102–20.
   Google Scholar
• McNealy S. Welcome to the bazaar. Harvard Bus Rev. 2001; 79(3):18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bakos Y. A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Q. 1991; 15: 295–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown J, Goolsbee A. Does the Internet make markets more competitive? Evi-dence from the life insurance industry. J Political Econ. 2002; 110:481–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyckoff A. Imagining the impact of electronic commerce. OECD Observer. 1997; 208:5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Brooks to launch trading exchanges. Drug Store News. 2001; 23(2):6–7.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. New online drug pricing concept could save money for hospitals with capitation, HMOs. Health Care Strategic Manage. 2000; 18(3):10–11.
   Google Scholar
• Ukens C. Analyze this! Drug Topics. 1999; 143(22):66–7.
   Google Scholar
• Ukens C. Chains remain best drug manufacturer customer. Drug Topics. 2000; 6(Mar 20):34.
   Google Scholar
• Phan D. E-business development for competitive advantages: A case study. In-formation & Manage. 2003; 40:581–91.
   Google Scholar
• Levy S. Independents take Net plunge; chains dive into automation. Drug Top-ics. 2000; 23(Dec 11):64.
   Google Scholar
• NCPA Pharmacia Digest Survey . 2001 NCPA-Pharmacia Digest: Independent pharmacies report impressive growth in numbers, sales. 2001. www.ncpanet.org/ NEWSMEDIA/011013digest.html (accessed 2002 June 24).
   Google Scholar
• Peterson A. A survey of selected Internet pharmacies in the United States. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001; 41(2):205–21.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner M, Alonso J, Mehlhorn A. Comparison of Internet and community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother. 2001; 35:116–9.
   Google Scholar
• Tipton D. Virtual pharmacies: A survey of NACDS members. J Pharm Market Manage. 2001; 13(4):43–57.
   Google Scholar
• Porter M. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and com-petitors. New York: The Free Press; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Porter M. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior perfor-mance. New York: The Free Press; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Porter M. Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Bus Rev. 2001; 79(3):62–79.
   Google Scholar
• Oliva R. A framework for success. Marketing Manage. 2002; 11(1):39–43.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes Directories, Inc. Hayes independent drug store directory. Mission Viejo, CA: Hayes Inc; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Salant P, Dillman D. How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• SMG Marketing. HMO penetration by state. 2000. www.managedcaredigest. com/edigests/hm2000/hm2000cOls07g01.html (accessed 2003 June 27).
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Commerce. Census Bureau. Census Divisions of the United States. 2000. www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf (accessed 2003 June 27).
   Google Scholar
• SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Churchill G. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con-structs. J Marketing Res. 1979; 16(1):64–74.
   Google Scholar
• Bagozzi R, Yi Y, Phillips L. Assessing construct validity in organizational re-search. Admin Sci Q. 1991; 36:421–58.
   Google Scholar
• Gerbing D, Anderson J. An updated paradigm for scale development incorpo-rating unidimensionality and its assessment. J Marketing Res. 1988; 25(2):186–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatcher L. A step by step approach to using the SAS systems for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Kim J, Mueller C. Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Se-ries No. 07–013. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler P. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995:76–99.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon W, Narendra M, Kumar A. Offending estimates in covariance structure analysis: Comments on the causes of and solutions to Heywood cases. Psychol Bull. 1987; 101:126–35.
   Google Scholar
• Driel V. On various causes of improper solutions in maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1978; 45:225–43.
   Google Scholar
• Chen F, Bollen K, Paxton P, Curran P, Kirby J. Improper solutions in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res. 2001; 29:468–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne M, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992; 21:230–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res. 1981; 18(1):39–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson J, Gerbing D. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988; 103:411–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar