Research summary: This study tests and validates survey measures of first‐ and second‐order competences in order to foster cumulative empirical research and theoretical refinement in the area of dynamic capabilities. Data from two informants and two time periods for a sample of publicly traded U.S. manufacturing firms are used to examine the convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity, and the reliability of scales to measure various levels and types of competences. Findings suggest that customer competence, technological competence, marketing competence, and R&D competence are related but distinct dimensions, evidencing strong validity and reliability. Qualifying this empirical support, it was found that items regarding manufacturing operations and facilities seemed to measure aspects unrelated to the focal competences, and that marketing competence had no relation to future market‐resource accumulation. Managerial summary: This study enhances understanding and measurement of dynamic capabilities, in particular, marketing and R&D second‐order competences. Marketing and R&D second‐order competences are a firm's ability to build new competences to serve new markets or use new technologies, respectively. The ability of a firm to add new market‐related resources (such as brands and distribution channels) and technological resources (such as patents and engineering skills) helps it cope with environmental change and grow in new directions. For firms in stable environments, being able to serve new markets and use new technologies provide opportunities for growth. For firms in turbulent environments, these skills are a matter of survival. Using data collected from publicly traded U.S. manufacturing firms, this study tests and validates questions that can be asked in questionnaires presented to management. It finds that even if a firm has strong skills in serving current customers and great technology, it may not be able to go after new markets or technologies. The survey questions tested here could be used not only by other researchers, but also by practitioners. Managers, management consultants, and industry association advisors could use the scales as diagnostic instruments or to perform benchmarking. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.