Business Research Methods

1
Business Research Methods

• Measurement and Scaling
• Noncomparative ScalingTechniques

2
Noncomparative Scaling Techniques

• Respondents evaluate only one object at a time,
  and for this reason noncomparative scales are
  often referred to as monadic scales.
• Noncomparative techniques consist of continuous
  and itemized rating scales.

3
Continuous Rating Scale

• Respondents rate the objects by placing a mark at
  the appropriate position
• on a line that runs from one extreme of the
  criterion variable to the other.
• The form of the continuous scale may vary
  considerably.
•  
• How would you rate Sears as a department store?
• Version 1
• Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - Probably the best
•  
• Version 2
• Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  - - - -- - Probably the best
• 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
•  
• Version 3
• Very bad Neither good Very
  good
• nor bad
• Probably the worst - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - -Probably the best
• 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4
Itemized Rating Scales

• The respondents are provided with a scale that
  has a number or brief description associated with
  each category.
• The categories are ordered in terms of scale
  position, and the respondents are required to
  select the specified category that best describes
  the object being rated.
• The commonly used itemized rating scales are the
• Likert,
• semantic differential, and
• Stapel scales.

5
Likert Scale

• The Likert scale requires the respondents to
  indicate a degree of agreement or
• disagreement with each of a series of statements
  about the stimulus objects.
•  
• Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
• disagree agree nor agree
• disagree
•  
• 1. Sears sells high quality merchandise.
  1 2X 3 4 5
•  
• 2. Sears has poor in-store service. 1 2X 3 4 5
•  
• 3. I like to shop at Sears. 1 2 3X 4 5
•  
• The analysis can be conducted on an item-by-item
  basis (profile analysis), or a total (summated)
  score can be calculated.
• When arriving at a total score, the categories
  assigned to the negative statements by the
  respondents should be scored by reversing the
  scale.

6
Semantic Differential Scale

• The semantic differential is a seven-point rating
  scale with end
• points associated with bipolar labels that have
  semantic meaning.
•  
• SEARS IS
• Powerful ---------X----- Weak
• Unreliable -----------X--- Reliable
• Modern -------------X- Old-fashioned
• The negative adjective or phrase sometimes
  appears at the left side of the scale and
  sometimes at the right.
• This controls the tendency of some respondents,
  particularly those with very positive or very
  negative attitudes, to mark the right- or
  left-hand sides without reading the labels.
• Individual items on a semantic differential scale
  may be scored on either a -3 to 3 or a 1 to 7
  scale.

7
A Semantic Differential Scale for Measuring Self-
Concepts, Person Concepts, and Product Concepts
1) Rugged ---------------------
Delicate
2) Excitable ---------------------
Calm 3) Uncomfortable ----------------
----- Comfortable 4)
Dominating ---------------------
Submissive 5)
Thrifty ---------------------
Indulgent 6) Pleasant
--------------------- Unpleasant
7) Contemporary -----------------
---- Obsolete 8)
Organized ---------------------
Unorganized
9) Rational ---------------------
Emotional 10) Youthful
--------------------- Mature
11) Formal ---------------------
Informal 12) Orthodox
--------------------- Liberal
13) Complex ---------------------
Simple 14) Colorless
--------------------- Colorful 15)
Modest --------------------- Vain
8
Stapel Scale

• The Stapel scale is a unipolar rating scale with
  ten categories
• numbered from -5 to 5, without a neutral point
  (zero). This scale
• is usually presented vertically.
•  
• SEARS
•  
• 5 5
• 4 4
• 3 3
• 2 2X
• 1 1
• HIGH QUALITY POOR SERVICE
• -1 -1
• -2 -2
• -3 -3
• -4X -4
• -5 -5
• The data obtained by using a Stapel scale can be
  analyzed in the

9
Basic Noncomparative Scales
Scale

Basic
Examples

Advantages

Disadvantages
Characteristics


Continuous
Place a mark on a
Reaction to
Easy to construct

Scoring can be
continuous line

TV
cumbersome
Rating
commercials

unless
Scale

computerized

Itemized Rating


Scales


Likert Scale

Degrees of
Measurement
Easy to construct,
More
agreement on a 1
of attitudes

administer, and
time
-
consuming

(strongly disagree)
understand

to 5 (strongly agree)
scale


Semantic
Seven
-
point scale
Brand,
Versatile

Controversy as
with bipolar labels

product, and
to whether the
Differential

company
data are interval

images


Stapel
Unipolar ten
-
point
Measurement
Easy to construct,
Confusing and
scale,
-
5 to 5,
of attitudes
administer over
difficult to apply

Scale

witho
ut a neutral
and images

telephone

point (zero)



10
Summary of Itemized Scale Decisions

• 1) Number of categories Although there
  is no single, optimal number, traditional
  guidelines suggest that there should be
  between five and nine categories
• 2) Balanced vs. unbalanced In general, the
  scale should be balanced to obtain objective
  data
• 3) Odd/even no. of categories If a neutral or
  indifferent scale response is possible from
  at least some of the respondents, an odd
  number of categories should be used
• 4) Forced vs. non-forced In situations where the
  respondents are expected to have no opinion,
  the accuracy of the data may be improved by a
  non-forced scale
• 5) Verbal description An argument can be made
  for labeling all or many scale categories.
  The category descriptions
  should be located as close to the response
  categories as possible
• 6) Physical form A number of options should be
  tried and the best selected

11
Balanced and Unbalanced Scales
Figure 9.1
Jovan Musk for Men is Jovan Musk for Men is
Extremely good Extremely good Very
good Very good Good Good
Bad Somewhat good Very bad Bad
Extremely bad Very bad
Balanced Scale
Unbalanced Scale
12
Rating Scale Configurations
A variety of scale configurations may be
employed to measure the gentleness of Cheer
detergent. Some examples include Cheer
detergent is 1) Very harsh
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- Very gentle
2) Very harsh 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Very gentle 3) . Very
harsh . .
. Neither harsh nor gentle . .
. Very gentle 4)
____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____
____ Very Harsh
Somewhat Neither harsh Somewhat
Gentle Very harsh
Harsh nor gentle gentle
gentle 5)
Very Neither harsh Very
harsh nor gentle

gentle

Figure 9.2

Cheer
-3
-1
0
1
2
-2
3
13
Some Unique Rating Scale Configurations
Thermometer Scale Instructions Please
indicate how much you like McDonalds hamburgers
by coloring in the thermometer. Start at the
bottom and color up to the temperature level that
best indicates how strong your preference is.
Form Smiling Face Scale
Instructions Please point to the face
that shows how much you like the Barbie Doll. If
you do not like the Barbie Doll at all, you would
point to Face 1. If you liked it very much, you
would point to Face 5. Form
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 9.3
Like very much
100 75 50 25 0
Dislike very much
14
Thurstone Scale

• It is a two stage procedure
• In the first stage researcher selects 80 to 100
  items indicating different degrees of favourable
  attitude for concept under study
• They are given to a group of judges to group them
  into favourable disfavour able by keeping equal
  intervals between categories
• All items that have consensus from judges are
  selected distributed uniformly on a scale of
  favourability
• This scale is then administered to respondents to
  measure their attitude towards a particular
  concept
• It is time consuming costly is rarely used in
  applied BR

15
Measurement Accuracy

• The true score model provides a framework for
  understanding the accuracy of measurement.
• XO XT XS XR
• where
• XO the observed score or measurement
• XT the true score of the characteristic
• XS systematic error
• XR random error

16
Systematic Error

• Lack of clarity of the scale, including the
  instructions or the items themselves.
• Mechanical factors, such as poor printing,
  overcrowding items in the questionnaire, and poor
  design.

17
Random Error

• Short-term or transient personal factors, such as
  health, emotions,and fatigue.
• Situational factors, such as the presence of
  other people, noise, and distractions.

18
Criteria for evaluating measurement

• The criteria for evaluating measurements are
• Reliability
• Validity
• Sensitivity
• Generalizability
• Relevance

19
Reliability

• The degree to which measures are free from random
  error and therefore yield consistent results
  across time or situations.
• Perfect reliability requires that there is no
  random error
• XR0

20
Validity

• The ability of a scale to measure what was
  intended to be measured.
• Perfect validity requires that there is no
  measurement error either systematic or random.
• XRo XS0

21
Relationship between validity reliability

• If a measure is perfectly valid it is also
  perfectly reliable
• However if a measure is perfectly reliable it may
  or may not be perfectly valid
• If a measure is unreliable it will not be valid
• Reliability is a necessary but not a sufficient
  condition for validity

22
THE GOAL OF MEASUREMENT VALIDITY and RELIABILITY
23
Reliability and Validity on Target
Old Rifle New Rifle New Rifle
Sunglare Low Reliability High
Reliability Reliable but Not Low Validity High
Validity Valid (Target A) (Target B) (Target C)
24
RELIABILITY
Of index measures
Repeatability
25
Types of Reliability

• There are two dimensions of reliabilityRepeatabil
  ity Internal consistency
• If the results of the research are the same even
  when it is conducted second or third time it
  confirms repeatability aspect
• Test-Retest Method An approach for assessing
  reliability in which respondents are administered
  identical sets of scale items at two different
  times under as nearly equivalent conditions as
  possible
• This measures repeatability since the same scale
  or measure is administered to the same set of
  respondents at two separate points. If the
  measure is stable over time , it should obtain
  similar results.(40 satisfied with jobs both
  times)
• However it is difficult to locate all respondents
  for the second round, their attitudes may change
  over time or the first measure may sensitize the
  respondents

26
Equivalent Forms Method

• An approach to assess reliability that requires
  two equivalent forms of scale to be constructed
  administered to the same respondents at two
  different times
• However it is difficult , time consuming
  expensive to construct two equivalent forms of
  scale

27
Internal Consistency

• This measure of reliability focuses on internal
  consistency of the set of items forming the
  scale.
• It is used to assess reliability of a summated
  scale where several items are summed to form a
  total score .Each item measures some aspect of
  the construct and the items should be consistent
  in what they indicate about the characteristics

28
Split half Method

• Split half Method It is a method of measuring
  internal consistency reliability in which the
  items constituting the scale are divided into two
  halves and the resulting scores of two halves are
  correlated. High correlation indicates high
  consistency
• However results will depend on how the scale
  items are split
• Coefficient alpha(Cronbachs Alpha) A measure of
  internal consistency reliability that is the
  average of all possible split half coefficients
  resulting from different splitting of the scale
  items

29

• Some multi item scales include several sets of
  items measuring different dimensions of a
  multidimensional construct. Since these
  dimensions are independent a measure of internal
  consistency computed across dimensions would be
  inappropriate. so internal consistency
  reliability can be computed for each dimension
• Store image is a multidimensional construct that
  includes
• --- Quality of goods,
• --- variety of goods,
• ---returns policy,
• ---service ,
• ----price,
• ----location,
• ----layout
• ----billing credit policy

30
Face Professional agreement that logically it
appears valid. (Subjective) Content-Depends on
established theories for support
(objective) Criterion Does it fit or correlate
with other similar measure/constructs? Body Fat
caliper, water displacement, electrical
impedance, BMI. Concurrent two measure, same
time Predictive Two measures at diff.
times. Construct - confirmed with network of
hypotheses. Convergent(High relationship with
similar concepts). and divergent or discriminant
validity (low relationship with dissimilar
concepts).
31
Face Validity

• Face Validity Subjective agreement among
  professionals that a scale logically appears to
  accurately measure what it is intended to
  measure. Weakest form without any analysis
• Face validity is concerned with how a measure or
  procedure appears. Does it seem like a reasonable
  way to gain the information the researchers are
  attempting to obtain? Does it seem well designed?
  Does it seem as though it will work reliably?
  Unlike content validity, face does not depend on
  established theories for support

32
Content Validity

• Content Validity is based on the extent to
  which a measurement reflects the specific
  intended domain of content .
• Researchers aim to study mathematical learning
  and create a survey to test for mathematical
  skill. If these researchers only tested for
  multiplication and then drew conclusions from
  that survey, their study would not show content
  validity because it excludes other mathematical
  functions.
• To measure adequacies of facilities in schools
• attractiveness of school name, frequency of old
  students meet. eatables in the canteen not
  relevant variables
• Number of classrooms, Number of qualified
  teachers, playground, liabrary- relevant
  variables

33
Criterion related Validity

• Criterion related validity, also referred to as
  instrumental validity, is used to demonstrate the
  accuracy of a measure or procedure by comparing
  it with another measure or procedure which has
  been demonstrated to be valid.
• For example, imagine a hands-on driving test has
  been shown to be an accurate test of driving
  skills. By comparing the scores on the written
  driving test with the scores from the hands-on
  driving test, the written test can be validated
  by using a criterion related strategy in which
  the hands-on driving test is compared to the
  written test.
• New measure correlates with criterion measure

34
Predictive Validity

• Predictive Validity. A type of criterion validity
  whereby a new measure correlates with criterion
  measure administered at a later time
• In order for a test to be a valid screening
  device for some future behaviour, it must have
  predictive validity. The SAT is used by college
  screening committees as one way to predict
  college grades. The GMAT is used to predict
  success in business .It measures predictive
  validity .
• We determine predictive validity by computing a
  correlation coefficient comparing
  SAT(NEW/Independent) scores, for example, and
  college grades (Criterion/dependent). If they
  are directly related, then we can make a
  prediction regarding college grades based on SAT
  score. We can show that students who score high
  on the SAT tend to receive high grades in
  college.

35
Concurrent Validity

• A type of criterion validity whereby a new
  measure correlates with a criterion measure at
  the same time.
• A new test of adult intelligence, for example,
  would have concurrent validity if it had a high
  positive correlation with the Wechsler Adult
  Intelligence Scale since the Wechsler is an
  accepted measure of the construct we call
  intelligence. An obvious concern relates to the
  validity of the test against which you are
  comparing your test.

36
Construct Validity

• Construct validity seeks agreement between a
  theoretical concept and a specific measuring
  device or procedure. For example, a researcher
  inventing a new IQ test might spend a great deal
  of time attempting to "define" intelligence in
  order to reach an acceptable level of construct
  validity.
• Construct validity can be broken down into two
  sub-categories Convergent validity and
  discriminate validity. Convergent validity is the
  actual general agreement among ratings, where
  measures should be theoretically related.
  Discriminate validity is the lack of a
  relationship among measures which theoretically
  should not be related

37

• To measure Tendency to stay in low cost hotels
• Four personality variables High level of self
  confidence, low need for status, low need for
  distinctiveness, high level of adaptability
• Not related to brand loyalty, high level of
  aggressiveness
• The scale can be said to have construct if it
  correlates highly with other measures of tendency
  to stay in low cost hotels Reported hotels
  patronised and social class (convergent)
• Low correlation with the unrelated constructs of
  brand loyalty high level of aggressiveness
  (Divergent)

38
SENSITIVITY

• A measurement instruments ability to accurately
  measure variability in stimuli or responses.
• Yes and no agree or disagree are not very
  sensitive
• Strongly agree, mildly agree, indifferent, mildly
  disagree, strongly disagree ,are categories whose
  inclusion increases scales sensitivity

39
Generizability

• It is the degree to which a study based on a
  sample applies to a universe of generalization
• Universe of generalization includes set of all
  conditions of measurement items, interviewers,
  modes of data collection etc.
• To generalize a scale developed for personal
  interview to other modes of data collection such
  as mail, telephone etc.
• To generalize from a sample of items to universe
  of items

40
Relevance

• It represents appropriateness of using a
  particular scale for measuring a variable
• Relevance Reliability x Validity
• If either reliability or validity is low then the
  scale will have little relevance
• If correlation coefficient is used to analyse
  both reliability validity then the scale can
  have relevance from 0 to 1.