Wpływ szerokości skali na miary dopasowania modelu ścieżkowego

Czasopismo

---

• Autorzy: Łukasz Skowron

Warianty tytułu

Impact of the Choice of Scale on the Goodness of Fit of the Structural Equation Model

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

W artykule autor przedstawia analizę wpływu szerokości skali na miary dopasowania modelu ścieżkowego. Do celów analitycznych zostało opracowane autorskie narzędzie pomiarowe, które wykorzystano do przeprowadzenia dwóch tur badawczych. W pierwszej turze dwie grupy respondentów dostały do wypełnienia dwa różne kwestionariusze, w których poruszany był ten sam problem badawczy, lecz możliwy zakres odpowiedzi był przedstawiony w dwóch szerokościach skali, tj. skali 5- i 10-stopniowej. Po okresie 1 tygodnia te same grupy respondentów zostały ponownie poproszone o ocenę danego zagadnienia tym razem z wykorzystaniem odmiennej skali. Uzyskane dane empiryczne zostały wykorzystane do opracowania modeli ścieżkowych przedstawiających proces budowania analizowanego zagadnienia. Dzięki zebranemu materiałowi empirycznemu możliwe było zbadanie wpływu szerokości skali na uzyskane w ramach prowadzonych analiz miary dopasowania modelu w perspektywie jego stabilności zarówno wewnętrznej, jak i zewnętrznej.(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

Research problem analysed in the paper concentrates on the impact of the choice of scale on the the goodness of fit of the Structural Equation Model. For that purpose the primary research tool were built and used for conducting two rounds of research. In the first round two groups of respondents were given two different questionaries dealing with the same research problem (same set of research questions) but using different, 5 or 10 point scales. After one week the same groups of respondents were asked again to assess the research problem by using different type of scale. Obtained empirical data were used to build the structural equation models (for 5 and 10 point scales) of the analysed research problem. Thanks to the collected empirical data it was possible to analyze the impact of the choice of scale on internal (AVE, Cronbach's Alfa, Composite Reliability) and external (R2) goodness of fit of the model.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Kwestionariusze; Badania ekonometryczne

EN

Questionnaire; Econometric research

• Czasopismo: ---
• Strony: 23-32

Twórcy

autor

Łukasz Skowron

• Politechnika Lubelska

Bibliografia

• Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.B.E.M., 2001, Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-Natio- nal Investigation, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 38, May, s. 143-156.
• Bending A.W., 1954, Reliability and the number of rating scale categories, Journal of Applied Psycho- logy, vol. 61, s. 38-40.
• Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A., 1979, Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage, Beverly Hills.
• Cox E.P., 1980, The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 17, no. 4, s. 407-422.
• ECSI Technical Committee, 1998, European Customer Satisfaction Index: Foundation and Structure for Harmonized National Pilot Projects, Report prepared for the ECSI Steering Committee, October.
• Ewing M.T., Caruana A., Zinkhan G.M., 2002, On the cross-national generalisability and equivalence of advertising response scales developed in the USA, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 21, s. 323-343.
• Flamer S., 1983, Assessment of the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Validity of Likert Scales via Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 18, s. 275-308.
• Givon M.M, Shapira Z., 1984, Response to Rating Scales: A Theoretical Model and its Application to the Number of Categories Problem, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 21, no. November, s. 410-419.
• Green P.E., Rao V., 1970, Rating Scales and Information Recovery - How Many Scales and Response Categories to Use?, Journal of Marketing, vol. 34, no. 3, s. 33-39.
• Guy R.F., Norvell M., 1977, The neutral point on a Likert Scale, The Journal of Psychology, vol. 95, s. 199-204.
• Kristensen K., Eskildsen J., 2010, Design of PLS-based satisfaction studies, [w:] Vinzi V.E. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics, Springer, Berlin, s. 247-78.
• Matell M.G., Jacoby J., 1972, Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert-scale items?, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, s. 10-13.
• Menezes D., Elbert N.F., 1979, Alternative semantic scaling formats for measuring store image: An evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 16, s. 80-87.
• O'Muircheartaigh C., Krosnick J.A., Helic A., 2001, Middle Alternatives, Acquiescence, and the Quality of Questionnaire Data (manuscript was written partly while the second author was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, supported by National Science Foundation), Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, The University of Chicago, Chicago.
• Ofir C., Reddy S.K., Bechtel G.G., 1987, Are Semantic Response Scales Equivalent?, Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 22, January, s. 21-38.
• Preston C.C., Colman A.M., 2000, Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences, Acta Psychologica, vol. 104, s. 1-15.
• Ramsay J.O., 1973, The Effect of Number of Categories in Rating Scales on Precision of Estimation of Scale Values, Psychometrika, vol. 38, December, s. 513-532.
• Svensson E.D., 2014, Validity of Scales, [w:] Lovric M. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, s. 1637-1639.
• Torgerson W.S., 1958, Theory and methods of scaling, Publ. J. Wiley, New York.
• Ueltschy L.C., Laroche M., Tamilia R.D., Yannopoulos P., 2004, Cross-cultural invariance of measures of satisfaction and service quality, Journal of Business Research, vol. 57, s. 901-912.
• Van der Ven A.H.G.S., 1981, Introduction to Scaling, Journal of Educational Measurement, vol. 18, no. 2 (Summer), s. 127-129.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15611/ekt.2015.2.02