4 Chapter Four: Methodology
4.5 Quantitative research design
4.5.4 Construct questionnaire and pre-test (Stage 4)
Regardless of the method of administration, a questionnaire is fundamentally a
“formalised set of questions for obtaining information from respondents” (Malhotra
114 and Birks, 2003, p. 326). Within the realist research paradigm, information may be gained on latent or unobservable variables such as attitudes and opinions (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005). Although it could be possible to gather accurate information on these phenomena through asking simple and direct “yes or no” questions, it is more reliable to develop questionnaires using scales of multiple items to measure each construct or variable, particularly when the phenomenon of interest is latent and unobservable (De Vellis, 2003; Spector, 1992).
Figure 4.2 (adapted from Churchill, 1999) represents the stages to be followed by the researcher in the development of the questionnaire and scales to measure the latent variables. Figure 4.2 is the box on the right hand side of Figure 4.1 and details the specific stages involved in designing an effective questionnaire to gather the required data, by designing measurement scales, response formats, overall design and pre-testing.
Figure 4.2 Questionnaire construction process (from Figure 4.1)
•Determine question
Questionnaire construction
•Determine question content
•Determine response format
•Determine question wording
•Determine question sequence
•Design physical characteristics
•Revisit steps and revise
•Pre-test and revise
adapted from Churchill (1999)
115 4.5.4.1 Determine question content
Scales of items to measure each construct in the conceptual model (see Table 4.1) were generated. Measurement scales are used “when we want to measure
phenomena that we believe exist because of our theoretical understanding of the world, but that we cannot assess directly … Our theories suggest that these
phenomena exist and that they influence behaviour, but that they are intangible” (De Vellis, 2003, p. 9). Measurement scales are therefore sets of items which indicate the level of the underlying theoretical construct they represent. Multiple indicators for each construct are utilised to capture as complete a range of the construct as
possible and to reduce the incidence of measurement error (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005; Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006).
Table 4.1 Dimensions and Constructs used to measure Town Centre Image
Dimension Construct
Functional Assortment
Accessibility Layout Non-Retail Experiential Atmosphere
Affect
Symbolic Self-Image Congruence
Place Attachment Overall Image Loyalty
A review of the scales in the town centre image literature showed that no scales currently exist to measure the constructs in the model of town centre image as defined in the conceptual framework. Accordingly a search was conducted in the wider literature (Lee and Lings, 2008; Spector, 1992), extending the search to
116 shopping mall and store image literature. Table 4.1 shows the constructs which are included in the town centre image model for which measurement scales were sought.
Scales were drawn from existing literature on the basis of their conceptual closeness to the constructs in the model as defined in Chapter Three (face validity), the
closeness of the context to the town centre, and their reliability as demonstrated using statistical analysis. Where necessary, they were adapted to more closely reflect the town centre environment. In addition, insights obtained from the focus groups informed the selection of items.
Table 4.2 shows the scales which were included in the questionnaire, together with the original scales and their sources. The operationalisation of the constructs is explained in the following section of this chapter.
117 Table 4.2 Construct operationalisation: scales and their sources
Image dimension
Construct and definition
Final scale as it appears in questionnaire Original scale(s) from literature Source Functional Assortment I can buy well-known brands
The products offered in this town centre are fashionable
The range of products in this town centre is good The quality of the products in this town centre is high Can buy well known brands
The style of the products is outdated/ up to date
The product selection is inadequate/
adequate
The quality of the products is low/ high
Bell 1999 the town centre in terms of ease of access, together with availability of suitable car parking provision at reasonable cost
I can get to the town centre easily
I can get to the town centre reasonably quickly from my home
It is convenient to get to the town centre There are always enough reasonably priced parking spaces
There are sufficient parking options
The town centre is easily and quickly reached from the car parks
You can get to … easily You can get to … quickly
You can get to … without problems There are always enough free parking lots There are sufficient different parking possibilities
… is easily and quickly reached from the parking lots
The layout makes it easy to get to the stores I want
The layout makes it easy to get to places to eat or drink
The layout makes it easy to get to the other town centre services e.g. travel agents, museum, gym, library, etc
Overall the layout makes it easy to get around
The layout makes it easy to get to the stores you want
The layout makes it easy to get to the food areas
The layout makes it easy to get to the restrooms
Overall the layout makes it easy to get around
The town centre offers a large variety of entertainment
The town centre has good banking and financial services
The town centre offers a good range of services other than shopping
You can find lots of gastronomy at …
… offers a large variety of entertainment
Having a bank
Range of services like library, post office, [banks], hair dressers, travel agents, pharmacies, advice bureaux
118
Final scale as it appears in questionnaire Original scale(s) from literature Source Experiential Atmosphere
sensory impressions of how the town centre feels
The town centre is attractive The town centre is a safe place The town centre is busy The town centre is relaxed The town centre is friendly The town centre is personal It is not too crowded
This town centre is consistent with how I see myself
This town centre reflects who I am People similar to me shop here
The kind of person who typically shops here is very much like me
I can identify with the typical person who shops here
This outfit is consistent with how I see myself at work
This outfit reflects who I am at work People similar to me wear outfits like this at work
The kind of person who typically wears this outfit at work is very much like me
This outfit is a mirror image of me at work
Sirgy et al 1997 Alpha = 0.90
Place attachment meaning or attachment to the town centre
I do not feel emotionally attached to the town centre
The town centre has personal meaning for me I do not feel a sense of belonging to the town centre
I do not feel emotionally attached to the area
The area has personal meaning for me I do not feel a sense of belonging to the
Loyalty I would say positive things about this town centre I would recommend this town centre
I would encourage friends and relatives to visit I will shop here more frequently in the next few years
Say positive things about this shopping area
Recommend this shopping area Encourage friends and relatives to visit Do more business with this shopping area in the next few years
Andreu Bigne Chumpitaz and Swaen 2006 Alpha = 0.84
119 Assortment
Assortment is defined as the range and quality of goods and stores in the town centre. For the purposes of the town centre image study, Assortment was hypothesised as a unidimensional construct, where store assortment, or retail tenant mix, and product assortment were measured in the same construct. This is consistent with findings from factor analysis by Hackett and Foxall (1994), Nevin and Houston (1980) and Wee (1986) in a town centre context, and by McGoldrick and Thompson (1992) in a shopping mall. The Assortment factors identified by Nevin and Houston (1980) and Wee (1986) contained both quality and variety of stores, and merchandise quality and selection. The reliability of these scales was assessed using Cronbach alpha, whereby scores on this test should be at least 0.7 for internal consistency to be present (De Vellis, 2003; Nunally, 1978). Nevin and Houston (1980) investigated a range of shopping centres including a town centre, and Cronbach alpha for Nevin and Houston (1980)‟s Assortment factor reached 0.88, while Wee (1986) reported a value of 0.74 in the town centre. Bell (1999) also successfully measured the image of shopping centres, including the town centre, using an Assortment scale including both quality and choice of products and quality and range of shops, reporting an alpha value of 0.88.
More recently, the work of Teller and colleagues (e.g. Teller, 2008; Teller and Elms, 201; Teller and Reutterer, 2008) has measured the Assortment construct using scales based on the retail tenant mix, and hence store assortment, only.
They report acceptable reliability statistics, with alpha scores ranging between 0.76 and 0.89 for town centre locations for their scales. Conversely, other studies, for example Laroche, Teng, Michon and Chebat (2005) in a shopping mall, and Downs (1970) in a town centre, measure Assortment using items based on the assortment of goods alone. However the majority of town centre image literature has focussed on Assortment as a unidimensional construct consisting of both store and product assortment. Given the aim of grounding the scales in literature as close to the town centre context as possible and informed by the focus group findings where both store-related and product-related assortment featured prominently, the scale used by Bell (1999) was adopted for this study due to its statistical reliability. Bell (1999)‟s eight-item scale was modified, following the focus
120 group findings, to reflect greater emphasis on the store assortment, with the
addition of an item from McGoldrick and Thompson (1992) related to “choice of major stores”. Two items relating to goods and products were removed consistent with the scale used by Laroche, Teng, Michon and Chebat (2005), which had itself been based on established scales in the literature, and demonstrated strong internal reliability in a shopping mall context with an alpha score of 0.82. Hence the final items to measure Assortment in the town centre image survey were as shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Scale Items measuring the Assortment construct
Construct Measurement items Item sources
Assortment town centre on the following items?
1. Choice of major stores 2. Variety of stores 3. Quality of stores
Product assortment
How far do you agree with the following statements?
4. The products offered in this town centre are fashionable
5. The range of products in this town centre is good
6. The quality of the products in this town centre is high
The Accessibility construct in the town centre image study was hypothesised as unidimensional, and based on convenience of travel to the town centre together with parking availability. A limited amount of work in the town centre image literature has measured Accessibility as one construct, namely Bell (1999) who included both convenience of location and car parking together in one scale, based on Marks (1976) and Singson (1975), with an alpha score of 0.69. Similarly,
121 Andreu, Bigne, Chumpitaz and Swaen (2006) created an Accessibility construct from two items measuring parking and accessibility, reporting reliability with an alpha score of 0.54 in the town centre although this reached 0.80 in a shopping mall context. In contrast, Teller and Reutterer (2008) measured Accessibility using two distinct constructs. The three-item accessibility scale returned an alpha score of 0.91, whereas the three-item parking scale reached 0.65. To create the
unidimensional Accessibility measure for the town centre study as hypothesised, the scales by Teller and Reutterer (2008) were adopted but combined into one single construct, as utilised in Bell (1999)‟s study due to its acceptable alpha score.
Table 4.4 Scale Items measuring the Accessibility construct
Construct Measurement items Item sources
Accessibility
1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree
Access
How far do you agree with the following statements?
8. I can get to the town centre easily 9. I can get to the town centre reasonably quickly from my home
10. It is convenient to get to the town centre
11. There are always enough reasonably priced parking spaces
12. There are sufficient parking options 13. The town centre is easily and quickly reached from the car parks
Items adapted from Teller and Reutterer (2008)
Layout
The Layout construct was hypothesised as referring to ease of internal movement within the town centre. The town centre literature has not to date utilised a scale to measure Layout specifically in this context. Layout has instead been included with other items, in factors such as accessibility (McGoldrick and Thompson, 1992), choice and variety (Hackett and Foxall, 1994) and maintenance (Wee, 1986).
However, in parallel with shopping mall studies, Layout was hypothesised as a distinct unidimensional construct in the town centre image study.
122 A scale developed by Wakefield and Baker (1998) was adopted from the shopping mall context, as the closest context to the town centre. The scale demonstrated good reliability statistics with alpha reaching 0.90. Research using this scale has since produced acceptable reliability statistics in shopping malls, for example Martin and Turley (2004) (alpha = 0.84), Kim, Christiansen, Feinberg and Choi (2005) (alpha = 0.90) and Martin (2009) (alpha = 0.88). Based on these results, it was not expected that this scale would present any problems when transferred to the town centre context, albeit with some modifications in wording to more closely reflect the provision in the town centre. The scale appeared to capture a broad range of provision within the shopping mall and, once adapted, was considered to be representative of the town centre as a complete entity, including the wider non-retail provision and the overall town centre environment.
Table 4.5 Scale Items measuring the Layout construct
Construct Measurement items Item sources
Layout
1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree
How far do you agree with the following statements?
14. The layout makes it easy to get to the stores I want
15. The layout makes it easy to get to places to eat or drink
16. The layout makes it easy to get to the other town centre services e.g. travel agents, museum, gym, library, etc
17. Overall the layout makes it easy to get around
Items adapted from Wakefield and Baker (1998)
Non-retailing functions
No scales have been developed in the literature to measure the various functions that the town centre was hypothesised to provide, as represented by the Non Retail construct. Hence a scale was assembled from items currently existing in shopping centre studies. Teller and Reutterer (2008) included two items (food outlets and entertainment) (alpha = 0.71), and these were included in the newly-created scale. Two items adapted from Bellenger, Robertson and Greenberg
123 (1977) were included to measure the provision of banks and financial services, and the various other services, of which examples were presented to respondents.
Table 4.6 Scale Items measuring the Non-Retail construct
Construct Measurement items Item sources
Non-retail
1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree
How far do you agree with the following statements?
18. I can find lots of places to eat or drink in the town centre
19. The town centre offers a large variety of entertainment e.g. bars, clubs, theatres, etc 20. The town centre has good banking and financial services
21. The town centre offers a good range of services other than shopping e.g. travel agents, museum, gym, library, etc
Items 18 and 19
The definition of atmosphere in this study is the quality of the environment
perceived through the senses. Although extensively researched in terms of malls and stores, specific items to measure atmosphere in town centre image studies have been comparatively limited. Downs (1970) proposed an Atmosphere scale containing measures of busy, relaxed, personal and friendly, although this scale did not perform well and was eliminated from his study following factor analysis.
Therefore, the Atmosphere scale was assembled for the town centre image study from items in the literature and the focus groups, in an attempt to produce a more reliable scale of town centre atmosphere. Items suggested by the focus groups included visual attractiveness, safety, busyness and crowding. Busyness (Downs, 1970), safety (Wee, 1986) and crowding (D‟Astous, 2000; Oppewal and
Timmermans, 1999) have previously been included in shopping centre measures.
The remaining items of relaxed, personal and friendly, previously developed by Downs (1970), were included in the Atmosphere scale.
124 Table 4.7 Scale Items measuring the Atmosphere construct
Construct Measurement items Item sources
Atmosphere
1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree
How far do you agree that the following words describe this town centre?
22. The town centre is attractive 23. The town centre is a safe place 24. The town centre is busy 25. The town centre is relaxed 26. The town centre is friendly 27. The town centre is personal 28. It is not too crowded
Scales measuring affect, or emotion, have frequently been tested and validated in the retail literature. Measures were initiated by Donovan and Rossiter (1982) who assessed 18 items involved in affective responses to retail environments,
associated with three factors: pleasure, arousal and dominance. Subsequent retail research has focussed on emotions linked to pleasure and arousal, finding
dominance less useful in retail settings. Dawson, Bloch and Ridgway (1990) measured these two factors using measures of relaxed, contented, satisfied and happy (pleasure), and surprised, excited and rewarded (arousal). Reliability was reported by alpha scores of 0.72 for pleasure and 0.64 for arousal. Van Kenhove and Desrumeaux (1997) reduced a 12 item scale to two factors, with pleasure represented by happy, satisfied and hopeful, while arousal was represented by excited, frenzied and jittery. The reliability of both these scales was validated by composite reliability scores of over 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In contrast, Darden and Babin (1994) developed four scales of four items each, grouped into pleasant, unpleasant, active and sleepy, arguing for a greater number of factors to represent a retail environment. These 16 items were reduced to nine by Babin and Attaway (2000) to measure emotions generated in a retail store setting. Babin and Attaway (2000) grouped these items into two scales, of excited, bold, energetic, satisfied and happy measuring positive affect, and disgusted, bored, sleepy and annoyed measuring negative affect. Both these scales showed acceptable reliability statistics, with alpha scores of 0.83 and 0.75 respectively.
125 Despite affect scales in the above studies being measured by multiple factors, in the town centre image model affect was hypothesised as a unidimensional construct. A similar approach was followed by Hunter (2006) who adopted a seven-item unidimensional scale to measure emotions in a shopping centre, including excited, delighted, happy, glad, satisfied, proud and self-assured, and demonstrating alpha scores of 0.91. In support of a unidimensional affect scale, Machleit and Eroglu (2000) argue that there are sound theoretical reasons to treat the affect construct as unidimensional, recommending that “a summary factor could adequately capture the range in the emotional responses” if the scope of the study is focussed on a specific purpose (p. 110). In the town centre image study, the purpose of the Affect scale is to test the relevance of an emotional construct to overall image perceptions, rather than to establish the relative importance of individual affective items or factors. The items developed by Babin and Attaway (2000) were adopted for the Affect scale, grouped into a single unidimensional scale. Response formats for these nine items were adapted for a 7 point semantic differential scale which was anchored by polar opposites of the emotions listed, as shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Scale Items measuring the Affect construct
Construct Measurement items Item sources
Affect
1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree
To what extent do the following words
To what extent do the following words