Definition o f Sample

The sample comprises 1200 respondents each from an individual architectural practice, or branch of a firm of architectural practices drawn

from the alphabetically ordered practice membership list of the Royal Institute o f British Architects (RIBA) using a systematic random selection approach. Respondent firms were not pre-selected by size or by any factor other than their inclusion on this list.

4.2.6 Access

To paraphrase Dillman (2007) access is the act o f getting the survey questionnaire to the respondent. The factors that determine this include correct contact details, a mailing which looks professional (standard stationery and formatting) and legitimate (University frank and headed paper) in order to increase the prospects that it will get past gatekeepers such as secretaries, and addressed to the respondent by name (Dillman 2007, Hussey and Hussey 1997). To this end contact details were cross checked against individual member listings at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) both to verify the practice at which the prospective respondent worked and to complete some information such as first name in place o f initials. Additionally twenty telephone calls were made to check the accuracy o f the contact details independently of the RIBA database. This found 100% correspondence. A further effort to verify the validity of contact details was made by visiting 100 practice websites and cross checking the contact details with those available from RIBA. This process used a somewhat self selecting sample of practices with websites and found a 98% correspondence between details. The envelopes were franked using the University mail department and the first page of each communication was typed on headed paper.

4.2.7 Ethics

The information sought in this study is of a non personal nature and is concerned with ordinary issues of day to day management. Consequently, the main ethical issues are concerned with balancing the needs of consent, confidentiality and openness in respect of the study findings. Irrespective of the nature o f the information sought it is often the case that respondents prefer the option o f anonymity (Dillman 2007), with this in mind each questionnaire is sent out without an individual identifier. This is consistent with the information given to the respondent and no deception is used. Respondents are invited to receive a summary of the study findings and to do so they must complete their contact details on the questionnaire. This is combined with entry to the incentive prize draw for a case of wine and an assurance, that the identifying information is not used for any other purpose, is given. Implicit consent is given in completing the questionnaire and so no additional paperwork is provided for this purpose.

Contact details are comprehensive and the respondents are invited to make contact at any stage to address any concerns or for further information. Overall provision is made for a range o f respondents from those who wish to maintain total anonymity to those who wish to engage in participation at a higher level.

4 3 Item Selection

The latent constructs in the model are operationalised by the observed variables. These observed variables are specified by the application of a measurement scale which is typically obtained in one of two ways. Firstly a

new measurement scale may be developed through a multistage approach. This involves specifying the domain through an evaluation of the literature, the generation o f the initial items, and several subsequent stages in which data is collected, the items are pretested and re-worked (purified), tested again and assessed for reliability and validity (Menor and Roth 2004). Early work on scale development specifically addresses the issue of validity and was bom from a concern that marketing research had become largely a routine exercise in repetitive use of under-assessed measures contributing to the view that marketers were ‘choking on their measures’ (Churchill 1979). The six stage scale development approach outlined by Menor and Roth (2004) is closely based on Churchill’s (1979) eight stage approach.

While validity is now an issue which receives equal attention to reliability in measurement development and application, the order in which this is done varies. Validity is frequently assessed after data collection. Menor and Roth (2004) caution against this however and argue that additional effort paid to the early stages, particularly the domain specification can pay dividends in later data analysis. In particular it is argued that time spent on this ‘fuzzy front end’ where the extant research must be explored and synthesised will avoid measure misspecification issues later on (Menor and Roth 2004). Reliability is not greatly influenced by the measure development process and is more reliant on the measure characteristics. The measure development process is more exclusively concerned with ‘developing valid measures’ (Churchill and Peter 1984).

The second approach to obtaining appropriate measurement scales is to use existing scales. This process has the benefit of being a shorter process since some assessment of measure reliability already exists. Effort must still be extended in the assessment of domain specification since measures may not transfer to a new setting and automatically retain validity (Churchill and Iacobucci 2005). For this reason the same rationale for increased attention to domain specification exists as is set out above.

In some instances handbooks of measures exist which contain sets o f measures, details o f the validity and reliability levels obtained, and the sources from which they have been derived. A relevant handbook was identified in the present study (Bearden and Netemeyer 1999) however none o f the measures listed addressed the required domain and so measures from this handbook were not used.

The use o f existing scales was still preferred over the alternative option o f developing new scales. The rationale for this was that suitable sets o f scales had already been identified in the literature, in many cases in a similar research setting as is used in the current study. Where the research setting was similar it was reasoned that there was a better possibility of attaining similar reliability and validity levels to the original study and so similar research settings were preferred over non-similar research settings, other factors being equal.

Measures from existing research were selected on the basis of a series o f these other factors. This included reported reliability results above .70 (Nunnally 1978). An assessment was made o f the wording of the items in order to ensure a close match between the wording o f the measure and

the behaviour being measured (face validity) and this was subsequently checked through additional procedures (see section 5.3.3.1). The use of reflective indicators (the latent construct is reflected in the measures being used) rather than formative indicators (measures that cause change in the latent construct) was adopted since the aim in this study is to employ a principle component model rather than a composite latent construct model (Bollen and Lennox 1991). An assumption exists among much empirical work that indicators are reflective and are thus treated accordingly in these studies. This may be erroneous in many cases according to Jarvis et al (2003) and so particular attention was paid to the reflective/formative nature o f indicator items in the measurement selection process irrespective o f how and whether this status was reported by the author. This is of particular importance in the use of structural equation modelling since model misspecification will ultimately invalidate the meaning of the structural model (Anderson and Gerbing 1992).

The use o f complete measures was preferred and where possible employed. However domain specificity required the removal of some items from a measure in some instances and the augmentation of the measure with new items in others. This represents the classic trade off between reliability and domain validity (Churchill and Peter 1984). Older measures are generally avoided in order to minimise the possibility of using obsolete items where the domain has evolved, and to circumnavigate measurement practice which is no longer regarded as sound such as the use of double barrelled items. A reasonable estimate was made that an age limit of ten years would, on balance, be likely to achieve these aims. In some instances

established items are used in something close to their original form in more recent studies. In these instances they are attributed to the more recent study and assessed accordingly.

Other considerations included the lack o f disclosure of measures by authors, a cautionary approach to the reported levels of reliability and validity, and semantic inconsistency among construct titles with the result that useable measures may exists in less probable locations.

On balance the approach taken employing the above considerations represented a combining o f key elements o f the measure development approach (literature guided and domain clarification) within the chosen method o f using established measures.

4.4 M odel Operationalisation