4. Enumeration
3.8.4 Expert opinion survey
Following the editing and categorisation of the attributes and in order to check
whether they measure and represent the construct under examination, an expert
opinion survey was conducted. A number of studies have used an expert
opinion/judgement survey as a tool for refining attributes for scale
development in both general services management (e.g. Sweeney and Soutar,
2001) and tourism and hospitality (e.g. Choi and Chu, 1999; Petrick, 2002;
Caro and Garcia, 2008). The use of expert judgement is to ensure content and
face validity (Hardesty and Bearden, 2004). A more detailed discussion of
validity is provided in 3.12.
A myriad of judgement approaches can be found in the literature ranging from
the evaluation of the degree of representativeness of an item within a construct
domain to the assignment of an item to either an overall construct definition or
a multifaceted construct (Hardesty and Bearden, 2004). In the evaluation of the
degree of representativeness of individual items, judges may be requested to
rate items as “clearly representative”, “somewhat representative” or “not
representative of the construct of interest” (Zaichkowsky, 1985 in Hardesty and
Bearden, 2004). Hardesty and Bearden (2004) submit that regardless of the
procedure employed, the researcher must decide which item to retain for
further analysis. Developers of scales utilising expert judgement often adopt
the technique for various reasons: deletion of ambiguous, redundant or
unrelated item; evaluation of the quality of the survey; establishment of
consensus on a subset of items to use in further analysis and partitioning of
items into facets. This study made use of a hybrid approach, requesting the
judges to delete ambiguous, redundant and unrelated item as well as
classifying/reclassifying retained items.
The expert survey is not a probability but a judgement sample of individuals
who have experience in a certain topic area and can provide valuable ideas and
insight to the topic at hand (Churchill, 1997). In view of this, effort was
concentrated on sampling individuals with requisite expertise and who were
willing to participate, hence a convenience sampling approach was adopted.
Recognising the strengths and weaknesses of convenience sampling as stated in
sub-section 3.8.2.1, Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) four criteria - ‘credibility’,
‘transferability’, ‘dependability’ and ‘confirmability’ against which the
validity, generalisability, and reliability of qualitative research can be tested -
were applied in this process (see detailed discussion in section 3.9.6). Again,
since this process aims to establish the representativeness of the generated
attributes and their dimensions of service quality in attractions, six experts in
services marketing and visitor attraction management were invited to take part
in the refining of the initial 84 items to ensure face and content validity of the
scale. The individuals invited to participate in this process by default fell into
two geographic categories: UK and international academics. After the initial
contact, only four of experts responded.
A number of item deletion/retention rules have been identified by Hardesty and
Bearden (2004) when researchers employ expert judgement; these include:
1. Deletion when items evaluated were judged by any expert as being poor
indicators of the construct domain.
2. Overall evaluation of an item by a proportion of all the judges as
“somewhat representative”.
3. Overall evaluation of an item by a proportion of all the judges as
“completely representative”.
In 2 and 3 above, a cut-off point may be established as a percentage (e.g. 70%)
or number (e.g. two out of three) of experts based on either criterion. Similarly,
researchers will employ rules where items are requested to be grouped or
classified into dimensions. Usually, a cut-off (percentage or actual number)
will be set, for instance, requiring that at least the established number of judges
classify an item under the same dimension. Adopting similar criteria employed
by Lee and Crompton (1992), a set of rules were established for the basis of
rejection or retention of attributes or dimensions. An item was to be discarded
if two or more of the four experts queried its inclusion. Similarly, a dimension
was to be deleted if 50% of the experts rejected it.
A procedure somewhat similar to Zaichkowsky’s (1985 in Hardesty and
Bearden, 2004) was employed in this study by requesting that the experts
accept or reject and provide a brief justification of retention/rejection and/or
reclassification of items where they felt the item was not under an appropriate
dimension. The experts were given the operational definitions of the nine
dimensions of service quality in a visitor attraction as initially conceptualised.
The process resulted in three categories (Price, Image and Other) and their
corresponding attributes being eliminated. Price was not accepted as part of the
service quality dimension by 75% of the experts, which is in accordance with
what is obtainable in the literature. In line with the view of the experts,
Dabholkar et al., (1996) submitted that price is not part of the generally
accepted attributes of service quality; to this end, price was eliminated from the
set. The literature clearly suggests that price is a determinant of service value
(see Zeithaml, 1988). Sanchez et al (2006) argued that price and quality are
functional sub-factors that contribute separately to value and should be
measured separately. In the same vein, image and other (weather) categories
were also rejected as dimensions of service quality. The experts had other
observations concerning wording and the context of the generated attributes
and conceptual dimensions which resulted in rewording/rephrasing of some of
the items. Thus, the number of conceptual dimensions that constitute service
quality in visitor attractions was reduced from nine to five: amenities, staff
attributes, physical setting attributes, retail and experience. In the end, 42
attributes remained for Alton Towers and 48 for Blists Hill Victorian Town
(Table 3.8).
Table 3.8Categorisation of Attraction Quality Attributes after Expert Survey
Category Attributes
Amenities Working condition of physical facilities and equipment Parking facilities
Information provided at the front desk about the attraction Transport services to the site
Access for physically challenged to most part of the site Smoking area
Effectiveness of signage and direction within the site Availability of toilets
Effectiveness of written leaflets in providing enough information about the site and facilities
Facilities at the children’s play area Ride photograph
Cash points Medical facilities
Employees Appearance of staff (Neatness)
Promptness of services to visitors
Staff's ability to provide accurate and correct information
Treatment of visitors in a warm and friendly way by staff members
Staff’s knowledge of product
Physical setting General cleanliness
Visually attractiveness and appeal Ease of getting around within the site Cleanliness of the restrooms
Spectacular nature of the natural/built surroundings
The surroundings/atmosphere (pleasant and relaxing nature)
Retail Quality of food on the site
Diversity of food & drinks
Availability of healthy food options Access to souvenir store
Variety of choice in the souvenir store Availability of a range of shops
Experience Availability of something for everybody Opportunity to bond with family and friends Bookings
Opportunity to learn (Education) The use of technology
Information on opening hours Consideration for health and safety Entertainment
Management of waiting lines/queues are well managed Novelty
Opportunities to get involved/interactivity Opportunity for recreation
Range of activities (much to see and do)
Duration of activities Costume and setting Availability of all exhibits
Narration and explanation of guides and interpreters Authenticity of the experience
Insight into Victorian life/ History and culture Clarity of written interpretation
Physical state of the exhibits Quality of ride photograph
Efficiency in the way ticket is sold/delivery Rides