Questionnaire

This mixed methods approach comprised a questionnaire in the quantitative phase. The investigator distributed a national, online questionnaire to examine constraints, negotiation, and motivation as predictors of employee exercise participation in corporate fitness centres.

The various strengths of an online questionnaires encouraged the investigator to adopt this method for the study. Strengths include: gathering large response numbers in a short amount of time; being cost-effective in comparison to hard-copy questionnaires; and immediately available raw data for download, review, and analysis (Dillman et al., 2014). These strengths meant that an online questionnaire would be an effective method for quantitatively examining constraints, negotiation, and motivation in this study.

Online questionnaires, however, have several limitations. Characteristics of study populations can impair online data collection, as potential respondents might have restricted access to computers and up-to-date mobile technologies to complete online questionnaires (Dillman et al., 2014). Additionally, online questionnaires might display differently across different devices and internet browsing platforms, which create visual challenges, and therefore discourage respondents to complete the questionnaire (Dillman et al., 2014). Furthermore, numerous emails from internal and external personnel diminish response rates (Dillman et al., 2014), as employees receive several emails per day, and respond to core business priorities. Employees might therefore choose to delete online questionnaire correspondences, as the communications are not core business-related activities. These are three weaknesses of online questionnaires that need to be addressed.

Three strategies were used to address the limitations of online questionnaires. First, the organisations involved in the research were large organisations located within Australia, and thus the investigator assumed employees had access to up-to-date computer technology. Second, the investigator employed Qualtrics software to ensure data displayed consistency across devices. The software automatically converted questionnaire items to display uniformly across devices and browsing platforms. Finally, the investigator adopted a stringent communication protocol to safeguard against low response rates, with Facilitators at each organisation distributing two emails – an invitation and a reminder - that incorporated attention-

grabbing subject titles to encourage employee engagement with both emails, and altered the content in each correspondence to avoid repetition (refer to section 4.3.2.3). These strategies helped to mitigate the limitations of online questionnaires.

4.3.1.1 Variables in the study.

The variables included in the questionnaire corresponded to the core factors used in this research: constraints, negotiation, motivation, and participation. The independent variables were constraints, negotiation, and motivation, while the dependent variable was participation in exercise in the corporate fitness centre. Each variable was measured using previously developed, reliable scales (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001; Ryan & Connell, 1989). The variables and sections within the questionnaire are listed in Table 9.

Table 9.

Variables and Associated Sections in the Questionnaire

Variable name Questionnaire name and authors Section in questionnaire Participation variable

was embedded in Demographics

Section 1

Motivation Exercise Self-Regulation Questionnaire

(Ryan & Connell, 1989) Section 2 Constraints Leisure Constraints Scale (Hubbard &

Mannell, 2001) Section 3

Negotiation Leisure Constraint Negotiation Scale

(Hubbard & Mannell, 2001) Section 4

4.3.1.2 Measures.

The questionnaire began with demographic information, with the dependent variable inserted into this questionnaire section, to settle and prepare respondents for the remaining questions in the three upcoming sections. Motivation was section two of the questionnaire, and inquired about the positive factors contributing to exercise participation in the corporate fitness

centre. Constraints was the focus of section three, with negotiation concluding the questionnaire in section four. Although the questionnaire was constructed in this order to elicit higher response rates, the constraints, negotiation, motivation sequence in the upcoming sections are presented to correspond with the organisation of constraints, negotiation, and motivation presented in the literature review.

Two concepts warrant explanation prior to describing the measures used in this research: reliability and validity. Reliability refers to a measure that provides consistent outcomes in different situations, and is measured by the Cronbach’s alpha (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2013). Excellent (α = ≥ 0.9), good (0.9 > α = ≥ 0.8), acceptable (0.8 > α = ≥ 0.7), questionable (0.7 > α = ≥ 0.6), poor (0.6 > α = ≥ 0.5), and unacceptable (0.5 > α) score categories comprise the Cronbach’s alpha to determine the reliability of measurement instruments (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2013). Validity, however, refers to an instrument measuring an underlying construct that it is supposed to measure (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2013). Face, concurrent, construct, and convergent validities comprise the overall validity concept (Bryman, 2012).

Face validity refers to questionnaire items that reflect the subject in question, and is usually tested by asking pilot testers whether the questionnaire item(s) align with the subject matter (Bryman, 2012). Concurrent validity refers to measurement results that are similar to results of previously measurements of the same construct (Bryman, 2012). A researcher testing the concurrent validity of an exercise scale might ask for high and low level exercisers to complete the questionnaire. If scores between the two groups are similar, the researcher ascertains that the scale does not have concurrent validity, as differences were expected between the two groups. Construct validity refers to a the degree to which a scale measures what it is supposed to be measuring (Bryman, 2012). A useful example is an exercise intensity scale measuring one’s exercise intensity, opposed to the scale measuring exercise sweat

production. Last, convergent validity refers to confirming the accuracy of a measurement tool using other methods (Bryman, 2012). Thus, the exercise intensity scale in the previous example could have convergent validity confirmed through using either observation or heart-rate monitors. Reliability and validity are referenced throughout this section.

Dependent variable.

Participation in the corporate fitness centre was measured using a single-item. For practical purposes, a short physical activity measure was desirable to ensure the questionnaire was not too long and burdensome for respondents. The measure has established reliability, with a test-retest reliability score of .86 (Milton, Bull, & Bauman, 2011). This reliability score demonstrates a strong capacity to be repeated, and was therefore considered a reliable measure of employee physical activity participation. The question measured physical activity conducted during the past week, and read as follows:

In the past week, on how many days have you done a total of 30 min or more of physical activity, which was enough to raise your breathing rate? This may include sport, exercise and brisk walking or cycling for recreation or to get to and from places, but should not include housework or physical activity that may be part of your job (Milton et al., 2011).

Monthly physical activity recall also was considered to measure the dependent variable in this research. Monthly recall questionnaires typically include ten to 20 items measuring physical activity time, intensity, frequency, and type across multiple domains (Herrmann, 2012). The investigator in this research determined adding ten to 20 more questions to an already lenthy questionnaire would be burdensome for the participants and likely result in dropout. The additional questions also would collect unnecessary physical activity information, such as time, intensity, and type. Consequently, dropout and collecting superfluous information reinforced to need to select a quick, reliable physical activity measure.

The next question measured participation in the corporate fitness centre, specifically, and read as follows: “From your answer in the previous question (Question 12), how many days of physical activity were completed in the corporate fitness centre?”. This specific question was as the dependent variable in this research

Constraints.

Constraints was measured using the Leisure Constraints Scale (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001) (refer to Appendix G). The scale includes thirty-two questions that addressed the three constraint levels: intrapersonal (n = 14), interpersonal (n = 8), and structural (n = 10) (Crawford et al., 1991). Respective examples of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraint items include the following: “I am too shy to start an activity”, “The people I know work too far away to start an activity with me”, and “I would do an activity if the facilities I need are not crowded”. A five-point Likert-scale ranging from one, representing strongly disagree, to five, representing strongly agree, measured the degree to which respondents either disagreed or agreed to the proposed constraints to exercise participation the corporate fitness centres. The Leisure Constraints Scale has established reliability in previous research with a .72 alpha coefficient, meaning it has acceptable reliability, however validity has not been established (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001).

Negotiation.

Negotiation was measured using the Leisure Constraint Negotiation Scale (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001) (refer to Appendix H). The scale includes thirty-four items that addressed time management (n = 15), interpersonal coordination (n = 4), skill acquisition (n = 8), and financial strategies (n = 7). Respective examples of time management, interpersonal coordination, skill acquisition, and financial strategy items include “I try to be organised”, “I arrange rides with friends”, “I try to improve my skills”, and “I have just learned to live within my means”. A Likert-scale ranging from one, representing never, to five, representing very often, measured

the frequency with which respondents used each strategy to negotiate constraints to exercise participation in corporate fitness centres. The Leisure Constraint Negotiation Scale has established reliability with an alpha coefficient score of .89, meaning it has good reliability however, validity has not been established (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001).

Motivation.

Motivation was measured using the Exercise Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-E) (Ryan & Connell, 1989) (refer to Appendix I). The SRQ-E incorporates items representing external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic motivation dimensions as sub-scales. Three items comprised each sub-scale. Respective examples of external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic motivation items include the following: “Because others like me better when I am in shape”, “Because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t do it”, “Because working out is important and beneficial for my health and lifestyle”, and “Because I simply enjoy working out”. A seven-point Likert- scale ranging from one, representing not true at all, to seven representing very true, measured how true each item statement was for the respondent. The SRQ-E has established reliability, with sub-scale alphas ranging from .61 - .85 (Ryan & Connell, 1989), meaning motivation sub- scales range from questionable to good reliability, however, validity has not been established.

4.3.1.3 Pilot testing.

Pilot testing the online questionnaire had several purposes. These included: to ensure questionnaire instructions and question wording were clear and concise; to ascertain the logical order of the questions; to test the aesthetics and online commands, such as skip logics; and to measure completion time (Dillman et al., 2014). The pilot testing procedure comprised three- steps, which were expert panel review, adjustment, and distribution (Dillman et al., 2014).

Expert panel review was step-one, with the purpose to obtain feedback, as these experts possessed special knowledge in the field of constraints research. Previous research (e.g. Alexandris, Grouios, Tsorbatzoudis, & Bliatsou, 2001; Hung & Petrick, 2012) used panels consisting of three to seven experts. The investigator in this research recruited three academics recognised for their expertise in leisure constraints research and two Australian fitness industry professionals recognised for the expertise in the Australian health and fitness industry, to review the questionnaire. The researcher used face-to-face interaction to obtain questionnaire feedback (Dillman et al., 2014). Four expert panellists, however, who were unable to provide face-to-face feedback supplied the information via email.

A secondary panel was invited to review the questionnaire. The secondary panel comprised employees from a large Australian organisation who had access to a corporate fitness centre. The purpose of the secondary panel was to obtain an employees’ perspective of the questionnaire. Six employees comprised the secondary panel. The investigator sought face- to-face feedback, with two secondary panellists who could not meet with the investigator, sending their feedback via email.

Adjustment was step-two in this pilot testing process. The purpose was to action questionnaire modifications from the suggestions gained from the expert panel. Suggestions included the questions pertaining to age and sex that required minor modifications. These question items were changed to open-ended questions. No further action was required to adjust other elements in the questionnaire.

Distribution was step-three of the pilot testing process, with the purpose of testing the distribution protocol. The investigator invited a large Australian organisation, with a corporate fitness centre, into the pilot study to test the distribution protocol. The Australian organisation accepted the invitation and sent the questionnaire to employees on the corporate fitness centre

mailing list. An invitation and reminder was sent to these employees as per the guidelines provided by the investigator (refer to Appendix J). Employees completed the questionnaire, with no further issues developing through the pilot distribution. The investigator and supervisors of this research undertook a final review of the questionnaire and distribution protocol, with no additional actions being required. Therefore, it was determined the online questionnaire was ready for national distribution.