In Study 1, the scale of CPRI was developed. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify theme and generated the initial pool to 42 items. An expert review was conducted for content and face validity and then 26 items were retained for the next step: item purification and refinement.
Content analysis using NVivo Written interviews
Item generation is the most vital element that constitutes proper measures (Hinkin, 1995). To establish content validity at this stage, content analysis of written-interview data and existing literature were analyzed as guides to distinguish recurring themes (Grant & Davis,1997) that
exhibit patterns across data sets. In-depth interviewing is an effective approach for attaining insights into phenomena of interest because respondents offer thorough contextual information that cannot be acquired from survey approaches (Malhotra, Hall, Shaw, & Oppenheim, 2006). In this study, group discussions and in-depth, open-ended personal written interviews were
conducted with a form obtained from AESHM340, a course taught in Hospitality and Apparel Marketing Strategies at Iowa State University. The description of this course is as follow: “Application of marketing principles to the hospitality-, events-, and apparel-related industries. Emphasis on the role of marketing in an organization's overall strategic planning. Development and evaluation techniques available to hospitality, events, apparel, and related businesses, including advertising, sales promotion, packaging, and public relations”. The qualitative data helped generate themes and develop more substantive insights with respect to CPRI. The open- ended nature of the questions allowed respondents to describe their understanding of the term “innovative restaurant.” The interview questions were:
1. In your opinion, which brand is the most innovative in the foodservice industry? 2. Please give examples to explain the reason you think that this restaurant provides
higher innovation than other competitors do.
3. Does the restaurant offer innovative services and products, in your opinion, that influence your decision to visit the restaurant?
Procedures and coding
A qualitative content analysis was applied to analyze the written-interview data. The technique identifies theme importance rather than word and category quantification (Flick, 2014). Written-interview transcripts were content analyzed using QSR's NVivo 11 software, a
widely accepted analysis tool for qualitative research (Malhotra et al., 2006) and one that was useful in identifying themes and codes pertinent to CPRI in the present study. Written-interview records generated approximately 47 transcript pages that were checked for accuracy and
imported into NVivo 11. The text associated with each code was printed, revisited and refined to identify key themes.
Thematic analysis allowed the author to develop an initial coding set and a coding manual. “Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 76). This analysis process was in line with the six phases of thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006): becoming familiar with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming
themes, and producing a report. More specific analysis procedures followed the Nvivo 11
guidelines (QSR International, 2015).
Ongoing comparison analysis was used to synthesize themes from the NVivo 11 codes after identifying nodes from written words, phrases, and sentences. Highest-level nodes were selected through a process of linking or deleting similar nodes while analyzing nodes were created from the initial coding. Final nodes resulted from repeated analysis of written interview transcripts: the coding and refinement of combining themes.
A qualitative content analysis was conducted and resulted in four observed dimensions and 16 themes believed to be associated with CPRI. The themes were cross-checked, based on a review of literature related to consumer perceived innovativeness: e.g., product (Dell'Era & Verganti, 2011), firm (Kunz et al., 2011), retail, (Lin, 2015), brand levels (Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010), and consumer innovativeness (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991) as part of the item
report by Lin (2015), and slightly modified. The initial priori codes were refined and modified by including transcribed interview data (King, 1994; Crabtree & Miller, 1999). The above- described procedure for scale development was instrumental in generating the initial pool of 56 primary items. Subsequent editing of redundant statements reduced the initial pool to 42 items. Not all redundant items were eliminated since the goal was to maximize the content validity of the scale; a degree of redundancy should ensure internal consistency at this stage of scale development (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 1991).
Expert review for content and face validity
Face validity reflecting the intention of measure and content validity to represent a proper sample of construct domains was assessed at this stage of item generation. Item refinement was conducted through expert review (DeVellis, 1991; Grant & Davis, 1997) to select appropriate items and to prevent subjectivity in analyzing qualitative data. The panel of experts comprised eleven experts: six professors, three Ph.D. students in the hospitality field, and two professionals in English communication. The panel represented “a judgment sample of persons who can offer some ideas and insights into the phenomenon” (Churchill, 1979, p67).
Face validity is a subjective assessment defined as the extent to which a concept
measures what it is intended to measure (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Social scientists cannot assess content validity with empirical observation because most concepts examined are abstract rather than concrete. Thus, face validity can be evaluated only by examining the opinions expressed by a community of scholars and its measurements made with a high level of validity. In the present study, expert review enabled the author to generate and judge measurement items and ensure the face validity of constructs. Forty-two items were subjected to expert review in a
sorting process to identify and delete theoretically incoherent items. This review process ensured that items demonstrated content adequacy essential for valid measurement (Hinkin, 1995;
Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993). The panel of experts, following the instructions suggested by Grant and Davis (1997), were asked to consider three elements when evaluating the CPRI instrument: representativeness, comprehensiveness, and clarity. Expert opinions addressed item elimination, focused on redundancy, un-correlation, content ambiguity (Hardesty & Bearden 2004), and construct scale representation (Zaichkowsky, 1985). The initial scale for CPRI was modified, revised, and improved to enhance clarity and face validity based on feedback from the review panel; 16 items from the initial pool were eliminated in this process, and 26 were retained.