Organisational perspective (From 5 items) Average
Rank
1. I am satisfied with information about this hotel’s policies and goals. 4 2. I am satisfied with information about government policies and regulations
affecting this hotel.
3
3. I am satisfied with information about changes in our hotel. 4
4. I am satisfied with information about our hotel's financial standing. 3 5. I am satisfied with information about accomplishments and/ or failures of
this hotel.
5
Personal Feedback (From 5 items)
1. I am satisfied with information about how my job compares with others. 3
2. I am satisfied with information about how I am being judged. 4
3. I am satisfied with recognition of my efforts. 5
4. I am satisfied with reports on how problems in my job are being handled. 4 5. I am satisfied that my superiors know and understand the problems faced
by subordinates.
3
Pilot Questionnaire Development and Pilot Study (Pilot study)
After analysing expert judgement panel ratings, the study of Hair and Lukas (2014) suggests that the researchers should use the questionnaire in the pilot study to makes sure the questionnaire meets all the information objectives. However, this current study observes phenomena in a developing country context (Thailand), therefore the pilot questionnaire has been translated from the English source questionnaire into Thai by a native Thai speaker who works as a lecturer in translation studies in a university in Thailand. Additionally, the questionnaires (English and Thai versions) were sent to Thai subject experts for comments and feedback. In particular, the experts were asked to provide feedback on the new items, adequacy of translation and questionnaire design. The experts approved the new items as representative and verified that Thai consumer-facing employees are accustomed to the designed response style and chosen response anchors.
144
Hair and Lukas (2014) suggest that the pilot study should come from people representing the individuals who will be asked to actually fill out the survey. Therefore, a sample of 50 respondents was involved in the study that comes from Thai consumer-facing employees in a hotel in Thailand. They were asked to provide qualitative feedback on any aspect of the questionnaire including words, phrases, instructions, and question flow patterns and point out anything they felt was confusing, difficult to understand, or otherwise a problem (Hair & Lukas, 2014). When using the pilot study (Appendix 5.4), this feedback was useful for handling wording issues and analysing reliability/ validity issues at this point.
Finally, the questionnaire was made into its final format so the collection of data could begin (Appendix 5.5). The final questionnaire was used in the main survey that was translated form English to Thai.
Data Collection – Survey (Main Study)
As reported in Section 5.2.1.1.2, the final sample size utilised for the analysis equalled 1,747. Those utilised for analysis equalled 1,212 and 532 for high ranking and low ranking performance respectively. Data collected in the main survey served to:
- Purify and validate all measures
- Test the objective and hypotheses concerning the relationship between internal communication satisfaction and employees’ brand attitudes and performance in the concept of internal branding.
- Evaluate the influence of internal communication on employees’ behaviour from high/ low performance employees in a developing economy.
5.2.2.2.2 Measure Purification and Validation Stage: An Overview
As outlined in Table 5-3, new measure purification and validation was conducted sequentially on sample size and high/ low performance employees. The sample size was randomly split into different halves for the measure purification and validation stage, to minimise decision-
145
making based on samples’ idiosyncrasies. Samples used for the measure purification stage equalled 606 and 268 for high and low ranking performance samples respectively. Samples used for the measure validation stage equalled 606 and 267 for high and low ranking performance samples respectively.
Measure purification was conducted utilising Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and following a conventional method recommended by Churchill (1979). All items expected to tap a particular construct were factor analysed together; the first half of the sample and then the second half of the sample. Given that all seven new measures were a priori specified as unidimensional, the initial EFA sought to verify that one factor was extracted as hypothesised. Next, each construct was assessed for internal consistency to identify items displaying poor properties by inspecting the inter-item and item-total correlation values. Low inter-item and item-total correlations serve as indicators of an item not sharing common variance, and, therefore conceptual domains with other items in the construct (Netemeyer et al., 2003).
Given that Exploratory Factor Analysis in the strictest sense of the term does not provide evidence of items belonging to only one factor, item properties and factor structure of the measures were further assessed by subjecting them to a more rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) procedure (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Overall model fit indices and assessment of individual items’ residuals, composite reliability, convergent validity and measurement invariance on the first half and second half of the samples via CFA served to verify emic validity, equivalence and acceptability of final measures for pooled level analysis (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Netemeyer et al., 2003; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Finally, assessment of discriminant validity and nomological validity of new measures served to establish evidence of them possessing unique properties rather than being extensions of existing constructs and operating as expected in relation to established
146
constructs within hypothesised nomological networks. The full purification and validation process and the results of the analysis are reported in Chapter 6.
5.2.2.2.3 Assessment of Existing Measures
Four existing measures, Employees’ Brand Commitment (Mowday et al., 1979), Employees’ Brand Identification (Punjaisri, 2008), Employees’ Brand Loyalty (Punjaisri, 2008), and Employees’ Brand Performance (Punjaisri, 2008) were used in the study (Appendix 5.2). However, it is necessary to ensure that these measures’ properties are reliable and valid in the context of the conducted study’s sample. Thus, existing measure validation was conducted following recommended step-by-step validation procedure (Ping, 2004). This procedure is summarised in Table 5-9, and the results of the analysis are reported in the next Chapter 6.
Table 5-8: Existing Measures Validation Steps No. Step-by-step
description
Goal Techniques
Conducted on Full Sample (n = 1,747)
1 An assessment
of the normality of data
To ensure the data's future usability for Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Interpreting skewness and kurtosis statistics
2 Confirmation of unidimensionality
To verify a good model when specified on the pooled sample
Confirmatory Factor Analysis The Squared Multiple Correlation Fit indices examination
3 Reliability Assessment
To ensure construct validity for each final model (ideally larger than 0.6, as recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988))
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4 Convergent
Validity
To ensure that all factor coefficients are highly significant in a well-fitting model
Testing of factor loadings for each item and the average variance extracted (AVE) should exceed 0.50 for acceptability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).