Step No.
Step Description Aim Techniques
10 Measure validation on pooled half sample (n=873) 10a) Undimensionality
confirmation
To verify the model is well-fitting when specified on the pooled sample
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Residuals and square multiple correlations assessment
Fit indices examination 10b) Reliability assessment To ensure that construct reliability is acceptable (>.6, as recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988)) for each final model
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
10c) Convergent validity assessment
To ensure that the measures converge (i.e. are highly significantly
correlated) in a well- fitting model when the model is specified on the pooled sample
Examination of factor loadings for each item and assessment of average variance extracted (AVE) for acceptability (>.5, as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981)) 11 Nomological validity
assessment
To ensure the new measures operate ‘lawfully’ within a set of theoretical constructs Examination of inter- construct correlations constructed with 90% confidence interval, to ascertain confidence intervals for each pair of construct do not display unity (i.e. indicating the constructs occupy identical domains).
Source: Adapted from Kipnis (2014)
5.2.2.2.1 Measure Development Stage
Measure of internal communication satisfaction with Communication Climate (CC), Relationship to Supervisor (Relation), Organization integration (OI), Media quality (MQ), Horizontal communication (HC), Organisational perspective (OP), and Personal feedback (PF) were the new measures developed for this study. Measure development was considered to be required after the review of existing measures available in the literature identified a lack of studies approaching analysis of internal communication satisfaction in developing country contexts. Although around 7 acculturation scales exist, the majority of
140
them were developed to measure internal communication satisfaction in the context of developed countries. Measure development steps will now be detailed.
Specification of Constructs Domain
To specify the domain of the constructs, a conceptual definition of Internal Communication Satisfaction was created from the Downs-Hazen Instrument (CSQ).
Generation of Initial Items Pool
Having specified the conceptual domain for each internal communication satisfaction construct, a sample of items designed to tap each construct was developed. Items were sourced from published scales and they identified that the internal communication satisfaction could be tapped in the same way, irrespective of culture in focus. Many of the reviewed published acculturation scales (Alexander & Wilkins, 1982; Bartels et al., 2007; Downs & Hazen, 1977; Zwijze-Koning & de Jong, 2007) utilise identically-worded items adapted to tap the internal communication satisfaction with different countries (Appendix 5.1). This discovery was considered important since a measurement tool utilising identical items for the internal communication satisfaction may enhance the applicability of the scale for future studies in different country contexts and usability for practitioners.
Expert Judging (Preliminary study)
According to the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), which was developed by Downs and Hazen (1977), 7 constructs make up the set of identifiable and measurable components associated with the internal communication satisfaction constructs. To illustrate this point, this current study identifies the domains of measurable components representing the internal communication satisfaction constructs though a literature review of past research on the concept of internal branding in Chapter 3. The result suggests that 7 constructs with 59 items can be indirectly represented by the domains of internal communication in the concept of internal branding (Appendix 5.1). However, according to the study of Hair and
141
Lukas (2014), researchers need to conduct the domains of measurable components by expert judgements in the next step, in order to select and indicate for each construct of internal communication based on the given operational definitions.
According to the study of Voss, Tsikriktsis, and Frohlich (2002), expert judgement comes from the key informants who are important for providing reliable answers to the research questions. Therefore, researchers should focus attention on selecting expert judgement.
Initial discussions with the Thai Hotel Association were carried out to gain insight into the best choices for expert judgement in this current study. The expert judgement process was administered by 10 hotel managers (5 general managers of high ranking hotels and 5 general managers of low ranking hotels) who are members of the Thai Hotel Association. The general managers from the two types of hotels were considered expert judges because they could make decisions about how employees from these hotels were being informed and educated to ensure their understanding of brand values and, thus, brand supporting behaviours. To ensure that expert judging sessions are productive, a moderator’s guide must be prepared (Hair & Lukas, 2014). A moderator’s guide is a detailed outline of instructions and information to successfully complete the task. The study of Hair and Lukas (2014) suggests that a moderator’s guide uses a structured outline format with a sequence of opening, introductory, transition, substantive, and ending questions (Appendix 5.3).
Converting information from all 10 expert judgement responses so it can be transferred to a data warehouse is referred to as analysing and reporting the results. First of all, items were entered into a spreadsheet that enables the research analyst to manipulate and transform the data into useful information. Second of all, researchers must make decisions in the pilot questionnaire in order to make appropriate inclusion/ exclusion decisions based on the responses to these questions. According to the study of Hardesty and Bearden (2004), researchers can calculate the average rank of importance agreement on the items selected
142
for inclusion varied from 3 to 5. The items agreed by the expert judgement panel are shown in Table 5-8.
Table 5-7: Expert Judgement Panel agreement average rank
Communication Climate (From 8 items) Average
Rank
1. I am satisfied this hotel’s communication motivates and stimulates enthusiasm for meeting its goals.
5 2. I am satisfied the people in this hotel have great ability as communicators. 3 3. I am satisfied this hotel’s communication makes me identify with it or feel a
vital part of it.
3 4. I am satisfied I receive in time the information needed to do my job. 4 5. I am satisfied conflicts are handled appropriately through proper
communication channels.
4
Relationship to Supervisor (From 17 items)
1. My line manager strikes up informal conversations with me. 3
2. My line manager jokes well naturedly with me. 3
3. My line manager provides clear instructions to do my jobs. 3
4. My line manager tells me why job tasks are to be done. 4
5. My line manager tells me the reasons for company policies. 4
6. My line manager criticized my work in front of others. 3
7. My line manager ridicules or makes fun of me. 4
8. My line manager informs me about the hotel rules and requirements. 4 9. My line manager informs me about future plans for my work group. 3 10. My line manager asks me for suggestions about how work should be
done.
3
11. My line manager asks me for my opinions. 5
12. My line manager lets me know when I have done a good job. 5
13. My line manager lets me know how I compare with my fellow workers. 4
Organizational Integration (From 8 items)
1. I am satisfied with the information I receive about my future with this hotel. 5 2. I am satisfied with the information I receive about practical matters within
this hotel (e.g. arrival of a new colleague, annual show, or important meeting).
4
3. I am satisfied with the extent to which I hear critical this hotel issues from my employer first.
3
Media quality (From 8 items)
1. The amount of information I get from this hotel by e-mail is about right. 3
2. Communication by means of e-mail works well within this hotel. 3
3. In meetings I always hear about the latest practical and organization issues.
4
Horizontal communication (From 8 items)
1. There is a good atmosphere between colleagues in my unit. 4
2. If I want, I can also discuss personal matters with my colleagues. 3