The questionnaire was pre-tested prior to the execution of the actual data collection. Pre-testing was the very last step before the actual distribution of the questionnaire. This step is very important for mitigating inherent bias from the questionnaire design such as ambiguous questions, wording and order of the questions (Bolton 1993; Schwartz 2002). Items lacking clarity or inappropriate delivery for participants might be identified during the pre-test process. Pre- testing is also important for validating the contents of the questionnaire with the delivery purposes (Armando et al. 2008). Comments and feedback from the pre- test are used to refine the questions and to ensure that the time taken to complete the questionnaire is satisfactory. Subsequently, the questionnaire was subjected to some modifications based on the comments and suggestions from the pre-test samples.
As suggested by Passmore et al. (2002), two stages of pre-testing were taken to refine and improve the quality of the questionnaire. These two-stage pre-tests not only identified any inherent errors, but also resulted in a shorter questionnaire, such as rewrite or drop an item due to redundancy or possibility of creating uncertainty to the participants (Cooper & Schindler 2011; Passmore et al. 2002). The two-stage pre-tests involved a researcher pre-testing and a collaborative pre- test (Cooper & Schindler 2011). The researcher pre-testing was taken as the first step in order to validate the construct of the questionnaire. This step involved a review of the questionnaire by academic experts and research colleagues. In total, the researcher pre-testing process involved two academic experts and two research
colleagues. The review was conducted in the daily environment of academic and research activities. The purpose of this step includes assessment of the ease of administration of the survey, that all necessary items covered the concept, and the clarity of items and instructions. The researcher pre-testing resulted in feedback which was then followed up by making fine adjustments to validate and prepare the questionnaire for the collaborative pre-test. For example, items A9 – A14 (Appendix B1) were written as a long list of repetitive questions with the five- point Likert scale placed at the side of each item. Via researcher pre-testing, it was found that the questions involved similarities in maintenance management activities. The items were therefore rearranged in a matrix form as seen in Appendix B1.
The collaborative pre-test involved broader pre-testing samples. As there are no general principles of good pre-testing (Cooper & Schindler 2011), a mix- background of pre-testing samples was selected to ensure that comprehensive feedback could be gained in order to improve the quality of the questionnaire. The collaborative pre-testing involved a sample of twelve consisting of four academic experts, three professionals from shipping companies in Australia and Indonesia, one member of the general public and four research colleagues in the Department of Maritime and Logistics Management, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania. The academic experts sample were those with a background in maritime and supply chain management, thereby contributing to the construct of the questionnaire in terms of academic approach and question wording to ensure accuracy and clarity of the questionnaire. Feedback from the
professionals provided invaluable insights from the potential sample of the targeted population of the survey. Their feedback provided insights into whether the questionnaire covers topics relevant to the interests of the targeted population, which contributes to the success in gaining the required response rate (Jenkinson 2004; Schirmer 2009). Feedback from the member of the general public provided information related to ethical issues in conducting the survey.
A set of hard copies of the questionnaire and their accompanying letters (see Appendix C) was delivered to the participants in the collaborative pre-test. This document included a pre-testing letter and a set of survey documents (the cover letter (see Appendix E1), the participant information sheet (see Appendix F1), the questionnaire (see Appendix B1) and a sample of the reminder letter (see Appendix G1), reminder postcard (see Appendix H1) and stamped return envelope). By means of a pre-testing letter (see Appendix C), the pre-test samples were clearly informed about the objectives of the pre-test, the procedure for conducting the postal survey and the major issues to be highlighted from the pre- test. To undertake the pre-test, the pre-test samples were asked to assess the reading convenience level of the questionnaire’s layout, the clarity of the instructions, the content of the questionnaire, the occurrences of ambiguous words and/or questions and the potential duration for completing the questionnaire.
Following the pre-testing process, the questionnaire was then adjusted based on the pre-test samples’ comments and suggestions. Some questions were revised after the pre-testing; for example in question item D8 of the questionnaire the term ‘mutual need’ replaced the term ‘… interdependency rather than power’ as it
was deemed to be an unusual term in the industry. Some adjustments were also made to some of the wording of the items following the feedback which suggested they were not suitable for delivering the questions to the industry people who will comprise the actual sample of the research.
The two stages of pre-testing, as suggested by Passmore et al. (2002), were completed in order to verify the accuracy, brevity and clarity of the questionnaire. The average time to complete the questionnaire was reported to be in the range of 25 to 30 minutes. The average length as indicated from the pre-testing results should prevent the participants from cognitive fatigue which may cause nonresponse bias or bias to their answers (see Ackerman & Kanfer 2009; Jensen, Berry & Kummer 2013). Therefore, apart from any flaw that might inadvertently have been overlooked during these steps, the questionnaire was ready for the administration process for executing the primary data collection.