The questionnaire layout

The layout of a questionnaire survey is a key consideration a researcher must

bear in mind. In designing the research instrument for this study, and to ensure

that respondents easily understand and complete the survey effectively the

layout, length, sequence of question and overall presentation were carefully

considered.

Frary (2002) notes that there is sparse research on the effect of clearly printed

and well laid out questionnaire on response rate but however opine that an

attractive questionnaire will likely stimulate better response. Frary (2002)

further notes that experienced researchers will be inclined to place considerable

emphasis on extrinsic characteristics of questionnaires. In similar vein

Saunders et al., (2007) argue that it is advisable for a survey form to be

attractive in order to encourage respondent to fill and return it. The

questionnaire used in this study did not suffer appearance problem because an

online software tool, Surveyor, which has a number of style templates for type-

faces and colour, was utilised.

In addition to appearance, the sequence of questions is another factor in

questionnaire design. It has been argued that respondents will find it relatively

easier to answer questions and complete a survey form if the questions build

progressively (Hague, 1993; Sarantakos, 1998; Saunders et al., 2007).

Evidence indicates that dividing questions logically into topics will aid subjects

through the questionnaire completion process (Hague, 1993). Based on the

above argument, related items were grouped into sections. As there was no

reason for general questions such as the number of visit to the attraction the

questionnaire started with questions on the attraction’s attribute performance.

Inclusion of a warm-up questions as suggested by Leones (1998) would have

increased the length of the questionnaire unnecessarily. It was ensured that

questions flowed logically (Hague, 1993; Sarantakos, 1998). Personal and

questions of sensitive nature were placed towards the end of the questionnaire

as Frary (2002) indicates that placing such questions at the beginning may

discourage respondents from completing the questionnaire. The questionnaire

(see Appendix 3) included eight matrix questions presented on Likert scales,

three free text questions and four multiple choice questions. A basic protocol

was that the questionnaire was easy to understand and quick to complete.

The first five matrix questions were designed to gather information on the

perceived quality of the attractions. Specifically, the five questions enquired

about the performance of the attractions’ attributes. The respondents were

asked to rate the attributes performance on a Likert-type scales ranging from 1

representing ‘very poor’ to 5 ‘very good’. 0 represented ‘Don’t Know’.

Question 1 was ‘rate Alton Towers [Blists Hill Victorian Town] on the

following Amenity Attributes using the range of options provided’. Question 2

was ‘rate Alton Towers [Blists Hill Victorian Town] on the following Staff

Attributes using the range of options provided’. Question 3 was ‘rate Alton

Tower [Blists Hill Victorian Town] on the following Physical Setting

Attributes using the range of options provided’. Question 4 gathered

information on the case attractions’ retail attributes by asking respondents to

‘rate Alton Towers [Blists Hill Victorian Town] on the following Retail

Attributes using the range of options provided’. Finally on attraction attributes,

question 5 was: ‘rate Alton Towers [Blists Hill Victorian Town] on the

following Experience Attributes using the range of options provided’

Questions 6 and 7 were free text open questions designed to explore in depth

the respondents’ view on what they consider the best feature of the attraction or

their least favourite feature. They were requested to provide a brief rationale

for their answer.

The last three matrix questions measured perceived value, visitor satisfaction

and behavioural intentions. Question 8 was designed to examine the

respondents’ level of agreement with 10 perceived value items. They were

requested to indicate their level of agreement with the ten items on a 5 point

Likert scale labelled ‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neither Agree Nor

Disagree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Strongly Agree’ and ‘Don’t Know’. Question 9 explored

satisfaction on the same scale as perceived value with four items derived from

the literature. Visitor satisfaction was measured using a multi-item scale

adapted from Oliver’s (1997) universal scale. Similarly, question 10 used three

items derived from the literature to measure behavioural intentions on a Likert-

like scale labelled ‘Extremely Unlikely’, ‘Unlikely’, ‘Neither Unlikely Nor

Likely’, ‘Likely’, Extremely Likely’ and ‘Don’t Know’. Behavioural intentions

was measured employing measures similar to Baker and Crompton (2000);

Brady, Cronin and Brand (2002); Lee, Petrick and Crompton (2007) and

Zabka, Brencic, and Dmitrovic’s (2010) comprising items relating to loyalty,

repeat visits and recommendations.

The four multiple choice questions dealt with socio-demographic

characteristics of the participants. Question 11 was ‘Who were you with?’

Question 12 was ‘How many people were in your group?’ question 13 was

‘What is your gender?’ and question 14 being ‘What is your age group?’ The

last question was a free text type eliciting respondent occupation.

The characteristics of items and sections in the two questionnaires constructed

for this study and their subsequent structuring emanated from the review of the

pertinent literature, an analysis of an initial interviews with a cross-section of

attraction visitors and an evaluation of data from freely elicited opinions of a

group of first year university students who had been to the two case attractions.

In addition, a content analysis of the case attractions’ promotional material

(website) and an expert opinion survey were also used. The contents and

framing of each question, the choice format, the arrangement of individual

questions in each section and the layout and overall structure of the

questionnaires were carefully considered. This was done to reduce

measurement error to an acceptable level, collect reliable information for data

analysis and to effectively test the research hypotheses and address the overall

aims and objectives of the study.

Having followed necessary procedures in constructing the questionnaires used

in this study as enumerated above, the need to get them ready for fieldwork in

order to discover how respondents interpret the questions (Altinay and

Paraskevas, 2008) became a crucial step to take as pre-testing an instrument

before the actual data collection exercise is as vital as framing questions hence;

an essential part of the methodological procedure (Finn et al., 2000).