CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.3 Research Instruments
19) Freedom refers to freely presenting ideas for job development, having the opportunity to do their best and take part in the decision making process within the organization, with the freedom to work and express their ideas.
20) Participative safety refers to safety at work, not being blamed when presenting new ideas, and when mistakes occur they receive reasonable punishment.
21) Striving for excellence means the staff attempts to do their best while applying suggestions from their team to their jobs, checking each other’s control and acknowledging increases in performance.
22) Support for innovation means encouraging employees to practice their skills to continually improve their expertise, support operations that are beneficial toward organizational change, manage rules and regulations to support the operation, and receive proper funding for project implementation, while supporting creative staff and always advising their staff.
4) Verify the quality of instruments using validity and reliability tests.
5) Adjust the instruments according to the validity tests and pre-tests.
3.3.1.2 The Instrument Details are as Follows:
1) Demographics
There were seven questions asked of the respondents, which required them to provide information on their gender, age, education level, employment status, current position, and time spent at their current position.
2) The Organizational Effectiveness Assessment was developed from Quinn and Rohrbaugh’ s organizational effectiveness assessment (1983). It consists of 22 items to measure four observed variables: 1) rational goal, items 1-5; 2) internal process, items 6-10; 3) open system, items11-14; and 4) human relations, items15-22.
3) The Transformational Leadership Assessment was developed from Bass and Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Style (MLQ-5x) (1994). It consists of 21 items to measure four observed variables: 1) idealized influence, items 1-5; 2) inspirational motivation, items 6-10; 3) intellectual stimulation, items 11-16; and 4) individualized consideration, items17-21.
4) The Innovation Climate Assessment was developed from (De Drue & West, 2001; De Jong, 2007; Roderic, 2007) innovation climate assessment. It consists of 17 items to measure four observed variables: 1) freedom, items 1-5; 2) participative safety, items 6-7; 3) striving for excellence, items9-11; and 4) support for innovation, items13-17.
5) The Organizational Culture Assessment was developed from Sashkin and Rosenbach’s organizational culture assessment (2013). It consists of 22 items to measure five observed variables: 1) managing change, items 1-4; 2) achieving goals, items5-8; 3) coordinated teamwork, items 9-12; 4) customer orientation, items 13-17; and 5) cultural strength, items 18-22.
A five-point Likert-type scale was used to assess how the participant’s organization was perceived according to the questions, where:
5 refers to the level of practice that occurred in the organization as “highest”
4 refers to the level of practice that occurred in the organization as “high”
3 refers to the level of practice that occurred in the organization as “moderate”
2 refers to the level of practice that occurred in the organization as “low”
1 refers to the level of practice that occurred in the organization as “lowest”
All items used afive point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = lowest to 5 = highest. Thus, according to the five levels of frequency, the interpretation of these responses was calculated by using the following formula (Boonchom Srisaart, 2000):
Interval = the highest score – the lowest score number of intervals
For this reason, the interval scale in this study was:
Interval = 5 – 1 = 0.8 5
Therefore, the range of five levels of frequency were detailed as below:
1.00 - 1.80 refers to the lowest level of practice 1.81 - 2.60 refers to a low level of practice 2.61 - 3.40 refers to a moderate level of practice 3.41 - 4.20 refers to a high level of practice 4.21 - 5.00 refers to the highest level of practice
3.3.2 Quality of Research Instruments 1) Validity
Validity refers to the degree to which a scale performs the function it was designed to perform. Evaluation of scale validity requires investigating the extent to which a scale is measuring what it was designed to measure.
The validity of the questionnaire was established by using the Expert method, which is called content validity. The content validity of measurement in this study was reviewed by three scholars in the field. The Index of Item – Objective Congruence ( IOC) was used so as to find the content validity. In this process, the questionnaire was checked by three experts.
The Index of Item – Objective Congruence (IOC) was used to evaluate the items of the questionnaire based on a score ranging from -1 to +1
Congruent = +1 Questionable = 0 Incongruent = -1 The formula of IOC is
IOC = N
RWhere IOC = Index of Item – Objective Congruence
R = Sum of Expert’s score N = Number of ExpertsItems that had scores lower than 0.5 were revised. On the other hand, items that had scores higher than or equal to 0.5 were reserved. All of the items in this study had IOC more than 0.8. Thus, all the items were reserved.
2) Reliability
In order to ensure the reliability of the measurement instruments, reliability was obtained using the Statistical Package for Social Science to analyze the data on the proposed scales. The coefficient was calculated by using Cronbach’ s Alpha internal consistency method. A pretest was carried out to evaluate the survey.
Forty staff of a logistics service business who were not part of the sample group participated in the pretest.
The acceptability of the coefficient alpha should be at least 0. 7, and reliability is considered unacceptable if less than 0.4. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha is shown in table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Reliability of the Questionnaires
Questionnaire Number of items Reliability
1. Organizational effectiveness 22 0.899
2. Transformational leadership 21 0.965
3. Innovation climate 17 0.953
4. Organizational culture 22 0.949
Total 82 0.981
According to the pre-test, the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.981, so the questionnaire was highly reliable.