RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.13 Measurement instruments used in the study
Sekaran and Bougie, (2013) explained measurement instrument as the tool used in allocating figures or qualitative characteristics to entities using a specific rule. Questionnaire served as the major data collection instrument simplified by a Likert type rating scale system.
5.13.1 General Efficacy Scale (GES)
This is a ten-item psychometric scale developed to assess optimistic self-belief to cope with diverse real-life challenges, designed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). GES is a reliable measuring instrument that facilitates the assessment of perceived self-efficacy, which enables the prediction of the individual’s stress tolerance in coping with daily life hassles and adaptation after experiencing challenging and stressful events. The construct of perceived self-efficacy reflects on self-beliefs and the confidence that one can cope with life difficult situations.
It is however, important to clarify here that the study adopted some characteristics of GES as a measuring tool, not on a scalar value as GES was originally designed but tends to assess explicit personal belief that success is attributable to personal efforts and that individuals have greater influence on their level of success. Constructs like perseverance, effort-
136
investment, goal setting, recovery tendency, stress, depression, health, family, societal expectation, quality of life and financial independence are assessed by GES. The reliability test and internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranges from 0.76 to 0.90 and its validity was enhanced by its correlation to emotional positive expectation, self- independence, behavioural changes and work satisfaction, while the adverse factors were found in depression, stress, anxiety, exhaustion, and stress health related issues (Jerusalem &
Schwarzer, 1992; Zhang & Schwarzer, 1995; Reuter et al., 2010; Komarraju et al., 2017). In view of this, GES was considered suitable by this study to assess psychological factors impeding successful entrepreneurial behaviour among youths in Mpumalanga.
Focusing on stress as mediating variable; the questionnaire was designed to contain 10 questions each in line with the design of GES with 5-point Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) rating above 4-point Likert because it produces better data quality, internal consistency and discriminative validity, which is considered important to draw honest response in a situation where respondents do not have a straight answer (Streiner
&Norman, 2003; StatisticsNorway, 2006).
The close-ended part of the research instrument in section ‘B’ was sub-divided into four parts with 10 questions each, with GES applied in developing each question to assess self-belief, optimism, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial traits, knowledge, skills, stress, fear and other psychological factors contained in general question parts and psychological factors impediments parts of the questionnaire (Luszczynska, Gutierrez-Dona & Schwarzer, 2005;
Mitlag & Schwarzer, 1993; Reuter et al., 2010).
5.13.2 Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
PSS was developed by Cohen, Kamarck and Mermelstein (1983) to assess the extent to which a condition in one’s life is considered stressful. Discussions under literature review of this study explained potency of perceived stress and its impact on both physical and psychological state of health of individual. PSS was employed to assess what respondents perceived stressful, the extent to which these perceived stress is associated between psychological, psychiatric and physical disorders, with questions focusing on perceived family stress, self-worth, general view of life, anger and exhaustion captured to assess the gravity of perceived stressful situations among youths in Mpumalanga province (Cohen et al., 1983; Holzel et al., 2010; Lee, 2012).
137
PSS reliability was measured for internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranging from 0.84 to 0.86. Robert et al., (2006) and Taylor (2015) had similar reliability score 0.82 and 0.85 in a university sample for scores on perceived helplessness and perceived self- efficacy scale. However, as this study modified PSS to measure perceived stress not only on a scalar value and adopted several measuring instruments to ensure a proper capture of several militating issues among youths in the province, there is likelihood the score might not be as high but will fall within the acceptable threshold. PSS validation was tested by its correlation to other similar symptoms ranging from 0.52 to 0.76 (Cohen et al, 1983, Holzel et al., 2010; Robert et al., 2006; Taylor, 2015). It is a 10-question measuring instrument with Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) adopted to suit the study. PSS was considered suitable hence adopted in developing the questionnaire to assess the degree of perceived stress among Mpumalanga youths. Questions like (a) I sometimes feel I cannot cope with life, (b) I feel as if the whole world is against me, (c) I think I am not ready for the stress/challenges that comes with starting a new business, are specifically drawn to assess perceived stress among youths in the province as this is considered as a major factor impeding entrepreneurial behaviours.
5.13.3 Measuring Readiness for Entrepreneurship
Meta-analytic reviews suggested there is wide-range of issues needed to be considered to properly measure this construct; however, it is more scientifically acceptable to adopt some specific constructs in designing an acceptable instrument (Conduras et al., 2016). In designing an entrepreneurship related assessment instrument, what should be paramount is
‘readiness for entrepreneurship’ and this construct is explained as union of personal abilities that differentiates a person with inclination for entrepreneurship particularly capable of detecting and evaluating their environment in such a way that they harness their inventive and conscientious potential, so they may deploy their capability to challenge and need for achievement (Conduras et al., 2016). In view of this, the study identified five important factors necessary in assessing the construct: (a) age (Harms et al, 2014; Hatak, Harms &
Fink, 2015) (b) family (Özcan, 2011; Dunn & Holtz-Eakin, 2000) (c) entrepreneurial education (Chen et al., 2015; Jimenez et al., 2015; Oehler, Hoefer & Schalkowski, 2015) (d) need for achievement (Begley & Boyd, 1987) and (e) balanced entrepreneurial skills (Lazear, 2004).
138
The remaining two sub-divisions of the total four close-ended questions of section ‘B’ were used to assess the following constructs: (3) Lack of information on economic and natural resources in Mpumalanga and (4) Influence of political environment on entrepreneurship. It is important to mention here that part of the above constructs was also assessed in the first two questions (Question 1& 2). A 10-question measuring instrument with Likert scale rating of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was developed for each and ANOVA and Welch was used to compare the responses of youths from each district on these questions to draw inferences.