Holt, G D (2014) Asking questions, analysing answers: Relative importance revisited. Construction Innovation, 14(1), pp. 2-16. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Construction management research (CMR) surveys frequently use questionnaires that employ “Likert-type” items, Likert-items, and Likert scales to capture respondents' self-reported attitudes. This Editorial builds substantially on earlier observations by Holt regarding the significance of appropriate questionnaire response scale design and, use of the relative importance index (RII) method to analyse those data such scales yield. The paper aims to discuss these issues. – Several RII models are examined by their application to a data set. Objectives include to contrast their practicality in use, compare outputs, highlight limitations of some models and discuss methods of RII data analysis, interrogation and interpretation. – Principal messages are: all components of response scales should be carefully designed; alternative RII models can produce similar results of analysis; “simple percentage” RII models may not yield “real” percentages; the minimum rating scale integer should accurately reflect its descriptor; only rating scales offering a “0” response, or an “adjusted percentage” RII model can achieve unity; and RII outputs should be interpreted cautiously. – Uncertain application of the RII has been observed within CMR literature, so implications of the Editorial will be of direct relevance to this research community (and beyond). – Aside from that cited above, no additional literature has been identified that specifically links RII usage to CMR.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | data analysis; likert; questionnaires; relative importance; scales; surveys |
| Index terms: | editorial, Likert scale, questionnaire, relative importance, management research, data analysis, relative importance index, survey |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, risk assessment, research design and methodology, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 CTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here