Ding, Z and Ng, F (2007) Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of McAllister's trust scale. Construction Management and Economics, 25(11), pp. 1107-1117. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
While most trust scales have their original versions in English, few attempts have been made to study the reliability and validity of their translated versions. Among the trust scales available in the literature, McAllister's cognition- and affect-based trust scale is a self-rating scale, developed to test the trust relationship between managers and professionals. It is translated into Chinese with translation/ back-translation technique and used in a survey among architects in Mainland China to measure interpersonal trust in a design team. Reliability analysis shows that Cronbach alphas for cognition-based and affect-based trust are found to be high (0.803 and 0.841 respectively). First-order and second-order confirmatory factor analysis with Amos 6.0 are conducted to test the validity of the two-dimensional structure. Structural equation modelling method is used to test the nomological validity of the translated trust scale with respect to architects' willingness to share knowledge in a design team. Findings suggest that the two-dimensional structure of the McAllister's trust scale can be applied to Chinese architects. Moreover, the cognition- and affect-based trust scale could be used in a more general context. The positive relationship between the two-dimensional trust and architects' willingness to share knowledge is also confirmed, which substantiates the nomological validity of the translated trust scale.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architect; confirmatory factor analysis; scale; translation; trust |
| Index terms: | validity, reliability analysis, architect, survey, confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modelling, design team, manager, China, cognition |
| Subjects: | professional practice, profession, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, practitioner, reliability engineering, cognitive psychology, statistical analysis, Geography |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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