Ding, Z and Ng, F (2008) A new way of developing semantic differential scales with personal construct theory. Construction Management and Economics, 26(11), pp. 1213-1226. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Measurement is a fundamental issue in management research. However, traditional scale development methods have the drawback of mixing researchers' bias with the scale design. Based on Ding et al.'s (2007) exploratory work, a new way to develop semantic differential measurement scales is proposed and tested with a survey in the context of the construction industry. The purpose is to provide researchers and practitioners with a new method to develop semantic differential scales for measurement while the bias from their own perspective can be reduced. The reliability and validity of semantic differential scales according to the new method are tested with SPSS and Amos 6.0. The results show that the generated semantic differential scales with this method have high reliability and validity. The new way to develop semantic differential scales offers researchers and practitioners one more choice of scale development. The general application of this new method to other contexts is yet to be tested.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | confirmatory factor analysis; exploratory factor analysis; full grid technique; personal construct theory; semantic differential scale |
| Index terms: | validity, scale development, construction industry, survey, confirmatory factor analysis, management research, personal construct theory, exploratory factor analysis, practitioner, bias |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, statistical analysis, cognitive psychology, measurement and scaling, probability and distributions, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PTEA |
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