Handbook of Management Scales/Quality performance
Quality performance (alpha = 0.840; composite reliability = 0.846; average variance extracted = 0.65)[edit | edit source]
Description[edit | edit source]
Multi-item constructs served as variables for four performance measures of quality performance, delivery performance, flexibility performance and cost performance. Construct validity was given by satisfactory psychometric properties on content validity, unidimensionality, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity. The development and design of the survey instrument by an international group of senior researchers, as well as the grounding of each measurement item in empirical operations management literature, assured content validity.
Items[edit | edit source]
Respondents were asked to indicate their performance relative to their competitors' performance on a number of dimensions, using a scale ranging from "far worse" (value = 1) to "far better" (value = 7).
- Product features
- Product performance
- Perceived overall product quality
Source[edit | edit source]
- Power et al. (2010): The cultural characteristic of individualism/collectivism: A comparative study of implications for investment in operations between emerging Asian and industrialized Western countries. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 206-222
Comments[edit | edit source]
The endpoints of the scale are "far worse" (value = 1) and "far better" (value = 7). Therefore, an optimal mean value would be 4, if normal-distributed data is aimed at. However, all mean values are above 5. Therefore other endpoints might me recommendable to shift the mean value to 4.