B i l l N i c h o l s – 4 . R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y … … … . P a g e | 117
Table 4.7: Perceived Value Scale-Items #
Item: Reflecting now on your overall opinions of your PR consultancy… to what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements:
LA
Source
1
Considering the fees we are paying and the results we are obtaining, I believe we are receiving value for money
No P&S
2
What we are getting back justifies what we are putting in
No Olsen and Johnson 2003
3
The consultancy’s fees are acceptable
No Hellier et al 2003
4
Compared to what I know of competitive alternatives, we are obtaining fair value.
No Yang and Petersen 2004
Notes
Footnote: (1) Four-item, seven-point bipolar scale anchored ‘strongly agree/strongly disagree’; (2) Theoretical underpinning: Chapters Two (2.6) and Three (3.2); (3) LA = Language Adaptation; P&S = Patterson and Spreng (1997); (4) Source: Various as indicated.
4.5.8 Construct 6 – Disconfirmation
In default of an option in the primary instrument sources, the adopted two-item Disconfirmation scale is based on its empirically validated delivery of greatest effectiveness among five options (Spreng and Page 2002).
Table 4.8: Disconfirmation Scale-Items #
Item: thinking about the consultancy’s work in the last few months:
LA
Source
1
How closely did its overall performance meet the expectations you held at the time you last reviewed the firm?
Yes
Spreng and Page 2003
2
How do you feel about the firm’s performance over the period since your last review
Yes
Spreng and Page 2003
© Bill Nichols (2009).
Notes