Search results

The comparison of large volumes of complex data resulting from numerical modelling in computational electromagnetics is a demanding task, especially when validating the performance of numerical models against experimental results and testing experimental repeatability. “By‐eye” comparisons can lead to inconsistencies and inherent subjectivity. This paper establishes a “visual” benchmark by which comparisons can be made and therefore used to assist in the development of an algorithmic approach to data comparison.

This new method presented here is based on the Cooper‐Harper Rating Scale, which is a test pilot's evaluation‐rating instrument. This has been modified through qualitative research. The assertion that the rating scale will leave the group mean response unaltered but will reduce the variance has been statistically tested.

The proposed rating scale provides a calibration technique by which to benchmark comparisons. The scale also reduces subjectivity by producing an overall quantitative measure of similarity. The paper concludes with an application of the rating scale to assessment of a candidate algorithmic approach against correlation.

The research findings are based on small data sets, which is a limit imposed by the industrial environment in which this scale will be used.

This paper provides a tool to overcome some of the key substantial difficulties in communicating similarity or difference, namely that “similarity” and “difference” have no stand‐alone definition, there is a lack of a shared language for the comparisons and little commonality for a decision‐making framework.

This paper provides modellers and experimentalists in computational electromagnetics (particularly electromagnetic compatibility) with a structured approach to quantifying the quality of comparative results.

Engagement is a construct that varies according to the subject, object and context; this has been used to justify the coexistence of a variety of construct definitions and scales. Instead of proposing a new scale, this paper aims to create a procedure for comparing scales and to use it to evaluate brand engagement measures in social media.

This study first defines a procedure for the selection, standardization and comparison of scales; this procedure considers both the classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT). The authors apply the procedure in a survey of 233 respondents to compare three scales for measuring consumer engagement with brands in social media.

The establishment of a procedure for scale comparison is useful in assisting researchers to choose specific measures. Results showed that the three scales have similar characteristics, but Vivek et al.’s (2014) scale is recommended when better discrimination between construct dimensions is required, Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) scale could be used as a one-dimensional scale and Dessart et al.’s (2016) reduced scale has better ability to capture information for the affective and cognitive dimensions. None of the scales were very efficient in discriminating weakly and strongly engaged individuals.

This study makes a substantive contribution by proposing a procedure for scale comparison that considers CTT and IRT and shows the advantages, limitations and recommendations for using three different scales of consumer engagement.

Previous research has linked upward social comparison on social network sites (SNSs) to depressive symptoms; however, the mechanism underlying this relationship remains unclear. The purpose of this paper is to explore the roles of envy and self-efficacy in the relationship between upward social comparison on SNSs and depressive symptoms.

Based on the social comparison theory and previous related literature, a moderated mediation model integrating upward social comparison on SNSs, depressive symptoms, envy and self-efficacy was developed and empirically examined based on the data collected from 934 Chinese high school students.

The structural equation modeling analysis shows that envy partially mediates the relationship between upward social comparison on SNSs and depressive symptoms, whereas self-efficacy moderated both the direct effect of upward social comparison on SNSs on depressive symptoms and the mediating effect of envy in the relationship between upward social comparison on SNSs and depressive symptoms.

The findings offer interesting implications for guiding adolescents to use SNSs properly. This study found that envy and self-efficacy act as a mediator and moderator, respectively, between upward social comparison on SNSs and depressive symptoms, indicating that reducing envy and enhancing self-efficacy should be feasible to alleviate the negative effect of SNSs use.

In order to alleviate the negative effect of SNSs use, parents and educators should direct adolescents to view others’ achievements and happiness properly and manage to improve self-efficacy among adolescents with poor self-efficacy through effective training.

Through building and examining a moderated mediation model integrating envy and self-efficacy into the relationship between upward social comparison on SNSs and depressive symptoms, the present study advances our understanding of how and when upward social comparison on SNSs augments the risk of depressive symptoms among adolescents.

Researchers often attempt to assess how different features and content will improve the experience of web site users. One assessment technique is to measure the attitude toward the site. A common version of this measure is the Chen and Wells attitude toward the site scale. The purpose of this paper is to determine if there is a difference in performance between that scale and the less used Bruner and Kumar scale so that researchers might use the better of the two related, but different, published scales.

Analysis is done on survey data from an experiment utilizing three different experimental groups that all completed surveys with both the Chen and Wells and the Bruner and Kumar attitude toward the site scales. Scales are assessed for loading and reliability, as well as measures compared for equivalence within groups and used within partial least squares (PLS) models to compare overall model fit.

In all tests, the Bruner and Kumar scale is better than, or equivalent to, the Chen and Wells scale in each comparison.

The research implication is that the Bruner and Kumar scale would be a better choice when selecting scales for future research projects.

Although Bruner and Kumar had previously performed comparisons of the two scales, in a follow‐up article, this is the first paper to compare the two scales between three different groups and demonstrate how the two different scales would perform within the same conceptual model using PLS structural equation modeling. It will help researchers select the best scale for attitude toward the site.

This study aims to examine the formal and metric properties of Gil et al.’s (2000) scale of attitudes toward organic products, which is the most popular scale to measure these attitudes.

The sample consisted of 4,992 household shoppers living in Hong Kong, Germany, Norway, Spain and the UK. The questionnaire was distributed using a third-party consumer panel, and the fieldwork was conducted using computer-assisted Web interviewing. The approach was based on confirmatory factor analysis and measurement of invariance, as well as format analysis using a wording-syntactic and semantic descriptive method.

The scale reflects an attitude-toward-object model approach. Its use has been heavily varied (in terms of wording, item semantics and the attributes to be measured). A two-factor structure that meets the metric conditions (reliability and validity) is found. However, the analysis of invariance shows that the scale behaves differently in different countries.

This scale offers a good starting point for measuring attitudes toward organic products. However, it requires refinement to adapt to consumer evolution and improve its metric validity. Verification of its applicability in cross-national studies is recommended.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that assesses the format and quantitative characteristics of this scale on a cross-national level. For scholars and companies with international interests, preventing the use of scales with poor properties at the transnational level can improve the design of future studies and save money through a more informed choice of attitudinal scale.

Este estudio examina las propiedades formales y métricas de la escala de actitudes hacia los productos orgánicos de Gil et al. (2000), que es la escala más popular para medir estas actitudes.

La muestra incluye 4.992 compradores principales en hogares de Hong Kong, Alemania, Noruega, España y el Reino Unido. El cuestionario se distribuyó utilizando un panel de consumidores, y el trabajo de campo se llevó a cabo mediante entrevistas online asistidas por ordenador. El enfoque se basó en un análisis factorial confirmatorio y en la invariancia de las medidas, así como en un análisis del formato utilizando un método descriptivo de redacción-sintáctico-semántico.

La escala refleja un enfoque de actitud basada en el objeto. Su uso ha sido muy variado (en redacción, semántica de sus redacciones y los atributos que mide). Se encuentra una estructura de dos factores que cumple con las condiciones métricas (fiabilidad y validez). Sin embargo, el análisis de invariancia muestra que la escala se comporta de manera diferente en distintos países.

Esta escala ofrece un buen punto de partida para medir las actitudes hacia los productos orgánicos, pero requiere un refinamiento para adaptarse a la evolución del consumidor y para mejorar su validez métrica. Se recomienda verificar su aplicabilidad en los estudios internacionales comparados.

Este es el primer estudio que evalúa el formato y las características cuantitativas de esta escala a nivel internacional. Para los académicos y las empresas con intereses internacionales, evitar el uso de escalas con propiedades deficientes a nivel transnacional puede mejorar el diseño de futuros estudios y ahorrar dinero a través de una elección más informada de la escala actitudinal.

Actitudes, Productos orgánicos, Estudio transnacional, Análisis factorial confirmatorio, Validación de la escala

Artículo de investigación.

This study aims to provide preliminary evidence for a new conceptualization and measure of workplace spirituality labeled spiritual expression at work (SEW). While the extant literature focuses on the fulfillment of workers' spiritual needs, spiritual expression refers to the impact of personal spirituality on the everyday thoughts, behaviors and interactions of employees.

A pilot study (n=92) included item generation and an exploratory factor analysis of the five‐item SEW scale (SEWS). The primary validation study (n=348) consisted of: performing a confirmatory factor analysis of the SEWS; comparing the SEWS with other spirituality measures, including two measures of personal spirituality and two measures of values‐based workplace spirituality; psychometrically assessing the convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of the SEWS; and examining the correlations and regression results between the SEWS and the comparison measures.

The SEWS showed acceptable psychometric properties across both samples, and the results support the convergent, discriminate and predictive validities of the SEW construct.

This study is subject to the typical limitations of cross‐sectional research. However, meaningful results were obtained across two samples.

These results suggest workers may express their spirituality regardless of their perceptions of the spiritual nature of the organization. In doing so, personal spirituality may impact important personal and organizational outcomes.

This study moves beyond existing research by showing a new way to assess workplace spirituality.

Many different scales have been used to measure customer satisfaction. These scales can be divided into three main groups, being those measuring performance, disconfirmation and satisfaction. Reports on the design and execution of a study of hotel guests in which they were asked to rate the key service attributes of their stay using all three of these measurement scales. Repurchase intention and word‐of‐mouth effects were also measured. Compares the scales on the basis of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, predictive validity, skewness, face validity and managerial value for directing a quality improvement programme. Shows the disconfirmation scale to be superior to both the performance and satisfaction scales on all these criteria except for predictive validity. In addition, the performance scale was generally better than the satisfaction scale on a number of these criteria.

Conventional consumer equivalence scales measure the cost of children (and other household living arrangements) but not their benefits. Since many people choose to have children, these costs must be outweighed by other benefits. This paper considers these issues of demographic choice and explores the relevance of consumer equivalence scales to the broader welfare questions associated with tax/transfer policies and poverty and inequality measurement. The paper concludes that in contrast to conventional methods of measuring poverty and inequality, there is a case for the use of different equivalence scales for adults and children in the same household. Though the adults may have chosen their lower living standard in exchange for the “joys of parenthood”, the children have made no such choice.

The number of studies on the use of choice cues in the purchase decision of a smartphone does not appear to be extensive, given the size and rate of growth of the market. Surprisingly, it appears that no study of this type in the Chinese context has been undertaken. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to fill the existing gap in the marketing literature in this area.

Best–Worst (BW) scaling method was used in the study. It is suggested that the method overcomes some of the biases commonly found in surveys where Likert-type scales are used, and it has superior discriminating power, because respondents are asked to rank the most and the least important factor from a group, and are thereby forced to make tradeoffs between factors.

Among the 13 choice cues, connectivity, price and memory capacity are found to be the most important, whereas recommendation from others, ease of handling and availability of apps are found to be the least important. Findings due to gender, income and age difference were also analyzed and discussed for orderly decision-making purposes.

The ranking of factors showing what choice cues consumers consider most or least important in a particular market helps practitioners to develop appropriate adaptation strategies for the market. The comparison of findings for gender, income and age difference can further help practitioners to devise various alternative marketing strategies for different market segments and identify underserved segments, if any.

The BW scaling method, however, appropriate in ranking order of importance, had never been used in ranking choice cues of smartphone purchase. Moreover, there seems to be a dearth of studies about ranking of choice cues on smartphone purchases in the Chinese context.

This article aims to examine the criterion‐related validity of two sets of commonly used measures of organizational justice.

Regression‐based dominance analysis is used on self‐report data provided by 214 working college students.

The three‐dimension measure of organizational justice by Moorman was compared to the four‐dimension measure of Colquitt in the prediction of Colquitt's own outcomes. Results suggest that Moorman's measures may dominate Colquitt's measures on some outcomes.

Practitioners are urged to give renewed consideration to Moorman's scales when predicting outcomes, as it appears that this three‐factor measure of organizational justice may outperform the four‐factor measure in some instances.

Organizations may find Moorman's parsimonious representation of justice more useful than Colquitt's version for explaining the nuances of perceptual differences regarding fairness and justice in the workplace.

This study is, to the authors' knowledge, the first to compare Colquitt's measures of justice with Moorman's measures on a subscale‐by‐subscale basis.