Conceptual and internal validity in quantitative approach

A quantitative questionnaire holds good quality when it measures what it should measure, meaning that it has conceptual validity (Jacobsen, 2005). The survey is good if it can demonstrate that conditions with correlation also are causally linked to each other. . There is further advantageous that results emerging from the survey can be transferred to other areas, this means in other words, a certain degree of generalization or external validity (Jacobsen, 2005). The last requirement that should be included in order to evaluate whether or not the questionnaire is good enough, is to investigate the reliability. Reliability means to which

extent we can trust the data we have collected and the investigation process we have conducted. (Jacobsen, 2005) If these requirements are followed we have reasons to suggest that the survey holds a high degree of internal validity

7.4.1 Conceptual validity

Conceptual validity means that we simply must ensure that the questionnaire actually measures the factors and the overall phenomenon we want and aims to measure (Jacobsen, 2005). Therefore we need to analyze if there exists a correspondence between the theoretical phenomenon and operational definition. We need to find out if there is an overlap, which means how much the different questions cover the theoretical phenomenon they intend to measure. In the questionnaire we wanted to measure the importance by a set of factors. These factors include the terms accessibility, affordability, location and facilities, quality of service, entertainment and attractions, security and destination image. These concepts may be too difficult for the respondent to understand because they are comprehensive. One can never accomplish a perfect operationalization with such complex concepts, but it is possible to approach towards the concepts through with accuracy and a critical attitude towards the operationalization. (Jacobsen, 2005)

Before we developed our questionnaire the concepts were divided into different attributes that are found in previous empirical studies that have measured the same concepts.

Subsequently, this was followed by questions designed for each attribute, which can be linked under each concept. Thus we can be sure that we measure the concepts we want to measure, at the same time, as respondents understand what we needed answers to.

As an example from the questionnaire, we needed to capture whether or not accessibility could influence conference destination selection. To cover this concept we entered questions about the ease of local transportation at the destination, time of

transportation to the destination, the ease of transportation to the destination and how easy it is to get accommodation at the destination. Each of these four questions represent an attribute that previous studies suggest belongs under the concept “accessibility”. We have made the same process with all the other concepts in the questionnaire. In addition, we were uncertain about whether respondents would understand what we added in the word destination as a concept. Since this concept is repeated in many of our questions, there was formulated an explanation of what a destination is and asked the respondents to respond accordingly.

Because our theoretical concepts consist of several subsets, it is necessary to capture these subsets by asking more questions. What we could have done differently in this questionnaire is to add the same amount of questions or attributes under each concept, because it would have made the process of analyzing the results easier. However, we will still suggest that the questionnaire holds a high conceptual validity.

7.4.2 Pre-testing for conceptual and internal validity

We further controlled the conceptual and internal validity by doing a thorough pretest to examine the face validity of the questionnaire. This was done by firstly discussing the questionnaire with university students, which have the same theoretical fundament as we do in order to comment potential changes and whether the questionnaire measures correctly. We went through the questionnaire together and discussed spelling mistakes, wording of the questions, whether or not the questions and concepts was understandable. Further we asked them to comment the length of the questionnaire. Finally we explained what we wanted to measure and asked the students to provide feedback on how well the subsets explained the more complex concepts. We specifically asked them to evaluate the term intermediaries, destination and the seven factors. The students responded that there was some spelling mistakes and wording of the sentences that was recommendable to change. However, they commented that the length of the survey was satisfactory. They further mentioned that the

questionnaire was easy to understand and complete, however it was suggested by one of the students that there be an explanation detached to the concepts “intermediaries” and

“destination” can be perceived as too confusing and comprehensive for the respondents to accurately understand what we are looking for. On the other hand, the students argued that the subsets were satisfactory in order to measure each of the factors we intend to measure. After the discussion we went through the questionnaire once more in order to correct the mistakes that were found and give a explanation for some of the terms and also explain in the survey what we want to gain from the survey.

We further asked one of the respondents from the in-depth interviews, which is named Lisbeth Fallan and is employed in Visit Trondheim AS, to browse and evaluate the

questionnaire. Lisbeth Fallan is employed as Sales Manager for conferences and congresses, and has therefore a good understanding for what type of questions that should be asked to the customers buying conference packages. Simultaneously, since we have conducted an in-depth interview with her, she already has an understanding about the topic we address. She

responded through email that the questionnaire contained many relevant and excellent questions. However, she also responded that from her experience it might be too many

questions and that the companies are quite difficult to reach unless they receive something out of it. We went through the survey to see if some of the questions could be excluded, but we found that all questions are necessary in order to measure the concepts. In reality, if we have had more time and resources, the questionnaire should have been developed even further.

Furthermore, Norwegian and International companies that are located in Norway are the most appropriate population to draw our sample from. Because it is these companies that constitute the customers who buy conference packages in the Norwegian market. These companies can also be referred to as the corporate market, which based on international studies represent the

most dominant customer group within the international conference industry. Therefore, we could not change the population even though it could imply less answering rate.

Finally, we pre-tested the questionnaire against our target group, which is meeting planners in large companies. The questionnaire was pretested by three managers and one customer adviser. Feedback on this pretest was that questions were perceived as clear and understandable, as well as easy to read even though it is written in English language. We received some comments about the language, but we will not change it in order to avoid measurement errors and mistranslations.

7.4.3 Validity testing of concepts

When it comes to testing validity through an operationalization of the concepts, the best method to use is to perform a measure of the correlations between each importance factor and the subsets that belong to the same importance factor. If we return to the example

concerning accessibility we measured how the concept correlates with the subsets, which include the ease of local transportation at the destination, time of transportation to the destination, the ease of transportation to the destination and how easy it is to get

accommodation at the destination. We performed a Spearman non-parametric correlation test and found that the correlation between the three first subsets was quite strong, while the last had a low correlation. We suggested that accommodation on the destination would have a higher correlation if we replaced it in another concept, such as location and facilities. In this concept, the subset gained a higher correlation.