Instruments

In this research, the questions of the present study used Likert 7.0 scale to measure all variables, and ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

3.4.1 Learning behavior

3.4.1.1 Exploratory organizational learning

The scale of exploratory organizational learning was offered by Li, Chu, and Lin (2010). In this scale, exploratory organizational learning

consisted of five items. All standardized factor loadings of the five questions were larger than 0.60. Furthermore, this study used

Cronbach’s α to measure the reliability of these questions, and the value was 0.81. Additionally, Li et al. (2010) showed that the research result satisfied the criterion of discriminant validity. Therefore, the research of the present study decided to employ this scale to measure exploratory organizational learning.

3.4.1.2 Knowledge sharing

Regarding to the topic of knowledge sharing, this study applied the two scales which were offered by Yang and Farn (2009) andLai, Huang, Lin, and Kao (2011). Both scales contained 3 items, so 6 items were employed to measure knowledge sharing. Yang and Farn (2009) used CFA to analyze convergent validity, and factor loadings of knowledge sharing behavior were 0.944, 0.960, and 0.939, thus, the convergent validity values were acceptable. Lai et al. (2011) used Likert 7-point scale to measure 3 items of knowledge sharing, and the Cronbach’s α was 0.882.

3.4.2 Individual level

3.4.2.1 Need for cognition

The researcher used 18 items to measure need for cognition, and these items were provided by Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, and Jarvis (1996). Cacioppo et al. (1996) used Likert 5-point scale to measure the 18 items. Moreover, Cacioppo et al. (1996) indicated that several studies used the 18 items to measure need for cognition, and all α values exceeded 0.80, and had confirmed that this scale has high internal consistency. However, Cacioppo et al. (1996) did not clearly show α value or other reliability.

3.4.2.2 Openness

Soto and John (2009) used 5 items to measure the ideas of

openness, they investigate two samples in their study, which included community and students. Soto and John (2009) applied α to measure the reliability of community, as well as α and retest reliability to examine the reliabilities of students. The results showed that α of community and students were 0.72 and 0.71, respectively. The retest reliability of students was 0.80. Therefore, the reliabilities exceeded 0.70 and were acceptable.

3.4.2.3 Emotion

The present researcher used 10 items to measure emotion, and this scale was offered by Balzarotti, John, and Gross (2010). The 10 items consisted of 6 items of reappraisal and 4 ones of suppression. Balzarotti et al. (2010) use Cronbach α to measure reliabilities, the reliability coefficient is 0.84 for reappraisal scale and 0.72 for suppression.

Moreover, Balzarotti et al. (2010) used test-retest reliability to measure reliabilities again and obtained the values were 0.67 for reappraisal and 0.71 for suppression. The loadings of 10 items were larger than 0.50 and range from 0.52 to 0.82.

3.4.3 Organizational level

3.4.3.1 Interpersonal relationship

This study used the items about conflict management and communication to measure interpersonal relationship, which were provided by Ahmed, Capretz, and Sheikh (2007) and Chen and Huang (2007), respectively. Interpersonal relationship contained 6 items, 4 ones belonged to conflict management, and 2 ones belonged to communication. Ahmed et al. (2007) used coefficient α to analyze internal-consistency of the 4 items, the result showed that α was 0.73.

With regard to communication items, Chen and Huang (2007) also used Cronbach’s α coefficient to measure reliability, and α was 0.822.

3.4.3.2 Social relationship

Social relationship was measured by 6 items, and which were provided by Bauer and Mulder (2006). Bauer and Mulder (2006) investigated 76 employees from high-tech industry enterprise. The results presented that α was 0.86, so this questionnaire could acceptable.

3.4.3.3 Collaboration

The scale of collaboration was used in this study, which was provided by Rodríguez, Pérez, and Gutiérrez (2008). This scale consisted of 6 items, and Rodríguez et al. (2008) apply Likert 7.0 scale to measure this variance. The reliability of this variable was 0.940, and the loadings of the 6 items ranged from 0.73 to 0.88.

3.4.3.4 Organizational climate

This study employed 7 items to measure organizational climate.

This scale was composed of the items from two studies. The first two items were offered by Chen and Huang (2007), the other five items were provided by Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003). Chen and Huang (2007) used innovative climate and cooperative climate to examine organizational climate, however, the items of innovative climate did not relate to the research purpose of this paper and were not adopted.

Moreover, Chen and Huang (2007) indicated that the loading of each item was greater than 0.85, and Cronbach’s α of cooperative climate was 0.904. Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) described that organizational climate was divided into four aspects: risks, rewards, warmth, and support. Risk measured that an organization confronted potentially innovative initiatives and uncertain outcomes. Reward measured that an organization recognized the performance of an employee and gives the rewards to him/her. Warmth measured the friendliness of the atmosphere of the organization. Support measured the organization’s interest in the employee’s welfare. This study

selected warmth to measure organizational climate, the reason is that the items of it are related to the aim of this paper. Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) used Likert 7.0 scale to proceed to examine Cronbach’s α of warmth, and obtained the value was 0.69, and the factor loading was 0.78. Thus, this scale was acceptable.

Table 3-1 showed the research variables, the amount of the questions of variables, and the sources of the questions of each variable in the questionnaire.

Table 3-1 Research variables, number of items, and sources

Variables Number

of items

Sources Learning behavior

Exploratory organizational learning 5 Li, Chu, & Lin (2010)

Knowledge sharing 6 (1) Yang & Farn (2009)

(2) Lai, Huang, Lin, & Kao (2011)

Individual level

Need for cognition 18 Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein,

& Jarvis (1996)

Openness 5 Soto & John(2009)

Emotion 10 Balzarotti, John, & Gross

(2010)

Organizational level

Individual relationship 6 (1) Ahmed, Capretz, &

Sheikh (2007)

(2) Chen & Huang (2007)

Social relationship 6 Bauer & Mulder (2006)

Organizational collaborative culture 6 Rodríguez, Pérez, &

Gutiérrez (2008)

Organizational climate 7 (1) Chen & Huang (2007)

(2) Janz & Prasarnphanich (2003)