Chapter 3 Scale Development
3.3 Further Examination of Validity
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3.3 Further Examination of Validity
In order to confirm the validity among dimensions, this research investigated discriminate and convergent validity between constructs, including brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behavior, psychological ownership, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. This research also utilized the methods proposed by Jöreskog et al. (1981) to examine discriminate and convergent validity.
3.3.1 Brand Psychological Ownership and Brand Citizenship Behavior
Since brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior are all individual-level variables, it is necessary for this study to conduct discriminate and convergent validity of brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior.
The fitness indices of six-factor model which include χ2/d.f.=2.71, GFI=0.85, RMSR=0.042, CFI=0.99, NFI= 0.97, RMSEA=0.07. Based on results that χ2/df (7.58) of one-factor model is larger than χ2/df (2.71) of six-factor model, the problem of common method variance is improved if the fitness of six-factor model is better than the fitness of one-factor model (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Notes: BSE: brand self-efficacy
BA: brand accountability
IBB: identification and belongingness of brand HBB: helping behavior of brand
CEB: consideration and enhancement of brand SEB: sportsmanship and endorsement of brand
Figure 3-7 Measurement Model of BPO and BCB
‧
Table 3-30 Fitness indices of Brand Citizenship Behavior
Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI NFI RMSEA RMSR GFI
One-factor
Model 2653.96 350 7.58 0.95 0.94 0.137 0.071 0.65
Six-factor
Model 836.71 309 2.71 0.98 0.97 0.07 0.042 0.85
Based on the results in Table 3-30, the fitness of six-factor model is better than the fitness of one-factor model, indicating the CMV bias is minor. As reported in Table 3-31, the results showed that the discriminate validity exists among dimensions because PHI+1.96 * standardized error excluded 1. The results in Table 3-32 and Figure 3-7 represent that most indicators whose standardized λappear higher than 0.7 and T values of each indicator reach the significant level of 0.01, indicating each dimension of brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior has convergent validity.
Table 3-31 PHI, SE, and T in Measurement Model of BPO and BCB
Factors Brand
‧
Table 3-31 PHI, SE, and T in Measurement Model of BPO and BCB (Continued)
Note:aPHI，Standardized Error，cT
Table 3-32 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of BPO and BCB Factor indicator Standardized λ Standardized T
V1 0.72 NA
‧
Table 3-32 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of BPO and BCB (Continued)
Factor indicator Standardized λ Standardized T
V16 0.87 NA
brand V21 0.68 13.60
V22 0.75 NA
3.3.2 Brand Psychological Ownership, Organizational Psychological Ownership and Organizational Commitment
Extended from perspectives of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001;
Pierce et al., 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2004; Chi et al., 2008; Pierce et al., 2009; Avey et al., 2009), the scale of brand psychological ownership is developed. Therefore, this study has to investigate the discriminate and convergent validity of brand psychological ownership, organizational psychological ownership and organizational commitment. This study adopts six items of organizational psychological ownership proposed by Van Dyne et al. (2004), which include OPO1, OPO2, OPO3, OPO4, OPO5, and OPO6. The contents of six items of organizational psychological ownership are showed in Table 3-33. Four items of organizational commitment proposed by Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) are adopted by this research, which
‧
include OC1, OC2, OC3, and OC4. The Cronbach’salpha of these items is 0.83. The contents of four items of organizational commitment are showed in Table 3-34.
Table 3-33 Items of Organizational Psychological Ownership
Construct Items
OPO1: This is my organization.
OPO2: I sense that this organization is our company.
OPO3: I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this organization.
OPO4: I sense that this is my company.
OPO5: This is our company.
Organizational psychological ownership
OPO6: Most of the people that work for this organization feel as though they own the company.
Source: Van Dyne et al. (2004)
Table 3-34 Items of Organizational Commitment Construct Items
OC1: I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this company.
OC2: I really feel as if this company’s problems are my own.
OC3: I feel astrong senseof“belonging”to my company.
Organizational commitment
OC4: This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
Source: Meyer et al. (1993)
As reported in Table 3-35, the results showed that the discriminate validity exists among brand psychological ownership, organizational psychological ownership, and organizational commitment because PHI+1.96 * standardized error excluded 1.
According to results in Table 3-36 and Figure 3-8, most indicators whose standardized λappear higher than 0.7 and T values of each indicator reach the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
significant level of 0.01, indicating each construct of brand psychological ownership, organizational psychological ownership, and organizational commitment has convergent validity. Based on the results, it is proved that brand psychological ownership is different from organizational psychological ownership and organizational commitment.
‧
Notes: BSE: brand self-efficacy
BA: brand accountability
IBB: identification and belongingness of brand OPO: organizational psychological ownership OC: organizational commitment
Figure 3-8 Measurement Model of BPO, OPO and OC
Table 3-35 PHI, SE, and T of Measurement Model of BPO, OPO and OC
Factors Brand Note:aPHI，Standardized Error，cT
Table 3-36 Standardized λand T of Measurement Model of BPO, OPO and OC Factor indicator Standardized λ Standardized T
V1 0.76 NA
V2 0.79 13.13
V3 0.79 13.21
Brand self-efficacy
V4 0.67 11.07
‧
Table 3-36 Standardized λand T of Measurement Model of BPO, OPO and OC (Continued)
Factor indicator Standardized λ Standardized T
V5 0.68 NA
3.3.3 Brand Psychological Ownership, Brand Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Building on perspectives of brand citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Burmann et al., 2005), the scale of brand citizenship behavior is developed. Therefore, this study has to investigate the discriminate and convergent validity of brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behavior and
‧
adopts several items of organizational citizenship behaviors, which include BCB1, BCB2, BCB3, BCB4, BCB5, BCB6, BCB7, BCB8, BCB9, BCB10, BCB11, BCB12, BCB13, BCB14, BCB15, and BCB16. The average Cronbach’salpha of these items is 0.83. The contents of sixteen items of organizational citizenship behaviors are showed in Table 3-37.
Table 3-37 Items of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Construct Items
OCB1: I voluntarily help new comers adapt to the new working environment.
OCB2: I really follow the regulation and procedure of the company.
OCB3: I implement extra-role duty to make the company benefited.
OCB4: I consider company’swhole interest and can sacrifice my interest in case of necessary.
OCB5: I am willing to make extra efforts to make the company succeed.
OCB6: As for the present work, I always have enthusiasm”; “I show the attitude of sacrifice and devotion toward the company.
OCB7: I am willing to spend extra time on organizational affairs.
OCB8: I provide extra service or assistance for customers.
OCB9: I voluntarily provide constructive schemes or suggestions for related departments.
OCB10: I voluntarily promote company’s advantages and clarify others’misunderstanding.
OCB11: I aggressively participate in meetings or activities in the company.
OCB12: I know information or activity content beforehand.
Organizational citizenship behavior
OCB13: I work conscientiously, and seldom make mistakes.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 3-37 Items of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (Continued) Construct Items
OCB14: Whatever implements of the company are, I never complaint or criticize.
OCB15: I enthusiastically participate in various kinds of organizational activities in order to promote the emotion among colleagues.
Source: Chiu et al. (2002)
Notes: BSE: brand self-efficacy
BA: brand accountability
IBB: identification and belongingness of brand HBB: helping behaviors of brand
‧
SEB: sportsmanship and endorsement of brand OCB: organizational citizenship behaviors
Figure 3-9 Measurement Model of BPO, BCB and OCB
Table 3-38 PHI, SE, and T in Measurement Model of BPO, BCB and OCB
Factors BSE BA IBB HBB CEB SEB OCB
BSE 0.56a Note:aPHI，Standardized Error，cT
Table 3-39 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of BPO, BCB and OCB Factor indicator Standardized λ Standardized T
V1 0.75 NA
‧
Table 3-39 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of BPO, BCB and OCB (Continued)
Factor indicator Standardized λ Standardized T
V8 0.74 NA
brand V21 0.68 12.17
V22 0.75 NA
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The fitness indices of seven-factor model which include χ2/d.f.=2.65, GFI=0.74, RMSR=0.052, CFI=0.99, NFI= 0.96, RMSEA=0.075. According to the results in Table 3-38, the results show that the discriminate validity exists among brand psychological ownership, organizational citizenship behaviors, and organizational citizenship behaviors because PHI+1.96 * standardized error excluded 1. According to results in Table 3-39 and Figure 3-9, most indicators whose standardized λappear higher than 0.7 and T values of each indicator reach the significant level of 0.01, indicating each construct of brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behavior, and organizational citizenship behaviors has convergent validity. Based on the results, it is proved that the construct of brand citizenship behavior is different from brand psychological ownership and organizational citizenship behaviors. This research also provided practical evidence to prove that brand citizenship behavior is different from organizational citizenship behavior. Employees in traditional organizations (e.g., IBM) produce organizational citizenship behaviors because they interact with the organization in their daily job. However, employees in franchise organizations (e.g., 7-Eleven) produce brand citizenship behavior because they interact with the corporate brand in their daily job and perceive they are important to the corporate brand via practices of corporate branding. The corporate brand is an important asset of franchise organizations; therefore, practices of corporate branding
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
are always adopted to improve their brand equity. Therefore, customer-facing employees may produce brand citizenship behavior via practices of corporate branding, thus contributing brand equity.
In conclusion, this study obtains dimensions of three constructs after EFA and CFA. Five dimensions of corporate branding obtained by this study include communication and evaluation of corporate branding, departmental coordination of corporate branding, leadership and interaction with stakeholders of corporate branding, training and selection of corporate branding, and vision and culture of corporate branding. Three dimensions of brand psychological ownership obtained by this study include identification and belongingness of brand, brand self-efficacy, and brand accountability. Three dimensions of brand citizenship behavior obtained by this study include sportsmanship and endorsement of brand, helping behaviors of brand, and consideration and enhancement of brand. Furthermore, this research also utilizes the methods proposed by Jöreskog et al. (1981) to examine discriminate and convergent validity among constructs. Based on the results, the discriminate and convergent validity exist among brand psychological ownership, organizational psychological ownership, and organizational commitment. The discriminate and convergent validity exist among brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behavior, and organizational commitment behaviors.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學