In this chapter, the researcher presents an outline of the research method used for the study, including research framework, hypotheses, research procedure, data collection, instrumentation, reliability and validity of instruments and data analysis.
Before continuing to the data analysis process of the main study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis will be conducted to test the model fit and exclude items that do not reach the criteria.
Research Framework
Based on literature review, the dimensions under each construct were defined in the previous chapter. The researcher developed the research framework for this study according to the relationships that have been discovered in other studies. The framework of intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Figure 3.1) is used to address the purpose of study. The framework shows the hypotheses being tested and the variables under study.
Figure 3.1. Research framework
34
Research Hypotheses
Based on the framework presented in Figure 3.1 and the research questions, the following hypotheses are developed:
Hypothesis 1: Firefighters’ intrinsic motivation has an effect on their job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived transformational leadership behavior has an effect on job satisfaction of firefighters.
Hypothesis 3: Firefighters’ job satisfaction has an effect on their organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 4: Firefighters’ intrinsic motivation has an effect on their organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 5: Perceived transformational leadership behavior has an effect on organizational commitment of firefighters.
Research Procedure
Figure 3.2 illustrates the procedure of this research. To explain the procedure, the steps can be categorized into 7 main stages: select topic, focus question, design study, collect data, analyze data, interpret data, and inform others. The researcher has already finished the proposal meeting, and this thesis is being submitting after the process of final defense and review.
35
Figure 3.2. Research procedure Background of Study
Report Completion Review of Literature
Identify Problems
Identify Research Questions
Develop Framework
Develop Research Method
Develop Instrument
Expert Review
Proposal Meeting
Conduct Pilot Test
Review of Instrument
Data Collection
Data Coding
Data Analysis
Conclusion and Suggestions
Final Defense
Revision
Thesis Submission
36
Data Collection
For this study, the targeted population will be composed of firefighters who work in fire agencies as full-time workers and chose this job as their career. Population and sampling issue is explained first, followed by instrumentation that indicates the measuring tools of this research. In the section of reliability and validity test, the criteria for the items are listed. The researcher conducted the tests using the collected samples to examine how appropriate the measurements adopted for the participants on this study were.
Population and Sampling
According to Taiwan National Fire Agency (2015), the total population of full-time firefighters is 13,511 in total. For the pilot test, the researcher reached his acquainted firefighters to answer the questionnaire, and require them to deliver the questionnaires to other firefighters. 83 samples were collected for pilot test. After the data analysis for the pilot test was conducted, the researcher contacted with fire stations to receive more samples and 290 samples were collected for the main study.
From the collected samples, 290 samples were received by means of paper and online questionnaires. The researcher excludes invalid questionnaires in which the respondents scored all items at the same scale and he also deleted duplicated samples.
Out of 290 samples, 275 valid questionnaires were retrieved.
37
Instrumentation
This is a questionnaire-based or questionnaire-oriented research conducted in hoping to figure out the factors that have effect on organizational commitment. The questionnaire for this study was designed with five parts including the demographic or background information. In avoidance of the bias due to respondents’ tendency when they fill out the questionnaire, the arrangement of the questionnaire was designed to respectively examine each construct in the order of job satisfaction, transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and intrinsic motivation. The instrument consists of 4 variables, 14 sub-dimensions, and 68 questions in total:
Intrinsic Motivation
Pelletier & Tusons’ (1995) Toward a New Measure of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Amotivation in Sports: The Sport Motivation Scale is adopted in measuring participants’ intrinsic motivation working as firefighters. The adopted items are extracted from IM to know (IMK), IM toward accomplishment (IMA), and IM to experience stimulation (IMS). Each item is with 5 point Likert’s scale. The Cronbach’s alpha value is .80 for IM to know, .80 for IM toward accomplishment, and .74 for IM to experience stimulation. This questionnaire was designed for measuring people’s intrinsic motivation in doing sports, and the researcher adopted the items to measure firefighters’ intrinsic motivation. The adopted items were reviewed by senior firefighters and modified according to their advices to fit the questions with the working condition.
38
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is defined as perceived transformational leadership behavior of firefighters’ supervisors. To measure leadership behaviors, the most widely accepted instrument to measure transformational leadership was applied, which is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). In this questionnaire, 4 items are used to assess each dimension. It includes Leader Form for self-evaluation of leaders and Rather Form for evaluation of leaders by subordinates.
In this study, Rather Form was adopted to evaluate firefighters’ perceived transformational leadership behavior of their supervisors because the targeted participants are firefighters and Rather Form can avoid self-reported bias.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction survey (JSS) by Spector (1997) was adopted for this study. 4 items are provided to measure each dimensions, and 3 dimensions (satisfaction with supervision, satisfaction with communication, and satisfaction of nature of work are applied. 12 items in total were used in this questionnaire. Out of the 12 questions, 6 questions were originally designed as reverse questions with inverted wordings, which are used to verify the validity of the questionnaires, in which respondents answered the questions carefully and properly. For the reliability and validity issue, the researcher found an article that mainly focuses on examining JSS scale, and all dimensions used for this study have Chrobach’s Alpha above .7 (Astrauskaite, Vaitkevicius, & Perminas, 2011).
39
Organizational Commitment
This study adopted three-component model of commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990) as the scale to measure firefighters’ organizational commitment. The questionnaire consists of 24 questions and each dimension has 8 questions. In each dimension, 3 reverse questions are used to examine how participants pay attention to answering the questionnaire. In this study, commitment toward organization is defined as firefighters’
commitment toward their fire agencies or fire departments. Some wordings were modified to make this scale fit with firefighters’ condition, and questions were reviewed and paraphrased according to experts’ opinions.
Control Variables
The research focus is organizational commitment of firefighters in Taiwan, and during the literature review process, many studies indicated that organizational commitment is accumulated with age and tenure (Brimeyer, Perrucci, & Wadsworth, 2010), especially continuance commitment. Besides, some studies have been conducted in measuring the effect of gender and marital status on organizational commitment, and the results shows the positive relationships are in-between (Çoğaltay, 2015). In this study, gender is coded: (1) male, (2) female. Marital is coded: (1) single, (2) married, Age is coded: (1) 18~25, (2) 26~30, (3) 31~35, (4) 36~40, (5) 40 and above years old.
Tenure is coded: (1) 0~1 (2) 2~3 (3) 4~5 (4) 6~7 (5) 8~9 (6) 10 and above years. Control variables will be tested during data analysis, and the research will use SPSS hierarchical regression technique to examine the effect of control variables on organizational commitment.
40
Table 3.1.
Adaptations of Scales Used in this Study for Instrumentation.
Variable NO. of Items Coding Adapted From
Intrinsic
Job Satisfaction 12 JS Spector (1997)
Organizational Commitment
24 OC Allen & Meyer
(1990)
Table 3.2.
Reliability of the Adopted Measurements
Construct Dimensions Cronbach’s
Alpha IM toward accomplishment 0.80
IM to experience stimulation 0.74 Transformatio
nal Leadership
Idealized Attribute 0.97 Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson,
Satisfaction of Supervision 0.82 Astrauskaite, Vaitkevicius &
Perminas (2011) Satisfaction of Communication 0.71
Satisfaction of Nature of Work 0.78 Organizational
Commitment
Affective Commitment 0.89 Yucel (2012) Continuance Commitment 0.71
Normative Commitment 0.78
41
Constructs Coding and Scales
Table 3.3.
Coding and Scales for the Construct of Intrinsic Motivation
Code Items
IMK1 For the pleasure it gives me to know more about the job that I do.
IMK2 For the pleasure of discovering new working techniques.
IMK3 For the pleasure that I feel while learning working techniques that I have never tried before.
IMK4 For the pleasure of discovering new performance strategies.
IMA5 Because I feel a lot of personal satisfaction while mastering certain difficult working techniques.
IMA6 For the pleasure I feel while improving some of my weak points.
IMA7 For the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities.
IMA8 For the pleasure that I feel while executing certain difficult achievement.
IMS9 For the pleasure I feel in having exciting job experiences.
IMS10 For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the job.
IMS11 For the intense emotions I feel doing a job that I like.
IMS12 Because I like the feeling of being totally immersed in the job.
Note. IM=Intrinsic Motivation, K=to know, A=toward Accomplishment, S=to experience stimulation.
Table 3.4.
Coding and Scales for the Construct of Transformational Leadership
Code Items
TLIC1 My direct supervisor spends time teaching and coaching.
TLIC2 My direct supervisor treats others as an individual rather than just as a member of a group.
TLIC3 My direct supervisor considers an individual as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others.
TLIC4 My direct supervisor helps others to develop their strengths.
(Continued)
42
Table 3.4. (continued.)
Code Items
TLIS5 My direct supervisor re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.
TLIS6 My direct supervisor seeks differing perspectives when solving problems.
TLIS7 My direct supervisor gets others to look at problems from many different angles
TLIS8 My direct supervisor suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
TLIM9 My direct supervisor talks optimistically about the future.
TLIM10 My direct supervisor talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
TLIM11 My direct supervisor articulates a compelling vision of the future.
TLIM12 My direct supervisor expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.
TLIA13 My direct supervisor instills pride in me for being associated with me.
TLIA14 My direct supervisor goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group.
TLIA15 My direct supervisor acts in ways that builds my respect.
TLIA16 My direct supervisor displays a sense of power and confidence.
TLIB17 My direct supervisor talks about their most important values and beliefs.
TLIB18 My direct supervisor specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
TLIB19 My direct supervisor considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
TLIB20 My direct supervisor emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission.
Note. TL=Transformational Leadership, IC=Individualized Consideration, IS=Intellectual Stimulation, IM=Inspirational Motivation, IA=Idealized Attribute, IB=Idealized Behavior.
43
Table 3.5.
Coding and Scales for the Construct of Job Satisfaction
Code Items
JSS1 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.
JSS2 My supervisor is unfair to me.( )
JSS3 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.( ) JSS4 I like my supervisor.
JSC5 Communications seem good within this organization.
JSC6 The goals of this organization are not clear to me.( )
JSC7 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.( ) JSC8 Work assignments are not fully explained.( )
JSW9 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.( ) JSW10 I like doing the things I do at work.
JSW11 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.
JSW12 My job is enjoyable.
Note. The items with ( )are reverse questions. JS=Job Satisfaction, S=Supervision, C=Communication, W=Nature of Work.
Table 3.6.
Coding and Scales for the Construct of Organizational Commitment
Code Items
OCA1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
OCA2 I enjoy discussing about my organization with people outside it.
OCA3 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
OCA4 I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one.( )
OCA5 I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization.( ) OCA6 I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization.( ) OCA7 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
OCA8 I do not feel a ‘strong’ sense of belonging to my organization.( )
(Continued)
44
Table 3.6. (continued.)
Code Items
OCC9 I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up.( )
OCC10 It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.
OCC11 Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my organization now.
OCC12 It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave my organization now.( )
OCC13 Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
OCC14 I feel that I have very few options to consider leaving this organization.
OCC15 One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives.
OCC16 One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice—another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here.
OCN17 I think that people these days move from company to company too often.
OCN18 I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization.( )
OCN19 Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me.( )
OCN20 One of the major reasons I continue to work in this organization is that I believe loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.
OCN21 If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization.
OCN22 I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization.
OCN23 Things were better in the days when people stayed in one organization for most of their careers.
OCN24 I do not think that to be a ‘company man’ or ‘company woman’ is sensible anymore.( )
Note. The items with ( )are reverse questions. OC=Organizational Commitment, A=Affective, C=Continuous, N=Normative.
45
Reliability and Validity Test
Reliability of instrument reflects the internal and external consistency of measurement; while the validity is the degree of scales measured that the researcher claims they measure (Williams & Monge, 2001). The following tables will present the reliability and validity of instrument in this study,
Table 3.7.
Reliability of the Research Instrument Reliability
Type
Theoretical Meaning Reliability of This Study
Reliability Analysis
The consistency of the measure of a variable (Neuman, 2011).
To compute each variable, above .70 Cronbach’s Alpha value is considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).
Individual item reliability (factor loading) is computed. The suggested value for factor loading varies according to the sample size (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).
Average variance extracted (AVE) is also computed. Chin (1998) noted that values above or equal to .50 or higher are considered acceptable.
46
Table 3.8.
Validity of the Research Instrument Validity
Type
Theoretical Meaning Validity of This Study
Face Validity
Indicators of a valid
measurement fit well under a construct in the judgement of others, especially in the
scientific community (Neuman, 2011).
The questionnaire is developed from previous empirical research. Both English and translated (Chinese) version were carefully proofread, reviewed by other scholars, and examined by an expert.
Content Validity
A valid measurement requires a measure that represents all aspect of conceptual definition of a construct (Neuman, 2011).
Each items of the questionnaire refer to the definition of the variable, and also
examined by other scholars and expert.
Criterion Validity
A valid measurement relies on some independent, outside verification (Neuman, 2011).
The items of questionnaires are adopted from previous validated measures, and initially undergone pilot tests.
Construct Validity
A valid measurement uses multiple indicators and has two subtypes which include how well the indicators of one construct converge or how well the indicators of different construct diverge (Neuman, 2011).
The construct validity is established by using convergent and divergent validity methods.
KMO and Bartlett’s test for Sphericity are conducted for the confirmation to EFA. By using the Explanatory Factor Analysis, the convergent validity is established.
By using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), divergent validity is established.
47
Construct Validity
Convergent and divergent are the two types of construct validity which are also called as discriminant validity (Neuman, 2011). Two analyses must be conducted before conducting the Data Analysis process.
The first must-be-conducted analysis is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy value that examines the appropriate use of factor analysis on data. If the value of KMO is above 0.80, it is considered to be excellent, and being indicated to be useful for the component or factor analysis of the variables. When the KMO value is closer to 1.00, it is indicated that the factors from the data will account for the variance in the data (Friel, 2010). However, there is a need for remedial action by either deleting the offending variables or including other variables related to the offender while the KMO value is less than 0.50. Reverse-coding of the negatively-worded items would also be one of the remedy that may lower KMO value.
The second one is the Bartlett’s test for Sphericity. The value shows whether the correlations between variables happened by chance. Bartlett’s test statistic, critical chi-square value, and p-value are observed. According to Bartlett’s test, there is a significant difference in the variances if the test statistics is greater than the critical value for chi-square. In addition, it results in the same conclusion if the p-value is less than .50. If the data pass the required standards, it implies that exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are appropriate to be conducted.
48
The convergent validity is established by conducting EFA, which is used to test, whether the factors of each scale are consistent to the study or not. The correlations between the item’s score with the total score of the dimensions are used. If the item-in-total correlations are less than .40, the item will be dropped from further analysis (Kerlinger, 1986), because it may not be correlated with other items that measure the same construct.
The divergent validity is established by conducting CFA, which provides some values that determine the goodness of the model-fit. Factor loadings of the items are also observed, and structural equation model software is used for performing CFA. The CFA value would be tested by using Smart PLS 3.0 software.
In this section, the research will triple examine the reliability and validity of the questionnaires by using IBM SPSS 23.0, IBM Amos 24, and Smart PLS 3.0 in order to see whether the design questionnaire fits with the population. SPSS is wielded to run factor analysis and reliability test to retrieve the values of kaiser-meyer-olkin and Chrobach’s Alpha. During the factor analysis process, the research will delete the items whose factor loading are below .4 under all factors. Amos will be used to run confirmatory factor analysis that provides model-fit indices and modification indices.
Model-fit indices can indicate whether the construct is a good model fit, while modification indices will suggest items that have high covariance with another and should be deleted. Smart PLS can provide PLS-SEM analysis technique for analyzing the reliability and validity of the entire framework.
49
Pilot Test
Pilot test is mainly conducted for examining the factor loadings and internal consistency and reliability via Smart PLS 3.0, and for testing the hypotheses by looking at path coefficients and t-ratios.
Table 3.9.
Reliability and Validity Test of Pilot Test via PLS
Reliability and Validity Test of Pilot Test via PLS