BUSI 453 Week 4 QMR Report: Draft 2 Example

Measuring Interest in On-Demand Classes: Scales, Questionnaire Design and Pretest

Purpose of the Instrument

Draft 1 predicted that three kinds of Riverside Cycle and Strength members would lean toward subscribing: those who judge recorded classes useful (H1), those who already stream workouts at home (H2), and those whose jobs involve travel or odd hours (H3). The questionnaire must measure four constructs, perceived usefulness, intention, prior video use and schedule constraint, plus willingness to pay and the class types members want. Every item below serves one of these purposes. Draft 1's feedback asked that each hypothesis name its variables precisely, and the table that follows is the answer: each variable now has one definition and one set of items, so the tests in Draft 3 can be traced back to specific questions.

Measurement of the Variables

Malhotra (2015) distinguishes conceptual definitions, which state what a construct means, from operational definitions, which state how it will be measured. Churchill (1979) recommended that marketing measures be built from a clear domain definition, multiple items and tests of reliability and validity, rather than single questions written ad hoc.

The perceived usefulness items adapt the wording of the technology acceptance model's validated scale to the studio's setting, which gives the measure a tested foundation (Davis, 1989). Four items are enough to estimate reliability and few enough to keep the survey short. The intention items use three wordings of the same idea, likely, probable and certain, because a single intention question is unreliable and responds to small differences in wording. The class preference item asks members to rank five class types rather than rate them, since ratings tend to cluster at the top of the scale and would not show which classes to film first. Likert scores are ordinal in a strict sense, but summed scales of several Likert items are commonly analyzed as interval data with parametric tests, which are robust to that treatment (Norman, 2010).

Willingness to pay is the hardest variable to measure well. Miller et al. (2011) compared direct questions, conjoint methods and incentive-aligned methods and found that hypothetical questions overstated what consumers would actually pay, although they still often pointed to similar pricing decisions. The open price question will therefore be read as a ceiling, and the analysis will report the share of members willing to pay at least $15 rather than the average stated price.

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire follows the textbook's funnel approach (Malhotra, 2015): it opens with easy behavioral questions about current attendance, moves to video use and schedules, then to perceptions of on-demand classes, intention and price, and ends with demographics. Each item was checked against the textbook's wording rules: one idea per item, ordinary words, no leading phrases such as "Wouldn't you like," and an explicit time frame for behavior. A short description of the proposed library, with a sample class list and the $15 price, precedes the perception items so that every member evaluates the same offer.

The layout was designed for phones, since most members open the studio's app on a phone. Each screen holds one question or one short block of Likert items, response options run vertically rather than in a wide grid, and a progress bar shows how much remains. The demographic items are optional except membership length, which is needed to match records, and the last screen thanks members and explains how to redeem the smoothie credit.

The survey is short, 18 items taking about five minutes, because long and demanding questionnaires encourage satisficing, in which respondents give acceptable rather than careful answers, such as agreeing with every statement or choosing the midpoint (Krosnick, 1991). No item is reverse-worded, which keeps the items easy to read, so one intention item is placed after the price question to break up the run of agreement items and reduce mechanical agreement.

Pretest

Eight members of different ages completed the draft questionnaire while thinking aloud with the researcher. Three changes followed. The item "On-demand classes would be convenient and affordable" was double-barreled and was split into two items, with the affordability item moved to the price section. Members read "irregular shifts" differently, so the schedule item now gives examples: "nights, rotating shifts or on-call work." Two members could not answer the price question without knowing what the library would contain, which led to the class list added to the offer description. Timing the pretest also confirmed the planned length of about five minutes: members took between four and seven minutes, and none said the survey felt long. Malhotra (2015) recommends pretesting with respondents similar to the actual sample and in the same mode as the final survey, so the pretest used the app version members would receive.

Ethical Safeguards

The survey opens with a short statement of its purpose, the time it takes, and how answers will be used: only in summary form, never linked to an individual member's account in any report to the instructors or staff. Responses are matched to booking records by a code, not by name. Participation is voluntary, and the smoothie credit is given for completing the survey regardless of how a member answers, so the incentive does not pressure members toward favorable responses.

Planned Reliability and Validity Checks

When the data are in, internal consistency of the usefulness and intention scales will be tested with Cronbach's alpha, with 0.70 as the threshold (Malhotra, 2015). Construct validity will be examined by checking that usefulness correlates more strongly with intention than with unrelated items such as age. Draft 3 will report these results with the fieldwork and the hypothesis tests.

References

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305

Malhotra, N. K. (2015). Essentials of marketing research: A hands-on orientation. Pearson.

Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2011). How should consumers' willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.172

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y