1. Outline the concerns you'll make in deciding between using the Thurstone, Likert or Osgood method. High light the particular framework and conclude with a definite decision about which of the three methods you'll chose.
The three social research methods of attitudinal measurement are appropriate for use in this test as they all give statistical facts to aid the questions associated with various attitudes taken from a general consensus of individuals. However, each has its own merits to be considered. The Thurston, Likert and Osgood methods can give a representation of interpersonal attitudes toward Big Brother, however, which is the most ideal requires some factor of these procedural processes. The type of way of measuring and descriptive characteristics in each method was considered before a test was made the decision and questionnaire produced.
Thurstone was one of the principal interpersonal scaling theorists. He used the common rankings of a couple of attitudinal statements structured upon a given topic to determine a couple of agree/disagree responses. He formulated three different methods that worked upon a uni-dimensional size. These were the technique of equal-appearing intervals, the method of successive intervals, and the technique of paired comparisons (Thurston, 1928). The three methods crucially differed in how the scale values for every item were constituted off their bottom part source. However, in every three situations, the resulting range was rated the same manner by respondents. This labour-some method didn't take into account any indifference to the statements or the amount to which negative and positive attitudes could vary. In questionnaire format it depends upon shut questions to get its data and measure attitude. Furthermore, this implies a mean average as its descriptive data between that of agreeing and disagreeing in each affirmation category, which will not capture the nature of the deviation or sway of basic trends in attitude. Neither will it really allow for a account of expression connotation within the assertions. Because of these considerations this technique of measuring attitude was rejected for this experiment.
The Likert approach was developed after the Thurstone scale. With this technique to communal research a couple of attitudinal assertions were also provided to subjects. Themes were asked expressing arrangement or disagreement relating to a five point or seven point range measuring the variance of frame of mind towards the statements (Likert, 1932). Each amount of contract or disagreement was presented with a numerical value in one to five / seven somewhat than being thought as a closed down agree or disagree category. A complete numerical value was then to be determined from the total number of responses. This technique is suitable for our experiment as possible applied to founded attitudinal theories such as Ajzen's Theory of designed behaviour as a way of attracting out not only frame of mind but purpose and principles that help shape our attitudes. Essentially, the Likert method can be divided into segments regarding the idea of planned behaviour to reveal a far more sophisticated set of results that point out a fuller relationhip than that of the Thurstone method. However, yet another method that relates to the Likert method is highly recommended before moving on.
The Osgood method originated with the Likert technique. While using the scale as the basis for the measurement of frame of mind, Osgood worried himself with the significance of meaning, and in particular connotation of words. Typically content would get a term or principle, such as competition, and would eventually be presented with a range of adjectives in which to describe that word / principle (Osgood, 1957). The adjectives would then be represented at either end of a five point / seven-point range like the likert scale. For this reason, Osgood could contrive a map or model of people's connotations for given ideas from which behaviour could be recognized. However, there are problems for like this for our experiment. Firstly, there is the problem that this map depends completely on the presumption that adjectives imply the same to everyone. As a result of this, the method itself becomes contradictory as it commences from the general assumption that people's connotations for several cocepts are different. However, it also will depend on upon the assumption that, for certain words at least, they do not differ. And second, there is nothing at all in this test that endeavors to negate the onset of socially desired reactions from participants. Because of this, the Osgood test for connotational frame of mind was slipped as the method for this test instead of the five category Likert test.
2. Provide a detailed description of the steps you'll need to take at each stage of scale development, using your chosen method.
In the first stage of developing the Likert method for this experiment, relevant attitudinal questions would need to be set up and used. Based upon the preliminary research into certain perceived attitudes towards Big Brother, these questions should be drawn up and applied to a five point range ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement. These should be comprised into packages of differing attitudinal question types that relate with the various categories apparent in the Theory of Planned behaviour. These packages should consist of questions associated with social norms, attitudes and recognized behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). For instance, the first two units of questions should be studied into account, that is the subjective norm and the attitude, and categorised as one set. For example, based after the measurement method of the likert five category system, typical questions associated with these sets could be 'do you think Big Brother is valid?' and 'do your friends tink your government is valid?'. These provide us with indications of varying behaviour from which behavior could be measured as an outcome. For instance, questions then asking 'would you watch YOUR GOVERNMENT?' or 'is it your goal to watch YOUR GOVERNMENT?' would give us an indication of the strength and mother nature of the pushes creating the behaviour towards Big Brother. A third group of questions associated with the recognized behavioural control could then reveal of how people perceive the taking a look at of YOUR GOVERNMENT and exactly how that influences their attitudes and intentions towards observing the show. According to the theory of planned behavior, these three attitudinal factors inform the purpose from which behaviours can be recognized (Ajzen, 1988, 1991).
By taking the conclusions of the questionnaire through the technique of the Likert size, we are providing ourselves with a method which can enroll, include and analyse the results of a unlimited amount of things and find developments in the different ways that people have formed behaviour towards YOUR GOVERNMENT. It really is with the Likert model that an attitudinal questionnaire structured upon the theory of planned behavior was produced to answer the primary question put forward by this experiment. An example of the three pieces of questions structured primarily upon the theory of planned behavior and developed at this time are the following:
I prefer to Watch Big Brother? Firmly Agree / Agree / Indifferent-Unsure-Never Seen It / Disagree / Strongly Disagree.
My Friends Think People Should Watch YOUR GOVERNMENT? Highly Agree / Agree / Indifferent-Unsure-Never Seen It / Disagree / Highly Disagree.
It is Morally Appropriate to Watch YOUR GOVERNMENT? Highly Agree / Agree / Indifferent-Unsure-Never Seen It / Disagree / Strongly Disagree.
The next stage should be first of all concerned with getting rid of ambiguous or leading questions such as those involving the terms 'hate' and 'love' or 'nice' and 'kind of' etc. This is done where confusion is visible physically or where suggested on the results of pilot studies. This stage should then be concerned with content validity. This can be done with a pilot test; by using the questionnaire to test a group whose behaviour are well established. For example, you'll expect members of the Big Brother admirer club or groups that promote YOUR GOVERNMENT to score favorably on attitudinal questions associated with Big Brother. However, if the results show that they didn't score positively then this can be taken as an indication that there is something wrong with the questionnaire. Conversely, if indeed they do score favorably then your pilot test can be regarded valid. Alternatively, a professional or expert in issues of attitudinal exams could be consultd for quality.
After these questions have been arranged according to category and the pilot test and/or expert has given sufficient content validity, a sample group should be targeted and asked to participate. On defining that target group, an introduction giving them the mandatory and ethical briefing should be performed, and on the conclusion a debriefing and contact address should be disclosed. On retrieval of the results, an appropriate dimension should be carried out to determine the descriptive and inferential figures of the likert test. The task for the Likert will not entail mean averages as these simply convolute the sway of the attitudinal range. Alternatively, median and methods are better outfitted to give descriptive data as the significant range can be involved with general trends rather than exact measures.
Bibliography
Ajzen. , I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour, Milton Keynes: Open up University or college Press.
Ajzen, I. , (1991) THE IDEA of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Individual Decision Procedures, 50, 1-33.
Osgood, C, E. , Suci, G, J. , & Tannenbaum, P, H. , (1957) The Way of measuring of Meaning. Urbana: School of Illinois Press.
Thurston, L, L. , (1928) Attitudes can be Assessed. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529-544.
Likert, R. , (1932) A METHOD for the Measurement of Behaviour. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
