Measuring Triangulation in Measuring Public by dom12690

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 19

									  Measuring Triangulation in
Measuring Public Transportation
       Service Quality
              By:
             Peter
             Mubi
             Alfred
            Table of Contents
• Background
• Service Quality Measurements
• Triangulation
• Study 1: Surveys
• Study 2: Critical Analysis and Focus Group
  Interview
• Conclusion
                 Background
• Focus
  – Public Transportation Service


• Aim:
  – To develop valid and accurate measure sin order
    to understand how consumers evaluate the
    quality of their services.
   Service Quality Measurements
• Quantitative Approach

• Qualitative Approach
   Service Quality Measurements
• Quantitative Approach
  – SERVQUAL model
     • Uses 22 attitude questions to measure perception.
     • Determine how service providers are evaluated by
       customers.
     • Limitations:
        –   Generic
        –   Focus on process than outcome
        –   Do not include service cost
        –   Built on assumption of multi-attribute evaluations
   Service Quality Measurements
• Qualitative Approach
  – Critical Incident Technique (CIT)
     • Focus on critical incidents
     • Categorize events and behaviors of contact employees
       to distinguish the service satisfaction
Service Quality Measurements
– Focus Group Interview (FGI)
   • Brings together small group of individuals in informal
     setting to discuss a specific set of issues
   • Talk openly
   • Aims to generate spontaneous comments
   • Limitations:
      – Data is hard to analyze
      – Analysis is susceptible to subjective interpretation
      – Study results are different to compare
               Triangulation
• Provides different observations on
  phenomena depending on how it is employed
  and implemented.
• Types
  – Methodological
  – Data
    Methodological Triangulation
• Use dissimilar methods in measuring same unit so
  weakness of one method can be overcome by the
  strength of another.
   – E.g. Use of survey gathers broad surface data but when
     complemented by focus group interview, the results
     could be access to an in-depth discussion on facts.


• Every methodology / approach to a research
  phenomenon is potentially biased and susceptible to
  validity threats.
           Data Triangulation
• To reduce weakness in methodology

• To reduce the outcome bias.

• Consistency between the 2 groups of
  respondents is expected to enhance the
  generalisability of study results.
                   Study 1: Surveys
• Questionnaire
   –   Literature search
   –   Contacting other state DOT
   –   2 focus group and 24 personal interviews
   –   Series of pilot tests and refined for 10 minute telephone
       survey.

• Sampling
   – Public (total of 2,020 households)
   – Transportation Officials (135)

• Includes several variables
Study 1: Surveys
                    Study 1: Surveys
• Results
   – Data analyzed based on:
       • Weighted means
           – Mean and Standard Deviation
           – T-value
           – Significance test for difference in mean
                Study 1: Surveys
   • Unweighted means
       – Perception
       – Attitude
       – Opinion


– Evaluation:
   • Public were evaluated on their opinions.
   • Officials were asked for evaluation of public’s opinion and
     perception.
   • Perceptual gaps were found between public and transportation
     policy makers on specific service aspects and issues.
  Study 2: Critical Analysis and Focus
           Group Interviews
• Aim:
  – Meet with participants of survey and explore significant
    findings in greater detail.
  – Asked for critical incidents that derived satisfaction or
    dissatisfaction.

• Procedure:
  – Sample: Public and elected transportation officials.
  – Participants presented with survey results.
  – Public:
     • Discussed in respect of response from survey.
Study 2: Critical Analysis and Focus
         Group Interviews
– Transportation Officials

   • Participants asked to explain responses to check if its significantly
     different from their expectation.

   • Determine:
       – If survey responses were valid.

       – Why residents from different regions placed more emphasis on one
         issue over another.
  Study 2: Critical Analysis and Focus
           Group Interviews
• Data Analysis
  – Evaluate and summarize each meeting’s results by
    different individuals (Reliability).

  – Results viewed by 3 members of research team.

  – Develop and summarize a list of key issues.

  – Summary report is reviewed by each evaluator.

  – Meet again to review findings and reconcile discrepancies.
                            Conclusion
• Study 1:
        • Results from telephone survey and qualitative survey provided
          significant insights.
        • Survey is a good form of communication tool between planners and
          public.
             – Perceptual gaps would be narrowed if public’s needs are communicated
        • To be conducted periodically
             – Keep track of trends and changes in needs and perceptions


• Study 2:
        • Survey results provided basis for discussion.
        • In-depth probing observed substantial lack of understanding by public.
        • Public opinion is crucial in planning process but education is
          paramount.

• Triangulation should be employed for more accurate picture of
  perceptions and evaluation.

								
To top