The initial pool of items obtained from the literature (see section 5.2) was subjected to face validity. Although face validity is subjective in nature, it is essential in order to provide an indication for the appropriateness of the items that will be used in the questionnaire. In order to establish the face validity a number of experts were asked to provide feedback. Furthermore, a pilot study was conducted in order to assess the content validity of the instrument. A detailed analysis of those two methods is provided in the sections below.
In order to assess the face validity of the instrument, the researcher asked for feedback from two panels of experts in the field of the research. The first panel consisted of five academics that have a vast experience in consumer marketing research and research conducted with surveys and questionnaires similar to ours. The second
panel consisted of five music industry practitioners who have worked extensively on the area of music piracy. All panel members were provided with a questionnaire in order to comment and evaluate the items’ representation of the construct domain. Details about the names and affiliations are provided below.
Academic Experts Industry Experts modifications (i.e. paraphrasing, rephrasing, deleting or adding items) that were proposed. The process is detailed below.
A number of academics, suggested to change the Likert scale structure and instead of numbers (1 to 7) to put either dots or empty boxes for the respondents to tick them. Therefore, following this suggestion – to make it easier for the participants – boxes to tick with brief explanations above them were used in the questionnaire instead of numbers. Additionally, some academics found confusing the fact that the first three constructs were based on a Likert scale that was ranging from “bad” to “good”,
“foolish” to “wise”, etc. Thus, the end points above the boxes are now consistently ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” for all items. The use of this
type of Likert scale is consistent with previous studies in music piracy (Kwong and Lee, 2001, 2002; Al-Rafee and Cronan, 2006; Plowman and Goode, 2009, Yoon, 2011).
Most academics commented on items 1.1 to 1.4 (the items regarding the Attitude construct). Specifically, one academic suggested that items 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 should be rephrased as follows: “Overall, I believe buying music from bricks-and-mortar store is”, while three academics couldn’t see any major difference among the characterisations
“harmful/beneficial” and “bad/good”. Following the experts’ suggestions, this point was addressed restructuring the questions concerning Attitude, to be in accordance and to look consistent with the “strongly disagree – strongly agree” structure. The new structure follows that of Taylor and Todd (1995 a) as well as Kong and Lee (2002).
Another point that was raised by both academics and practitioners had to do with the items concerning the “Subjective Norm” construct. More specifically, they suggested excluding items 2.2 (My friends’ opinion has strong influence on me), 2.4 (My family’s opinion has strong influence on me) and 2.6 (The opinion of the musicians I respect has strong influence on me). After a more detailed exploration of the relevant research papers that use these items, it emerges that the seminal papers of Taylor and Todd (1995 a, b) do not contain such questions. These questions were added by Kwong and Park (2008) and they are not generally accepted/used by most researchers.
Therefore, following the comments the questions were excluded from the questionnaire.
For the same construct, two academics suggested to include items that will be differently phrased for the legal and illegal channels, approving and disapproving the behaviour respectively. After a thorough literature search the addition of two additional items was decided. These items are phrased as follows: (If I acquire music from legal/illegal channels, most people who are important to me would approve/disapprove)
Cheng et al. (2009); (Most people who influence my behaviour think that I should/shouldn’t acquire music from legal/illegal channels) adapted from Wang et al.
(2009).
There was a comment from one academic with regards to the Price of Legitimate Music construct. Specifically, item 6.5 (I compare prices for the best value of money when I buy music) should be excluded, since it was a general question regarding price comparisons and it was captured by the previous set of questions in the construct.
Similarly, there were two suggestions of rephrasing the questions regarding Intention and one item of the Idolisation construct. Following the comments, item 6.5 was deleted from the questionnaire; items 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 were rephrased adding the words “In the future…” at the beginning (this was also in accordance with Chiou et al., 2005a); and item 8.2 (It is really a wonderful time to attend a concert of my favourite singer/band) was changed as follows “Attending concerts by my favourite singer/band is wonderful”.
Another point raised from an academic was that it is not necessary to explain to the respondents what each set of questions is about. Thus, the suggestion was to delete all the explanatory statements above each set of questions and simply change that with the phrase: “To what extent you agree with the following?”
Most practitioners suggested the inclusion of the university logo in the first page of the questionnaire in order for the whole research to look official. This point again was taken under consideration and Cranfield University’s logo was added to the first page of the questionnaire. Moreover, there were a few comments about typos and about shortening the research description in the first page in order to make the questionnaire briefer. All those points were taken into account and the required actions were implemented.
Finally, there was a comment from an academic, expert in channel choice theory, which had to do with modelling behaviour as a four-way choice. The suggestion was to add an additional question between questions 5 and 6 in the questionnaire asking clearly: “Which of the following do you think you are most likely to use when next obtaining music?” with four answer options, one for each channel. Following that this question was added to the questionnaire.
Here, it is important to state that all industry practitioners contacted, were very encouraging and highly interested both in the nature of the research and its expected results. Especially, the representative of the International Federation of Phonographic Industry endorsed the research pointing out its importance for the future of the industry (see letter of support in Appendix D).