Aiken內容效度係數和同質性信度係數在溫泉旅館業企業經營風險量表之運用

The Application of Aiken Content Validity Coefficient and Homogeneity Reliability Coefficient in Enterprise Business Risks Scale for Hot-Spring Hotel Industries

10.29916/JMPP.200706.0005

賴世國(Shih-Kuo Lai)；張家銘(Chia-Ming Chang)

內容效度 ； 同質性信度 ； 溫泉旅館業 ； 企業經營風險量表 ； content validity ； homogeneity reliability ； hot-spring hotel industries ； enterprise business risks scale

管理實務與理論研究

1卷2期（2007 / 06 / 01）

64 - 75

繁體中文

本研究主要目的在編製一份溫泉旅館業企業經營風險量表，以Aiken提出之內容效度係數與同質性信度係數量化統計方法，檢定溫泉旅館業企業經營風險量表是否具有良好的專家內容效度與同質性信度。本研究針對12位專家學者採問卷調查方式蒐集資料，以李克特(Likert Scale)五點計分評量法進行題項重要性的評定。研究結果顯示本量表各題項內容效度係數（V值）爲.71至.98間；同質性信度係數（H值）爲.57至.93間，所有題項均達顯著水準，具有極高的專家內容效度與同質性信度，同時整份量表的內容效度係數.864與同質性信度係數.787亦達顯著水準，表示本量表整體亦具有良好專家內容效度與同質性信度，故此量表可作爲一份具有效性與可靠性的衡量工具。

The purpose of this research was to develop an enterprise business risks scale for hot-spring hotel industries and to identify this scale with high qualitative content validity and homogeneity reliability by Aiken's two quantitative methods for computing content validity coefficient and homogeneity reliability coefficient. Questionnaire survey method was used to collect data from 12 experts used a five point Likert scale to judge the importance of each item in this research. The results of this study indicated that content validity coefficient (V value) for each item ranged from .71 to .98 and the whole scale was .864; meanwhile, homogeneity reliability coefficient (H value) ranged from .57 to .93 and the whole scale was .787. A high coefficient value with significant level indicated that the whole scale or each item had high content validity and homogeneity reliability. Accordingly, this scale was used to be a valid and reliable measurement instrument.

1. Aiken, L. R.(1985).Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings.Educational and Psychological Measurement,45,131-142.
2. Aiken, L. R.(1980).Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires.Educational and Psychological Measurement,40,955-959.
3. Lawshe, C. H.(1975).A quantitative approach to content validity.Personnel Psychology,28,563-575.
4. Mehrens, W. A.,Lehmann, I. J.(1991).Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology.NY:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
5. Murphy, K. R.,Davidshofer, C. O.(1994).Psychological testing: Principles and applications.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
6. Noy, E.,Ellis, S.(2003).Corporate risk strategy: Does it vary across business activities?.European Management Journal,21(1),119-128.
7. Punch, K. F.、林世華譯(2005)。社會科學研究法：量化與質化取向。台北:心理。
8. Ruefli, T. W.,Collins, J. M.,Lacugna, J. R.(1999).Risk measures in strategic management research: auld lang sync?.Strategic Management Journal,20,167-194.
9. 余民寧(1997)。教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量。台北:心理。
10. 余民寧(1993)。次序性資料的內容效度係數和同質性信度係數之計算。測驗年刊，40，199-214。
11. 吳明隆、涂金堂(2005)。SPSS與統計應用分析。台北:五南。
12. 周文欽(2004)。研究方法：實徵性研究取向。台北:心理。
13. 張春雄、林顯達、黃新宗、劉美芳(2003)。風險管理。台中:吉田。
14. 張紹勳(2001)。研究方法。台中:滄海。
15. 郭生玉(1990)。心理與教育測驗。台北:精華。
16. 陳英豪、吳裕益(1992)。測驗與評量。高雄:復文。