Measuring Triangulation in Measuring Public Transportation Service Quality

1
Measuring Triangulation in Measuring Public
Transportation Service Quality

• By
• Peter
• Mubi
• Alfred

2
Table of Contents

• Background
• Service Quality Measurements
• Triangulation
• Study 1 Surveys
• Study 2 Critical Analysis and Focus Group
  Interview
• Conclusion

3
Background

• Focus
• Public Transportation Service
• Aim
• To develop valid and accurate measure sin order
  to understand how consumers evaluate the quality
  of their services.

4
Service Quality Measurements

• Quantitative Approach
• Qualitative Approach

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Triangulation

• Provides different observations on phenomena
  depending on how it is employed and implemented.
• Types
• Methodological
• Data

9
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.

10
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.

11
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

12
Study 1 Surveys
13
Study 1 Surveys

• Results
• Data analyzed based on
• Weighted means
• Mean and Standard Deviation
• T-value
• Significance test for difference in mean

14
Study 1 Surveys

• Unweighted means
• Perception
• Attitude
• Opinion
• Evaluation
• Public were evaluated on their opinions.
• Officials were asked for evaluation of publics
  opinion and perception.
• Perceptual gaps were found between public and
  transportation policy makers on specific service
  aspects and issues.

15
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.

16
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.

17
Study 2 Critical Analysis and Focus Group
Interviews

• Data Analysis
• Evaluate and summarize each meetings 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.

18
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 publics
  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.

19
END Questions??