“Relationship Quality Scale 关系质量量表”的版本间的差异

2016年10月20日 (四) 11:29的版本

简介

Following relationship marketing literature, Ying et al. (2016) used perceived relationship quality to gauge performance outcomes of interorganizational relationships. Relationship quality is a multidimensional construct capturing the different but related facets of a relationship (Palmatier et al., 2006). Three commonly included components of relationship quality are trust, commitment, and satisfaction. Relationship quality is a second-order factor, with its three components as first-order factors. Their questionnaire used five items from Kumar, Scheer, and Steenkamp (1995) to measure relationship trust, and used another five items based on measures initially developed by Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) to measure relationship satisfaction. Relationship commitment was measured by five items adapted from Anderson and Weitz (1992).

Ying et al. (2016) used matched survey data from both the manufacturer (supplier) and the distributor (buyer) sides. The data collection consisted of three stages. First, they conducted unstructured personal interviews with 11 senior managers in order to develop an understanding of interpersonal ties and boundary-spanning interactions in the manufacturer- distributor relationships. Second, they developed paired questionnaires in English for both manufacturers and distributors. The English version was translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English, with recognition of the cross-cultural distinctions in the connotation of the equivalent constructs.

Finally, they began dyadic data collection with the distributors, and 900 nationwide distributors was provided by the Haier Group. After three rounds of reminders (by phone, by initial and follow-up emails, and in person), 314 questionnaires were returned, of which 251 were complete. The paired questionnaires were then sent to designated manufacturers that had been selected by the distributors, and 225 completed questionnaires were received from 251 manufacturers—an overall response rate of 25%.

信度与效度

Relationship trust’ Cronbach α :0.91 ; Factor Loading>0.8; Rwg:0.95.

Relationship satisfaction’ Cronbach α :0.93 ; Factor Loading>0.8; Rwg:0.95.

Relationship commitment’ Cronbach α :0.93 ; Factor Loading>0.8; Rwg:0.94.

量表

请您根据自己的实际感受和体会，用下面15项描述对您所在的组织进行评价和判断，并在最符合的数字上划○。评价和判断的标准如下： 1 非常不同意 2 不同意 3 不太确定 4 同意 5 非常同意

1.We believe that the supplier (buyer) will not make excessive requests of us.
2.We believe in the supplier (buyer) as being sincere.
3.We can have confidence that the supplier’s (buyer’s) future decisions and actions will not adversely affect us.
4.When making important decisions, the supplier (buyer) cares about our welfare or interests.
5.When it comes to things that are important to us, we can depend on the supplier’s (buyer’s) support.
6.The working relationship between our firm and the supplier (buyer) is characterized by feelings of friendliness.
7.The supplier (buyer) expresses criticism tactfully.
8.Interactions between our firm and the supplier (buyer) are characterized by mutual respect.
9.The supplier (buyer) never leaves us in the dark about things we ought to know.
10.The supplier (buyer) always explains to us the reasons for its company policies.
11.We intend to continue working with the supplier (buyer) because we feel as if they are “part of family.”
12.We would not replace the supplier (buyer), even if another supplier (buyer) made a better offer.
13.Given the same business philosophy as the supplier (buyer), we feel we ought to continue our relationship with the supplier (buyer).
14.We have a strong sense of loyalty to the supplier (buyer), so we continue to work with them.
15.Given all the things we have done with the supplier (buyer) over the years, we feel we ought to continue our relationship with the supplier (buyer).

下载WORD版问卷：文件:Rqs.doc

计分方法

From No.1 to No.5 items measured the relationship trust.

From No.6 to No.10 items measured relationship satisfaction.

From No.11to No.15 items measured relationship commitment.

量表出处

Huang, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, Q. (2013). An investigation of interpersonal ties in interorganizational exchanges in emerging markets: a boundary-spanning perspective. Journal of Management, 109(4), 649-655.