Questionnaire in a call centre environment. According to Costa and Anderson [1] trust can be understood as a collective phenomenon, and at a team level can ...
PsychologyandPsychiatry
VALIDATION OF TEAM TRUST QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CALL CENTRE EMPLOYEES IN PORTUGAL Assis. Prof. Dr. Leonor Pais1 Dr. Cristina Souza de Castro 1 Assis. Prof. Dr. Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico1 1
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal
ABSTRACT The objective of this work is to contribute to validation studies of the Team Trust Questionnaire in a call centre environment. According to Costa and Anderson [1] trust can be understood as a collective phenomenon, and at a team level can be conceptualized as “a latent construct based on the individual’s own propensity to trust others on the perceived trustworthiness of the other team members” (p. 5). Eighteen hundred employees in a call centre service provider in Portugal answered the Questionnaire (32.1% male; 56.9% female; M = 31.12 years, SD = 8.91). We performed confirmatory factor analysis of the model proposed by the authors. Model 1 showed standardized regression weights lower than .30 in items 5, 16 and 17, which were eliminated in Model 2. Due to modification indexes higher than 130 indicating problems of local adjustment, in Model 3 we correlated measurement residuals between items 10 and 11, 12 and 14, and 1 and 18. According to the reference values, the goodness of fit of this last model was evaluated as good – X2/126 =9.14; SRMR=.06, NFI=.92, CFI=.93, TLI=.92, and RMSEA = .068 (90% CI, .065 to .072), p130. Reliability was calculated by Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS Considering the dimensionality of the Team Trust Questionnaire [1], Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed based on the dimensionality of the four factors (see diagram of the proposed model in Figure 1).
Figure 1: Proposed model of Team Trust Questionnaire in call centre teams
The goodness of fit indexes of the proposed model (Model 1) are shown in Table 1. Model 1 is not adjusted according to the CFI, TLI, and RMSEA indices. Standardized regression weights are lower than .30 in items 5 (β=.19), 16 (β=.15), and 17 (β=.26), which were eliminated in Model 2 (see goodness of fit indexes of Model 2 in Table 1). Due to modification indexes higher than 130 in Model 2, indicating problems of local adjustment [14], in Model 3 we correlated measurement residuals between items 10 and 11; 12 and 14; 1 and 18. According to the reference values, the goodness of fit of this last model was evaluated as good (see goodness of fit indexes in Table 1), sustaining the four factors proposed by Costa and Anderson [1]:F1-Propensity to trust, F2-Perceived trustworthiness, F3-Cooperative behaviours, and F4-Monitoring behaviours.
Table 1: Goodness of fit indexes obtained in factorial validation of theTeam Trust Questionnaire
PsychologyandPsychiatry
Model
NFI
SRMR
TLI
CFI
χ /df
RMSEA
RMSEA 90% ConfidenceInterval
1
.859
.069
.850
.869
12.30*** (df=183)
.081
.078-.084***
2
.891
.059
.880
.899
12.81*** (df=129)
.082
.079-.086***
3
.924
.059
.917
.932
9.14*** (df=126)
.068
.065-.072***
2
*** p< .001
Table 2 presents the estimates, standard errors, critical ratios, and standardized regression weights for the confirmatory structural analysis of Model 3 (see the diagram of the estimated model in Figure 2). All estimated parameters are statistically significant (see critical ratios), and items have mostly high standardized regression weights [15], ranging from .34 to .82. The intercorrelations between factor 4 and other factors are negative. Factors 1, 2 and 3 are strongly associated. In Table 2, the descriptive statistics for all items are shown, revealing the highest score obtained by item 1, and the lowest for item 19.
Table 2: Estimates, Standard errors (SE), Critical ratios (CR), and Standardized regression weights (SRW): Confirmatory structural analysis of Model 3, Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) Factors
Items
F1 Propensity to trust
F2 Perceived trustworthin ess
F3 Cooperative behaviours F4
1. Most people in this team do not hesitate to help a person in need. 2. Most people speak out for what they believe in. 3. Most people stand behind their convictions. 4. The typical person is sincerely concerned about the problems of others. 6. People usually tell the truth even when they know they will be better off by lying. 7. People can rely on each other. 8. We have complete confidence in each others’ ability to perform tasks. 9. People will keep their word. 10.(r) There are some hidden agendas in this team. 11.(r) Some people often try to get out of previous commitments. 12. People look for each others’ interests honestly. 13. We work in a climate of cooperation. 14. We discuss and deal with issues or problems openly. 15. While taking a decision we take each others’ opinion into consideration. 18. Most people in this team are open to advice and help from others. 19. People watch each other very
Estimate SE
CR
1.00
SRW
M
SD
.629
4.45
0.74
1.47
.057
26.00 ****
.757
3.89
0.91
0.64
.049
13.10 ****
.341
3.83
0.88
1.43
.063
22.75 ****
.637
3.57
1.05
1.34
.060
22.34 ****
.623
3.47
1.01
.819
3.74
0.96
1.00 0.82
.023
35.17 ****
.749
3.98
0.87
0.84
.024
34.67 ****
.741
3.75
0.89
0.76
.035
21.88 ****
.510
3.84
1.18
0.68
.031
21.99 ****
.512
3.47
1.04
1.00
.029
34.90 ****
.744
3.62
1.05
.819
4.09
0.89
1.00 0.91
.029
31.71 ****
.697
4.09
0.96
0.88
.026
33.48 ****
.727
3.82
0.88
0.79
.025
31.24 ****
.689
4.19
0.84
.756
2.59
1.09
1.00
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferenceson Social Sciences and Arts
Factors Monitoring behaviours
Items
Estimate SE
closely. 20. People check whether others keep their promises. 21. Most people tend to keep each others’ work under surveillance.
(r) reversal item
CR
SRW
M
SD
0.64
.033
19.52 ****
.544
2.99
0.97
1.07
.047
22.81 ****
.807
2.68
1.10
*** p < .001
Figure 2: Estimated model of Team Trust Questionnaire in call centres
The descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) of the four factors of the Team Trust Questionnaire are shown in Table 3. The Cronbach’s alpha values are classified as good or acceptable [15]. Factor 3-Cooperative behaviours achieved the highest average, followed by factor 1, F1-Propensity to trust, F2, F2– Perceived trustworthiness and, with the lowest average, factor 4, F4–Monitoring behaviours. Table 3: Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha, and paired differences of the Team Trust Questionnaire N
α
Minimum Maximum
M
SD
Paired differences t(1253)
F1 – Propensity to trust
1254 .742
1.00
5.00
3.84
.65
F1-F2
8.26***
F2 – Perceived trustworthiness
1254 .837
1.00
5.00
3.73
0.75
F1-F3
-17.62***
F3 – Cooperative behaviours
1254 .826
1.00
5.00
4.05
0.73
F1-F4
39.10***
PsychologyandPsychiatry
F4 – Monitoring behaviours
Commitment (global scale)
1254 .746
1.00
5.00
1254 .849
2.76
0.86
F2-F3
-27.93***
F2-F4
30.37***
F3-F4
42.86***
*** p < .001
DISCUSSION The statistical procedures applied achieved a goodness of fit for the third model tested of the Team Trust Questionnaire, indicating that the original model proposed by Costa and Anderson [1] could be enhanced for future application in Portuguese contexts, more specifically call centres. The goodness of fit was only obtained for all indices because the residual variability between items 1 and 18, 10 and 11, and 12 and 14 was correlated. This means there is a percentage of variability that is not explained by the model in our sample, and this is exactly what needs to be done in further research in the same population, which has very particular features. Although factors 1, 2 and 3 are strongly correlated, all four were confirmed as independent, and so validated to measure distinct aspects of trust within call centre teams. The results obtained also point out the strength of cooperative behaviour among team members in call centres, which we can say is expected, since previous studies with call centre employees have already shown how much they rely on each other to get information and even help colleagues to enhance performance [8] [9].
REFERENCES [1] Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol 20/issue 1, pp 119-154, 2011. [2]McAllister, D. J. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, vol 38/issue 1, pp 2459, 1995. [3] Yang, S. C., &Farn, C. K. Social capital, behavioural control, and tacit knowledge sharing: A multi-informant design. International Journal of Information Management, vol29/issue 3, pp 210-218, 2009. [4]Renzl, B. Trust in management and knowledge sharing: the mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega,vol 36/issue 2, 206-220, 2008. [5] Williams, M. In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of management review, vol26/issue 3, pp 377-396, 2001. [6]Politis, J. D. The connection between trust and knowledge management: what are its implications for team performance. Journal of knowledge management, vol7/issue 5, 55-66, 2003. [7]Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of management review, vol23/issue 3, pp 531546, 1998.
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferenceson Social Sciences and Arts
[8] Liu, X. and Batt, R. (2007) “The Economic Pay-offs to Informal Training: Evidence from Routine Service Work”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol 61, No. 1, pp 70-89. [9] Downing, J. R. “It’s Easier to Ask Someone I Know” Call Center Technicians’ Adoption of Knowledge Management Tools. Journal of business communication, vol41/issue 2, 166-191, 2004. [10] Arbuckle, J.L.AMOS18 Reference Guide (Version 18) [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc, 2009. [11] Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 1996. [12] Brown, T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press, 2006. [13] Bentler, P. Quantitative methods in psychology: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp238-246, 1990. [14] Bollen, K. A. Structural equations with latent variables, New York: Wiley, 1989. [15] Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. Using multivariate statistics (5thed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon,2007.
