THE TOURISM TRANSITION MODEL FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION OF CHIENGKHAN DISTRICT (the Chiangkhan Old Town)

SUMMARY

THE TOURISM TRANSITION MODEL FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION OF CHIENGKHAN DISTRICT  (the Chiangkhan Old Town)

                                                                                                Sirada Tienkow.  Silapakorn University

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of Study

The aims of this study were to study  the trend of  heritage-tourism growth in

the Chiangkhan Old Town and to set up a model for the balanced growth between tourism and heritage preservation in the Chiangkhan Old Town.

The Research Questions

1.      How will the Chiangkhan Old Town become in future?   Will the balance between tourism and  heritage preservation  possible?

2.      If the balance is less possible, i.e.  money is more regarded than cultural heritage, what planning model is needed  to prevent undesirable occurrence?

Research Methodology

1.      Setting the hypothesis that the Chiangkhan Old Town will become entertainment tourism.   The hypothesis was tested by analysis the trend during transition.

2.      Data were mostly primary and obtained by interview local residents (systematic-probability sampling), tourists (convenient-non-probability sampling),  and non-participant knowledgeable persons near the destination (judgement non-probability sampling). 

3.      For quantitative analysis, the answer for how much, data were interpreted by descriptive statistics finding median, mean, and percentage.    For qualitative analysis,  the answers for why and how,  data were logically discussed.   

Contribution to Knowledge

1. The model for balanced tourism makes an original contribution to the field of cultural heritage preservation and cultural tourism. 

2. Cultural tourism  phases hypothesis, another original contribution, is more effective to explain the phenomena of cultural tourism of the Chiangkhan Old Town than traditional concept of ‘the life cycle of a tourist destination’.

CONCLUSION OF FINDINGS

The Chiangkhan Old Town is in Chiangkhan District, Loei Province, 587 km  northeast from Bangkok.  Though it is just a small old market of 0.1932 sq.km. it is a land of rich cultural heritage by kindly and friendly native people, strongly living according to Buddhism practice, traditional style wooden houses lining 1.5 km long, Lanna-Lanchang style of Buddhist churches, attractive scene of morning alms giving, and natural heritages of serene Mekong River.

In 2009 the Chiangkhan Old Town was unexpectedly known to public that it had rich cultural heritage including generous local residents.  Word of mouths and internet persuaded tourists to visit this land. Since 2009 the Chiangkhan Old Town became tourism destination.   More and more tourists had been visiting the Chiangkhan Old Town to see old wooden houses and morning alms giving to monks from the year 2009 up to present (2012).  This was transitional event that local residents adjust their lifestyle in many ways to please tourists in order to earn tourism income.  Many wooden shophouses had been remodeled for tourism business.  Morning alms giving to monks was in unpleasant scene of selling food and alms conveyance.

The Chiangkhan Old Town would be affected negatively by rapidly growth tourism until it became a destination for entertainment tourism while heritage would be gradually diminished by disregard of the concerned persons. 

Past Circumstance:  20 years before 2009

The Chiangkhan Old Town just 20 years before 2009 was accounted as days before transition towards tourism destination.  It had been being an old discarded market appended to new modern market on the east side.      Only about 20% of all shophouses of the Chiangkhan Old Town still opened selling commodities or services to buyers, 40% used as living places for rice farmers – officials – elders, and 20% were permanently closed for some reasons.  Local residents rather felt desolated and could not guess what would  happen to their Old Town.

Present Circumstance and Change: Transition Period 2009 – 2012

This present circumstance was  transitional period changing the scene of the Chiangkhan Old Town from stillness to tourism destination.  Unexpectedly, in 2008 some group of cultural-heritage appreciators had visited the place and appraised the old town so much that they introduced it to their friends and relatives.  By words of mouth and internet, in 2009  a number of tourists were visiting the destination and rapidly increasing in 2010 and 2011.   

            Heritage and its significance.  There are three types of the heritage of the Chiangkhan Old Town: natural heritage, cultural heritage, and architectural heritage.

           

Natural heritage consists of Mekhong River as a main natural heritage with Phutok Hilltop and Koodkoo Sandbank as supplementary

Cultural heritage consists of: temperament of local residents, morning alms giving to monks, Buddhist monasteries, domestic food, dialect, handicraft,  and Thai classical music.

Architectural heritage consists of wooden shophouses lining in rows.

                   

            Number tourist and growth.  As estimated by the non-participant knowledgeable persons close to the site, the number of tourists a day in 2010, 2011, and 2012 was 200 – 400 – 500 in round numbers respectively. The growth rates of them were 100% and 25% during successive years 2010 – 2011, and 2011 – 2012.  The number of tourists were increasing at diminishing rate. 

Average of numbers of tourists per day  in 2012 were 514 in wet season and 643 in dry season. The average numbers were from  ordinary workdays together with normal holidays, excluding long festival holidays which were very crowded not suitable for cultural heritage tourism.   

The forecast numbers of tourists in the future were:

            625 tourists a day in 2013

            781 tourists a day in 2014

            976 tourists a day in 2015  

Average number of tourists per day  in 2012 were 514 in wet season and 643 in dry season.

Capacity of accommodation and Restaurants.  

            2012    capacity of accommodation   762   vs   500 tourists

            2013    capacity of accommodation   762   vs    625tourists

2014    capacity of accommodation   762   vs    671 tourists

            2015    capacity of accommodation   762   vs    976 tourists

The capacity of  restaurants is 300 customers at a meal simultaneously.  Actually customers do not go to restaurants at the same time  but can take turn to the meal such as three turns.   So the restaurants can accept 900 customers for a meal, enough for tourism.     

Impacts of Tourism on the Chiangkhan Old Town 

Since the Chiangkhan Old Town had become tourism destination, tourism was affecting the local residents and the place in some respects.

Impact of tourism on heritage preservation awareness.  Money minded

aspect of local residents was gradually replacing heritage significance in their mind. 

Impact of tourism on economy.       For positive impact, since the rise of

tourism in the Chiangkhan Old Town, local residents earned extra income from tourism by guesthouse services and selling food in restaurants.  

By estimation in round number, the money created from tourism was 103,105 baht a day.    But this was not yet income; there were money costs of doing business.  Profits were therefore their real income that was not studied in the research. 

Multiplier of income was negligible because those who got tourism income rarely      spent money to other local residents. 

For negative impact, the cost of living especially food, raw or finished, was about 50% higher than other near places.  For some guesthouse owners, they were in debt to commercial banks or non-institution borrowers.   Local residents who did not concern with tourism had more burden on higher cost of living without benefit from tourism.  

When the opportunity to make money was high, outsiders were gradually creeping in the Chiangkhan Old Town to do tourism business.  There were 55 families or 24.44% of local families in 2012.  

Impact of tourism on social.    There were some benefit of tourism to social of the Chiangkhan Old Town.    Facilities and infrastructure developed for tourism could also benefit residents, better street and street lights, wider walkway on the Mekhong River side.    Many local residents were pride of cultural heritage and also not lonely when tourists walking pass their houses or had friendly talk.

Negative impacts of  tourism on social were dirt, noisy, and unsightly on crowded days, dust from non-stop construction, cars passing and parking in cultural zone, less friendly and generosity of local residents compared to the days before tourism.   Even the social relation within and between families was lower because they did not have much time as in the past.  The houses were not the best places for living because there were strangers stay with them.

When outsiders were gradually creeping in the Chiangkhan Old Town to do tourism business.  This situation would cause the non-unique society in a small area.  

Future of the Chiangkhan Old Town

Future of the Chiangkhan Old Town was forecasted from trend of change by the non-participants and the author’s  judgement using cultural heritage phases hypothesis  to predict what circumstance will happen in future.   The forecast is presented as impossible – possible – highly possible.

• It is highly possible that more than half of shophouses will become guesthouses.
• It is also highly possible that most wooden houses will be remodeled to be concrete or wooden-concrete houses until no one can remember their origin.   Wooden houses as the main heritage would be rare for tourists to see.    

• It is possible that morning alms to monks will be a less interesting heritage because it was business blended performance.   That will be unpleasant  scene for tourists.
• It is possible that more local residents will be displaced from the Chiangkhan Old Town and replaced by outsiders coming to do tourism business.   
• It is possible that the Chiangkhan Old Town will become the destination for entertainment tourism.   People come to the destination for leisure: rest in fine weather place (cooler than many other provinces in Thailand),  drink alcohol,  riding bicycle,  sightseeing along Mekhong River, crossing the river to have difference in Laos.  
• Sadly, it is possible that cultural and architectural heritage will be less regarded when local residents can make more money from entertainment tourism,  or selling their land than from heritage tourism. 
• From the above forecast, it can be concluded that it is not balanced between tourism and heritage preservation.   Tourism has more weight than heritage preservation.  

Plan to Balance Tourism and Heritage Preservation

The planning model consists of what to do and how to do as follows.

What to do for heritage preservation.   Activities to deal with this objective are many as follows.

     Stimulation of preservation awareness: 

·         Urgently set up simple heritage preservation course to convince local residents the significance and destruction of their heritage.                    The Chiangkhan Munidipality and heritage appreciators are responsible.                                                 

·         Meeting once a month to remind their heritage preservation duty.                    Local residents and heritage appreciators are responsible for the activity.

Social control for local residents:                                                              Sanction and praising in meeting once a month and words of mouth are  effective measures.                                                                                     The local residents are responsible for the activity.

 Heritage resource development and cost of tourism:

·         Things to developed are wooden houses, riverside walkway, trash bin, information board, traditional careers, parking lot, cultural hall, rules and laws for preservation, lower high cost of tourism.  Things that exist are merely improved but some that do not exist have to build them.    The Chiangkhan Munidipality is responsible for the activities.

What to do with tourists for sustainable tourism.   Activities to deal with this objective are as follows.

Appropriate number of tourists management.  

·         Making agreement with local residents, proper publicity, ticket control, and creating bypass areas.                                               These activities are responsible of local residents and the Chiangkhan Munidipality.

Social control by information boards and sanction.

·         Information boards and local residents tell tourists what behavior is against the culture and wellbeing of residents. 

Local residents and the Chiangkhan Munidipality are responsible for this activity.

DISCUSSION

The author had watched to see the transition of the Chiangkhan Old Town, the cultural heritage destination, since January 2009 to December 2012.   Even it was only four years of observation, it was enough to experience the occurrence of the changes of culture, value, way of livings, and  economy.  It had been changed so much both tangible and intangible heritage. 

What it will be in the future is a question challenged prediction. The author tried the best by judicious observation, cross checking of data from local residents – tourists -  and non-participants, the findings of this research reveal the unbalanced situation.      

Comparing with other heritage researches:

From findings that without local residents’ participation cultural tourism would be failure, the author then compared the findings with other researchers.  Local residents at the Chiangkhan Old Town had less awareness of cultural heritage.         Kitcharoenpaisal, [1] Prombut[2], and Chaiprasit[3] found that local residents had moderate participation and less awareness of heritage significance resulted in less regard for heritage preservation and there should encourage them to involve in all aspects.      Even tourism of the famous world heritage as Luang Prabang  was assessed that some locals do not aware of the significance of their cultural heritages and most of them think that their cultural heritage will be long-lasting and able to attract much tourists without caring about tourism-heritage failure in future.  This is carelessness of locals.[4]  

For the author’s finding of cultural destruction by outsiders’ business,  Pewnim[5] also found the same fact that money benefit from tourism causing antagonistic between outside businessmen and between outside businessmen and local residents and cheated tourists.    Some researches on Luang Prabang, the famous world heritage, reported that investment from other nations was more influential in economy and tourism management of Luang Prabang[6] and economic benefits of tourism were leaked out of  Laos by foreign-owned businesses[7].  The situation at the Chiangkhan Old Town was still not so bad like that but it was likely to happen in future as more outsiders’ trend was obvious; 55 shops of outsiders  were already sneaking into the destination in 2012.   

For another research on the Chiangkhan Old Town, Meekaew and Srisontisuk[8]found that culture commodification of the Chiangkhan Old Town could impact on the destination as culture for sale.  The another finding of  Meekaew etal. that economic benefit from tourism income came to all local residents because all cultural products were belong to them.   The author did not agree with them because the author’s finding was 55 shops of outsiders doing tourism business in the cultural zone of Chaikhong Street in 2012.   

RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy Recommendation

Policy recommendation is for local residents, the Chiangkhan Municipality, police station, and tourists.    

For local residents.   The study found that by their performance local residents did not really aware of the significance of their cultural and architectural heritage even they said they did.   They could not guess the unfavorable incident that would happen to them.  Therefore education on heritage significance and prevention should be set up for them urgently before it was too late.   The heritage appreciators consisting of several knowledgeable persons will be suitable for this task than official units because of they are locals and they appreciate the place.  From the author’s observation, they have persuasive and follow-up tactics enough to deal with their neighbors but they have not really participated in this work.  

The study found that more tourists did not really appreciate wooden shophouses.  It is recommended that local residents, by heritage appreciation group, make guide books of architectural heritage of the Chiangkhan Old Town sold to tourists.  

For the Chiangkhan Municipality.  The study found that people need help from the Chiangkhan Municipality to manage public works as garbage, landscape,  building construction, etc.   The Chiangkhan Municipality should strict on existing cultural laws of construction, cleanliness, and enact some laws to regulate tourism.

The study found that cars running or parking on the heritage zone irritated tourists very much.   The Chiangkhan municipality should manage to have parking lots in some places. 

The study found that there was high  possibility that in future entertainment tourism would replace heritage tourism in the Chiangkhan Old Town.   If this incident is not desirable, the Chiangkhan Metropolitan should publicize that this destination is for only heritage tourism;  those who appreciate the heritage are welcome and then  highly concentrated presentation and interpretation on cultural and architectural heritage to them.   More cultural heritage tourists will come more to experience the unique Old Town.    The Chiangkhan Old Town will have appropriate number of tourists that will be convenient to manage the place.

For police station. The study found much angry blame from tourists about unsightly and unsafe in heritage zone.    The Chiangkhan Police Station have to regulate the traffic controls.  Do not let cars running or parking along Chaikhong Street.  It is a walk street for tourists. 

For tourists.  The study found that rates charged for staying in some guesthouses was unreasonable high while some guesthouses had reasonable rates.  Also food in some restaurants were expensive.   There are not expensive guesthouse rates and lower prices in some  restaurants that tourists may never know.    In order to make inexpensive tourism at the Chiangkhan Old Town,  tourists can explore guesthouses and restaurants and using internet publicize the guesthouses and restaurants that tourists should visit them without being victims.   Internet is the most effective measure for warning each other nowadays. 

Recommendations for Further Research

From this research the author would like to contribute  experience that useful to researchers of the cultural heritage preservation as follows:

·         What interviewees answer may not true.   Sometimes they lie to hide their innocence on some item such as preservation awareness.   Observing their behavior will reveal the fact.

·         Researchers in heritage field should not ignore statistics.  Simple descriptive statistics as median, mean, percent will help to confirm the observation.   However in some case non-probability sampling should be used if few experienced persons know better than hundreds of general persons.

·          For  economic benefit of tourism, researchers should further examine whether income goes to local residents or outsiders.  Merely amount of money obtained from tourism can mislead researchers to understand that it is beneficial to local residents.

·         Problem can happen when human is a part of cultural heritage, i.e. living heritage,  such as people live in wooden house.   The owners of the houses try to change their lifestyle to get convenience.  By this objective they modify their houses.   How much they can remodel their houses that still regard that they do not destroy their heritage preservation.  This is hard for researchers to have unanimous convention.  So the researchers have to consult concerned persons how to evaluate the case.

………………………

---

[1] Kitcharoenpaisal, Porntip. (2010) The Study of  Morn Community Cultural Tourism Resources to Develop Ecotourism in Pathumthani Province. Bangkok: Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot  University.

[2] Prombut, Kesinee. (2011) Public Participation in Managing Cultural Tourism: A Case Study of Wiang Municipality, Chiang Saen District, Chiang Rai Province. Chiang Rai : Mae Fah Luang University.

[3] Chaiprasit, Khosit. (2010). The Royal Project: Sustainable Tourism in Dimension of Internal Development, Case Study at Nong Hoy Royal Project, Chiang Mai. Bangkok: National Research Council of Thailand and Chiang Mai Rajabhat University.

[4]The Local Case Study Team, Bhaktapur. (2000). Culture Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Co-Operation among Stakeholders, A Case Study on Luang Prabang Lao PDR.  Bangkok: UNESCO,Office of the Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia and the Pacific

[5] Pewnim, Maneewan. (2002). The Impact of Cultural Tourism on Community Life: Case Studies of  Two Floating Markets Community.  Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund.

[6] Wattayapak, Chusak. (2011). Tourism and Management: A Study on Cultural Tourism in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR.  Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund.

[7] Engelhardt, Richard. Jamieson, Walter. And Jong, Peter de. (2004). IMPACT: The Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment in Asia and the Pacific: Tourism and Heritage Site Management in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR.    Bangkok: UNESCO.

[8] Mekaew, Nattapon. And Srisontisuk, Somsak. (2012). Chaikhong Street: Cultural Commodification for Tourism in Chiangkhan District, Loei Province.  Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University. 

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

Boonserm Booncharoenpol

North-Chiangmai  University

Very often questions for social researchers, “How qualified is your instrument, i.e. your questionnaire or your interview sheet?  Is it already tested for validity and reliability?”    Being afraid of such question social researchers blindly test their questionnaires or interview sheets by using reliability and validity test method from psychometrics  and education tests.  The psychologist Lee Cronbach formula[1] is normally used in such tests.    In fact the Cronbach formula is for psychometric test, e.g. quantitative tests for the measurement of psychological variables such as intelligence, aptitude, and personality traits.   It will be nonsensical if a social researcher uses  Cronbach formula for testing their questionnaires or interview sheets.     Why?   Please read the following paragraph carefully.  

Once some of these decisions are made and a measure is developed, which is a careful and tedious process, the relevant questions to raise are “how do we know that we are indeed measuring what we want to measure?” since the construct (concept, model, idea) that we are measuring is abstract, and “can we be sure that if we repeated the measurement we will get the same result?”.  The first question is related to validity and second to reliability.  Validity and reliability are two important characteristics of behavioral measure and are referred to as psychometric properties.[2]

From the paragraph:

Validity: how do we know that we are indeed measuring what we want to measure?

Reliability: can we be sure that if we repeated the measurement we will get the same result?

For example, we want to test IQ of a man, we invent 20 questions in a test paper for the man to solve.   Then we have to be sure that these questions are really for IQ test.   This is validity of the test questions.

A test paper when repeatedly testing to the same man, let us say 50 times, if the scores of the 50 tests are the same, we accept that the test paper has reliability characteristic.   

 Social  Science Research

In social science research, validity and reliability are useful characteristics for questionnaires and interview sheets.  But the tests for validity and reliability are different from that of psychometric and education tests.

For validity of the questions, considering IQ test in psychometrics, they have standard questions invented by psychologist experts.   They can compare the score results from new questions with the score results from the standard questions.   What about questionnaires in social science as economics, tourism, political science, public administration, and business administration?   We never have standard questions relevant to our works and accepted by experts as the convention of the field.    If we do not have such standard questions we can not compare the score tested of our questionnaires with that of the standard one.      

The Professional Testing Organization. advices how to test validity as follows.   Questionnaire validity is typically estimated by gathering a group of subject matter experts (SMEs) together to review the test items.  Specifically, these SMEs are given the list of content areas specified in the test blueprint, along with the test items intended to be based on each content area.  The SMEs are then asked to indicate whether or not they agree that each item is appropriately matched to the content area indicated.

Any items that the SMEs identify as being inadequately matched to the test blueprint, or flawed in any other way, are either revised or dropped from  the test.[3]  This is relevant to the case of social science research.

What to do with validity in social research questions?            One thing to do is “ Ask the experts before you ask questions to respondents.”  Other things to do are: make questions covering with all needed information, no ambiguous question, no leading question, and ask to the point. 

For reliability of the questions, the psychometricians can repeat asking same or equivalent questions many times to their clients and notice whether they answer the same thing or the equivalent.    Also the educationists can test their students many times with the same questions or the equivalent.  Then they compare scores and calculate the alpha coefficient of  Lee Cronbach’s test.[4]   

How about social science research, can we repeat asking the same respondent many times?  We can’t do that.    Therefore we do not know whether they answer the  same thing or the equivalent.  The alpha coefficient of  Lee Cronbach’s test is then useless for social science research.

     What to do with reliability in social research questions?  Things to do are: 

·         Do not ask an ambiguous question because  a respondent will answer that question in many ways.  The question must be  corresponding to unique answer.

·         The question must be clear, to the point.

·         No leading question.

Validity can’t be obtained through reliability.  Even we know that our set of questions has good reliability, we cannot conclude that we will have good validity.          We can not calculate validity from reliability.   They have no relation between them.    Why not?   Because:

·         Validity: how do we know that we are indeed measuring what we want to measure?

·         Reliability: can we be sure that if we repeated the measurement we will get the same result?

There is nothing correlated between the two characteristics.

Cronbach’s Coefficient Cannot Help Social Science Researchers

For estimating Cronbach’s coefficient α, we have to repeat questions many times.  In social research, if we do not do controlled experimental research we cannot ask respondents repeatedly many times.  No one will cooperate with us to that degree.      So Cronbach’s coefficient α can do nothing with social research as economics – business – tourism – political science – public administration, etc.           

Some researchers use answers from many respondents instead of repeatedquestions to each of all respondents for calculating α.   That is not repeated questions to each respondent  therefore the result is not Cronbach’s coefficient.  

Conclusion     

Regarding validity and reliability of questionnaires or interview sheets is very good strategy for social research.   But examine them qualitatively, even economics research.   Do not try to quantify them or you will be deceived.   Mathematics and statistics can do nothing with validity and reliability of social research.  What should we do then?      

The strategies.   The strategies to bring about validity and reliability at the same time to your questions are:

·         All details of information you need to know are brought into your questions.  (validity)

·         If you do not experience topic you are doing research, consult experienced persons. (validity)

·         Do not ask an ambiguous question because  a respondent will answer that question in many ways.  The question must be  corresponding to unique answer. (validity and reliability)

·         The question must be to the point.  (validity)

·         No leading question.  (validity and reliability)

Please do not quantify your qualitative questions into quantitative feature.  It may look good on paper but it is meaningless.

…………………………

 

APPENDICES

UNDERSTANDING CRONBACH’S RELIABILITY

Boonserm Booncharoenpol

A  better understanding of score reliability can resolve common misconceptions.

Lee Cronbach, a psychometrician, tried to test whether a question or a set of questions that a tester repeatedly asks his respondents will  make the respondent answer the same answer.  If the answers from the repeated test are the same, it is called the perfect Cronbach’s reliability (α coefficient = 1).    If they are not the same but close together the Cronbach’s reliability is high.   If they are much different, the Cronbach’s reliability is poor.   Some academics set up the scale as the table below.[5]    However there is no convention about this scale.   You may or may not agree with this scale. 

Cronbach's alpha	Internal consistency
α ≥ 0.9	Excellent
0.8 ≤ α < 0.9	Good
0.7 ≤ α < 0.8	Acceptable
0.6 ≤ α < 0.7	Questionable
0.5 ≤ α < 0.6	Poor
α < 0.5	Unacceptable

            Example A professor organized ‘a Test of English for Politicians’ by 5 items of language: grammar, reading, listening, conversation, and writing.  The professor asked a politician to do the test once a week, for three weeks. That was three tests.  The results of the tests were in the table below.

RESULTS OF ENGLISH TESTS FOR MR. A
Item	1stTest	2nd Test	3rd Test
Grammar	65	62	68
Reading	80	85	78
Listening	62	72	71
Conversation	59	65	61
Writing	8	12	11

Solution: Find correlation coefficient between 1^st Test and 2^nd Test, 1^st Test and 3^rd Test,  3^rd Test and  1^st Test.  The results are as follows.

r_1.2 =  0.9855     r_1.3 = 0.9896      r_2.3 = 0.9850

r _average = (0.9855 +  0.9896  + 0.9850)/3  = 0.9867     

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient   =  rk /[1 + (k -1)r]

where

                       

            r   :  r _average  = 0.9867

            k  :   items    = 5                                 

                                  α  =  0.9867*5/ [1 + (5 – 1) 0.9867]

            .                                     =  4.9335 / [1 + 4*0.9867]

                                                  =  4.9335 / [1 + 3.9468]

                                                  =  4.9335 / 4.9468

                                                  =  0.9973

Therefore the set of English test questions for Mr. A is reliable at the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of   0.9973.  The interpretation is: the results from repeated testing are not much different, i.e. high reliability of questions in the test.       

            Try some other respondents too.   The testing of repeated answers from only one respondent is not dependable.  That man may have some problem in his mind.  We had better do the same thing, repeating questions at least three times,  to other respondents – 5 respondents should be enough -  and find the alpha coefficient from each respondent.   Then we average all alpha coefficients of all respondents to obtain the more dependable Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.  If you find  the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients from each respondent are considerably  different, your questions are awfully unreliable.  Please develop your questions.   

Do not make wrong calculation. Many researchers do not repeat testing on the  same respondents.  They use answers from many residents to calculate the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient thinking that this is repeated test.  No, that is not the case of repeated questions and answers.  So even though they can calculate the figures and get the result but it is not the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. It is the test of  how all the questions in the questionnaire are more or less  correlated.  We do not want that result. We want to know that how much the answers are different if a respondent repeats his answers.  

 

 

 

 

……………………………

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Business Dictionary. Retrieved  April 3, 2011 from       http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/test-validity.html#ixzz2LGJmBQ55

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

Knowledge Base. Retrieved June 25, 2010 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/relandval.php

McIver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G.  (1981).  Unidimensional scaling.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage. p. 15.

Professional Testing Organization. Test Validity.  Retrieved November 8, 2012 from    http://www.proftesting.com/test_topics/pdfs/test_quality_validity.pdf

Research Methods. Retrieved May 22, 2010. from  http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/validityreliability.html

Test validity. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  Retrieved March 3, 2011. from    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_validity

 

…………………………

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

[2] Validity and  reliability .Retrieved  February 16, 2013  from http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~bacraig/SCS/VALIDITY%20AND%20RELIABILITY.doc

[3] Professional Testing Organization. Test Validity.  Retrieved  April 12, 2011 from  http://www.proftesting.com/test_topics/pdfs/test_quality_validity.pdf

[4] Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,297-334.

[5] Wikipedia. Cronbach's alpha. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronbach's_alpha