Developing and Assessing the Reliability and Validity of

Developing and Assessing the Reliability andValidity of an Alternative Scale to Measure Brand Equity

by Arga Hananto

AbstractThis paper attempts to propose an alternative scale to measure brand equity. Using Aaker's conception of brand equity, the scale is constructedby elaborating on each of the four dimensions related with consumerperceptions (i.e. Brand awareness, brand associations, perceived qualityand brand loyalty).The reliability and validity of the proposed scale is assessed using twoways. First, Cronbach's alpha for the proposed scale is computed usingSPSS. It is then compared to Cronbach's alpha computed for scaledeveloped by Yoo and Donthu (2001), which was also administered torespondents. Second, mean and standard deviation for both scales arecomputed. Then means for both scales are correllated in order to assessthe proposed scale's convergent validity.Result on small sample of 20 respondents suggest that the proposedscale exhibit reliability and validity. The Cronbach’s alpha generated bySPSS has proven that items in the author’s scale have relatively goodreliability. The convergent validity has been proven by the existence ofsignificant correlation between his scale and Yoo and Donthu’s scale. Thelatter itself has been validated a couple of times (Atilgan, 2005;Washburn and Plank, 2002).

Introduction

Brand Equity is one of popular topics in marketing. Brand equity is

considered important because it represents the power of brands in the

market (Keller, 2003). Higher brand equity is proposed to increase brand

preference and purchase intention (Cobb-Walgren,1995); increase

interpretation/information processing, use satisfaction, a base to charge

premium price, and source of competitive advantage for firms (Aaker,

1991, quoted in Keller, 2003).

Inspite of agreement amongst researchers about the value of brand

equity, there is still no consensus regarding its conceptualisation and

measurement.

1

This paper aims to propose an alternative scale to measure brand equity

based on conception by Aaker (1991, quoted in Yoo and Donthu, 2001).

The proposed scale is then compared to other scale adapted from Yoo and

Donthu (2001) in order to compare proposed scale’s reliability and

validity.

Before we proceed to discuss the scale development, we need to revisit

some conceptions of brand equity and its components.

Consumer-Based Brand Equity

According to Aaker (1991, quoted by Washburn and Plank, 2002), brand

equity is defined as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a

brand that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or

service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers.” Keller (2003), defines

brand equity as “the differential effect that brand knowledge has on

consumer response to the marketing of that brand. Their conceptual

framework of brand equity is widely used throughout academic literature

about brand equity

Based on Aaker’s conceptualisation (1991, quoted in Yoo and Donthu,

2001), brand equity construct consists of five dimensions, namely brand

awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand loyalty and other

proprietary brand assets. Keller (2003) on the other hand proposes two

dimensions, namely brand awareness and brand image.

In this paper, Aaker’s conceptualisation of brand equity is used to develop

the proposed scale. Therefore we will look at each of the five dimensions

more thoroughly.

1. Brand awareness

Brand awareness deals with the strength of a brand’s presence in

consumer’s mind. Aaker (1991, quoted in Atilgan, et. al ,2005) defines

brand awareness as” the ability of potential buyers to identify and

recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category.” Keller

2

(2003) proposes that brand awareness consists of brand recognition

and recall. Whereas brand recognition is defined as the ability of

consumers to correctly identify that he/she has heard of the brand

before, brand recall deals with consumer’s ability to retrieve the brand

from memory when given certain cues related to product category,

needs, and purchase or usage situation (Keller, 2003).

2. Brand associations

Aaker defines brand associations as “anything linked in memory to a

brand (Aaker 1991, quoted in Washburn and Plank 2002). Brand

associations are believed to contain the meaning of the brand for

consumers (Keller 1993). Strong and favourable brand associations

contribute toward brand equity. Aaker (1991, quoted in Atilgan, 2005)

suggests that brand association creates value for customers as well as

marketers because brand associations help consumer process

information, differentiate an offering, provide reason to buy and a

basis for extension.

3. Perceived quality

Perceived quality is defined as consumer’s subjective evaluation of

overall excellence of a product (Zeithaml, 1988). Aaker (1996)

suggest that perceived quality is one of key dimensions to measure

brand equity. A report by Total Research (quoted in Aaker, 1996)

suggests that it is related with price premiums, price elasticity, brand

usage and stock return.

4. Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty is defined by Aaker (1991, quoted by Pappu, et. al, 2005)

as “the attachment that a customer has to a brand. Aaker (1996)

argues that brand loyalty is the core of brand equity as it provides

barrier to entry, a basis for price premium, gives time to respond to

competitor action, as well a safeguard against price competition.

5. Other proprietary brand assets

According to Aaker (1991, quoted in Keller, 2003), other proprietary

brand assets include trademarks, patents, and channel relationships.

3

Scale Development Process

The proposed scale was developed based on Aaker’s conceptualisation of

brand equity, consisting of brand awareness, brand association, perceived

quality and brand loyalty dimensions. Since the fifth dimension proposed

by Aaker is not based on consumer perception, it is not used in the

measurement.

Definitions and discussion of each dimension in various journal articles

were used to develop the scale. Eventhough the author has attempted to

come up with his own scale, but sometimes it is unavoidable to totally

differentiate the question(s) from previously developed scales by other

researchers.

The scale consists of 6 items measuring brand awareness, 16 items

measuring brand association, 6 items measuring perceived quality and 4

items measuring brand loyalty. These items are then compared to a scale

developed by Yoo and Donthu (2001) which was validated by Washburn

and Plank (2002) and Atilgan, et. al (2005).

Both the author’s own scale as well as the scale adapted from Yoo and

Donthu’s are measured using 7 points ordinally interval scale (a modified

Likert scale, see Hair et al, 2003). The scale descriptors are anchored at

1= “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”. The original scale

reported in their journal article was measured using 5 items Likert scale

anchored at 1= “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”.

A list of items used in the scale as well as scale adapted from Yoo and

Donthu (2001) is presented below.

Table 1

List of items developed by the author

Brand Awareness1. Toothpaste X is the name that comes into my mind when I think of toothpaste brand2. I have heard of Toothpaste X before3. I can easily find Toothpaste X in a supermarket aisle4. I can quickly identify Toothpaste X in a supermarket rack5. When you see a toothpaste tube with blue, italic font, you think of Toothpaste X

4

6. When it comes to purchase toothpaste, Toothpaste X comes up in my mind firstBrand Association1. Toothpaste X gives me performance worth the money I spent to buy it2. Toothpaste X has better performance than other toothpaste brands3. Toothpaste X has better performance than other toothpaste brands4. I have a clear idea about what kind of people who use Toothpaste X5. Toothpaste X is associated with friendliness6. Toothpaste X is associated with sincerity7. Toothpaste X is associated with family values8. Toothpaste X is associated with excitement9. Toothpaste X is very reliable10.Toothpaste X really delivers its promise11. Toothpaste X is associated with sophistication12. Toothpaste X is associated with strength13. I’m proud to buy Toothpaste X 14. I know the company that produce Toothpaste X15. I like the company that produce Toothpaste X16. Toothpaste X comes from a company with good reputationPerceived Quality1. Toothpaste X is high quality toothpaste2. Compared to other brands of toothpaste, Toothpaste X performs better3. For the price I pay for Toothpaste X, I get good quality4. The brand name of Toothpaste X signals good quality5. The price of Toothpaste X reflects its quality6. Judging from the frequency of Toothpaste X advertisement in the media, Toothpaste X

must be of good qualityBrand Loyalty1. I would feel happy to buy other brand of toothpaste next time*2. I feel committed to Toothpaste X3. It is very likely that I will buy Toothpaste X next time I need to buy toothpaste4. I prefer Toothpaste X compared to other brands of toothpaste

* denotes reverse-scored item

Table 2

List of Items Adapted from Yoo and Donthu (2001)

Brand awareness/associationsI can recognize Toothpaste X among other competing brandsI am aware of Toothpaste XSome characteristics of Toothpaste X come to my mind quicklyI can quickly recall the symbol or logo of Toothpaste XI have difficulty in imagining Toothpaste X in my mind*.Perceived QualityThe likely quality of Toothpaste X is extremely highThe likelihood that Toothpaste X would be functional is very highBrand LoyaltyI consider myself to be loyal to Toothpaste XToothpaste X would be my first choiceI will not buy other brands if Toothpaste X is available at the store.

• denotes reverse scored item

•

Object measured is a well-known brand of toothpaste in Indonesia

produced by a multinational company. For reporting purpose, the brand

name is disguised as “Toothpaste X.”

5

Operationalisation of dimensions used to measure brand equity

1. Brand Awareness

Brand awareness is measured by brand recognition only. Aaker (1996)

suggest that measurement of brand recall may not be convenient to

administer in a survey. Other consideration involves the need to use a

scale measure that allows more powerful statistical analysis (interval

or ratio scale) as well as uniform scale so that the score of each item

on each dimension can be averaged, and in turn a mean for the whole

brand equity construct can be derived. Measuring brand recall would

likely result in categorical data as doing it would involve asking

respondent to recall a certain brand based on a certain cue.

Nevertheless, the author attempts to partly emulate brand recall by

structuring the question around product attributes (by asking their

agreement/disagreement of statement “Toothpaste X is the name that

comes into my mind when I think of toothpaste brand”), and purchase

situation (“When it comes to purchase toothpaste, Toothpaste X

comes up in my mind first”). This is done in order to emulate Keller’s

suggestion (2003) to employ such cues in actual recall measurement.

Other questions include pseudo recall of packaging (“When you see a

toothpaste tube with blue, italic font, you think of Toothpaste X”) as

well as more “traditional” question of brand recognition (“I have heard

of Toothpaste X before”).

2. Brand Associations

Measurement of brand association in the scale is based on Aaker’s

concept to measure brand equity across products and markets (1996),

which suggests the inclusion of value, brand personality and

organisational associations.

In value subdimension, a value indicator is measured. It indicates to

what extent a brand is successful in creating a value proposition

(Aaker,1996). Aaker further suggests that it can be measured by

6

asking whether the brand provides value for money and/or reason to

buy over competitor brand. Eventhough evidence show that perceived

value is related with perceived quality, but further research by Young

and Rubicam (quoted in Aaker, 1996) indicate that they represent

different dimensions, thus deserves to be separated. In this scale, the

author measures value dimension as proposed by Aaker (1996).

(Questions 1-2)

Brand personality is defined as “the set of human characteristics

associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997). Aaker further suggests that it

consists of five dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence,

sophistication, and ruggedness. In this scale, the author attempted to

measure brand personality using items suggested by Aaker (1996)

with some adaptation (Question 4). Other items attempt to measure

brand personality dimensions based on concepts proposed by Aaker

(1997). This is featured in questions 5-13.

The third subdimension, organisational associations is based on the

premise that an organization can be used to differentiate an offering,

especially when brands in the market have similar attributes (as in the

case of toothpaste market). Questions regarding this subdimension are

featured in questions 14 – 16)

The author also adds one more item to measure overall brand

association (Question 3). This is done in accordance to Aaker’s

suggestion that we can supplement the three brand-associations

measure with an overall indicator measuring a brand’s ability to

achieve differentiation.

3. Perceived Quality

Perceived quality is operationalised using framework proposed by

Zeithaml (1988). She suggests that perceived quality is an overall

subjective judgment of a product quality, and that perceived quality is

7

also a form of an attitude. Another point she posits is that a consumer

judges perceived quality of a product relative against other

competitive brands in the market. She also proposes that consumers

use extrinsic attributes such as price, brand name, and level of

advertising frequency to judge a product’s perceived quality. Using

these postulates, the author generated four items (questions 3-6).

There are also two more questions that directly assess respondents’

attitude toward Toothpaste X’s perceived quality relative to its

competitors (questions 1-2)

4. Brand Loyalty

There is no consensus of the definition of brand loyalty as well as its

measurement (Bennet and Rundle-Thiele, 2002; Rundle-Thiele and

Mackay 2001). Mellens (1996, quoted in Rundle-Thiele and Mackay,

2001) classifies brand loyalty measurement as behavioural and

attitudinal. Whereas behavioural loyalty is measured based on

observed actual purchases over time period, attitudinal loyalty is

measured based on stated preferences, commitment or purchase

intentions (Mellens 1996, quoted by Rundle-Thiele and Mackay, 2001).

In this scale, the author adopts attitudinal loyalty measurement in

order to create consistent measurement based on consumer

perception.

The attitudinal loyalty construct is operationalised based on various

key measures proposed by a number of researchers summarised in

table from Rundle-Thiele and Mackay (2001) below:

Table 3Classification of attitudinal loyalty measurement

Attitudinal loyalty measurement Question no.Attitude toward the loyal/disloyal act (Sharp, et al,

1997)

1

Brand Preference (Guest, 1944, 1955) 4Commitment (Hawkes, 1994) or attitude toward the

brand measures (Sharp, et al, 1997)

3

Probability of purchase (Danenberg and Sharp, 1996;

Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978)

2

8

Measures of Brand Equity Used in Yoo and Donthu’s (2001) scale

Yoo and Donthu based their scale development on Aaker’s conception of

brand equity, consisting of dimensions mentioned in the previous sections.

They initially generated 48 candidate items to measure the four dimensions;

then the items were screened based on conformity with theoretical

definitions and the work of previous researchers. As a result, they

maintained 22 items (5 for brand loyalty, 4 for brand awareness, 7 for

perceived quality, and 6 for brand associations) for psychometric testing.

For brand loyalty, they used attitudinal loyalty approach, and adapted items

from Beatty and Kahle (1988, quoted in Yoo and Donthu, 2001).

They measured brand awareness based on simple brand recognition instead

of recall, but they did not mention the rationale behind this decision. They

based the items on works of previous researchers as mentioned in Srull

(1984), Alba and Hutchinson (1987), and Rossiter and Percy (1987), all

quoted in Yoo and Donthu’s article (2001).

Perceived quality items were designed to capture quality as “consumers’

subjective judgment about a brand’s overall excellence as postulated by

Zeithaml (1988). They adopted seven items from Dodd et al ’s work (1991,

quoted in Yoo and Donthu, 2001).

The last dimension, brand association is defined following Keller’s (1993)

definition (“the strength of connection to a brand node as a function of both

the amount or quantity of processing the information received at encoding

and the nature or quality of the processing of the information received at

encoding”). They developed their own items based on this definition.

9

They concluded their article by suggesting that brand awareness and

associations need to be combined because discriminant validity of the two

were not proven in their model.

Assessing Scale Reliability and Validity in Comparison with Yoo and

Donthu’s Brand Equity Scale

Both scale was administered through two informal mailing lists of teaching

staffs at Department of Management of Faculty of Economics, University of

Indonesia as well as some friends in Indonesia around April-May 2006.

There are 20 questionnaire filled out and returned via email. The result were

inputted into SPSS. Prior to processing, data were screened for missing

values as well as data input errors. Then several statistics below were

computed:

• Mean and standard deviation of the two scales (including mean scales and

standard deviation on each dimensions on both scales)

• Cronbach’s Alpha for both scales

• Pearson correlation between the two scales

Complete SPSS output is available in Appendix 1-3. In this section we will

highlight only some of the important statistics.

● Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s alpha result from the author’s own scale:

a. Brand Awareness

Cronbach’s alpha for the overall brand awareness construct is

0.682. It is slightly under minimum recommended alpha value of

0.7 (see Pappu, et al, 2005; Yoo and Donthu, 2001).

An evaluation of item-total statistics for each item in the

construct reveals that items 5 (“When you see a toothpaste tube

10

with blue, italic font, you think of Toothpaste X”) and 6 (“When it

comes to purchase toothpaste, Toothpaste X comes up in my mind

first)” have low corrected item-total correlation (0.2380 and 0.2630

respectively). “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” for both items

indicate that if both were deleted (one at a time) from the scale, then

the overall brand awareness reliability would improve significantly (to

0.720 if item 5 were deleted, 0.732 if item 6 were deleted). If both

items were deleted altogether, then the total brand awareness

reliability would improve even more significantly to 0.820.

Cronbach’s alpha result for brand awareness thus suggests

that item 5 and/or 6 (or both) may need to be deleted in order to

obtain more reliable awareness scale.

b. Brand Associations

Cronbach’s alpha for brand associations scale is 0.840,

indicating good level of construct reliability.

The Alpha if item deleted” column suggests that item 4 (“I

have a clear idea about what kind of people who use Toothpaste X”),

item 7 (“Toothpaste X is associated with family values”), and item 14

(“I know the company that produce Toothpaste X”) may be deleted.

If item 4 were deleted, the cronbach’s alpha would increase

fractionally to 0.8490, deleting item 7 would increase the alpha to

0.8450, while deleting item 14 would even increase the alpha more

significantly to 0.853. If all of them were deleted, reliability would

increase to 0.874.

Based on values above, we may conclude that although the

brand association scale already yield good reliability, eliminating

items 4, 7, and 14 may increase it further.

Despite Aaker’s (1996) suggestion in his article to use question

similar to item 4 to measure brand personality subdimension of

brand association, it seems that this kind of question may not

measure brand personality subdimension. Could this possibly caused

by ambiguous nature of the question, the wording used, or the

11

nature of object under study? Further research is needed to examine

this further.

Item 7 was intended as part of sincerity subdimension of brand

personality, but apparently “family values association” may not

associate with brand association.

Item 14 (“I know the company that produce Toothpaste X”)

also probably unrelated with brand association. It might be more

appropriate to include it in the brand awareness dimension as part of

new subdimension named corporate awareness.

c. Perceived Quality

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for perceived quality of this

dimension is 0.930. This value indicates a highly reliable scale.

Examining the “alpha if item deleted” column, we may say

that no items need to be eliminated, since all of them indicate high

corrected item-total correlation as well as small differences in “alpha

if item deleted” column, indicating good reliability.

Five out of six items indicate lower alpha if item were deleted. Only

item 6 (Judging from the frequency of Toothpaste X advertisement in

the media, Toothpaste X must be of good quality) would increase the

total cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale slightly to 0.939 if it

were deleted.

d. Brand Loyalty

Cronbach’s alpha for this dimension indicates high reliability

(0.922). All items indicate high item-total correlation. Item 2 (I feel

committed to Toothpaste X) is the only item that might improve

loyalty scale reliability very slightly if it were deleted (reliability

would increase slightly to 0.928).

Based on statistics above, we may conclude that brand loyalty

scale has very good reliability and no items need to be removed.

Cronbach’s alpha result of scale adapted from Yoo and Donthu (2001)

12

a. Brand awareness/associations

Cronbach’s alpha indicates relatively high reliability of 0.793

for 5 items scale of combined awareness/associations.

Examination of “alpha if item deleted” column reveals that

deleting item 2 (I am aware of Toothpaste X) may improve scale

reliability marginally (to 0.812).

Since cronbach’s alpha scale of 0.7 (Pappu et al, 2005; Yoo

and Donthu, 2001) is regarded sufficient to indicate acceptable

reliability, thus no need to eliminate any items.

b. Perceived Quality

For perceived quality, the 2 items scale yield cronbach’s alpha

coefficient of 0.922, indicating high reliability. Both items indicate

similar corrected item-total correlation, with no alpha if item deleted

values available.

Examination of the “alpha if item deleted” column of the SPSS

output identifies something that the author could not explain. The

column is left blank by SPSS and there’s a short notification

underneath, saying that there is negative correlation between the

two items and that the author should check the data coding. The

data coding were checked, and there was no mistake or coding error,

so the problem is remained unsolved to the date this report was

written.

c. Brand Loyalty

The three items scale measuring brand loyalty yield cronbach’s

alpha coefficient of 0.946, indicating high reliability. All items in the

scale indicate high item-total correlation. The only item that can be

deleted is item 1(“the likely quality of Toothpaste X is extremely

high”). But deleting this item would only yield small increase in the

alpha coefficient (0.948).

13

Conclusion based on cronbach’s alpha values of both scales

The two scales appear to exhibit high reliability. In general, the

author’s own scale exhibit somewhat comparable reliability values in

terms of cronbach’s alpha. The author’s scale for perceived quality

dimension is slightly higher than Yoo and Donthu’s, whereas for

brand loyalty it is slightly lower than Yoo and Donthu’s. Since Yoo

and Donthu merged brand awareness and associations dimensions,

we cannot directly compare the values, but if the author’s brand

awareness and associations dimensions were combined and simply

averaged, Yoo and Donthu’s scale is still slightly better in reliability

(0.7608 compared to 0.7935).

Table 4 below summarise cronbach’s alpha values of both scales in

each dimension they measure.

Table 4

Summary of Cronbach’s alpha values of both scales

Brand

Awarenes

s

Brand

Associations

Perceived

Quality

Brand

Loyalty

Author’s scale 0.682 0.840 0.930 0.922Yoo and Donthu’s

scale

0.793* 0.922 0.946

*Combined dimensions (awareness/associations)

Table below presents a part of Cronbach’s alpha of Yoo and Donthu’s

original scale as reported in their article. In their study, they

administered their scale to three groups of students with different

background (Americans, Koreans, and Korean Americans).

14

Table 5

Cronbach’s alpha values from Yoo and Donthu’s original study

Americans Koreans Korean

AmericanBrand Loyalty 0.88 0.86 0.87Perceived Quality 0.92 0.90 0.84Awareness/associations 0.92 0.89 0.89

These values suggest that both Yoo and Donthu’s adapted scales as

well as the author’s scale used in this study exhibit higher reliability

in brand loyalty and perceived quality dimensions. On the other

hand, for brand awareness/associations dimension, the original scale

exhibits higher reliability.

● Mean, standard deviation and correlation of both scales

After examining the reliability of the proposed scale, we need to

assess its convergent validity. Hair et al (2003) defines convergent

validity as “how well the construct’s measurement positively

correlates with different measurements of the same construct. To

assess this, we shall compare the mean total brand equity of both

scales as well as their correlation with each other.

The mean value for total brand equity is derived by averaging all

mean values of each dimension. Mean value of each dimension is

derived by averaging all items in a dimension.

The mean value of each dimension as well as total brand equity is

summarised in tables 4 and 5 below.

Table 6

Mean and Standard Deviation of Author’s Scale

Total

Awarenes

s

Total

Associatio

n

Total

Perceived

Quality

Total

Loyalt

y

Total

Brand

EquityN 20 20 20 20 20

15

Mean 5.7167 4.344 4.5833 3.612

5

4.5617

Standard

deviation

0.8552 0.7124 1.2085 1.706

2

0.9100

Source: SPSS data output

Table 7

Mean and Standard Deviation of Scale adapted from Yoo and Donthu

Total

Awareness/

Association

Total

Perceived

Quality

Total

Loyalty

Total

Brand

EquityN 20 20 20 20Mean 5.24 4.750 3.7167 4.5689Standard

deviation

1.0889 1.2825 1.8266 1.0984

Source: SPSS data output

Examination of the two tables above show us that the mean value of

total brand equity of the author’s own scale is not much different

from the mean value of brand equity of Yoo and Donthu’s scale

(4.5617 and 4.5689 respectively). In terms of standard deviation,

there is not much difference between the two scales as well (0.9100

and 1.0984 respectively). Therefore, we may predict that both scales

are measuring the same thing.

In order to confirm that both scales are relatively convergent, we

shall look at the correlation between the two means of total brand

equity.

Table 6 below displays correlation result between total brand equity

of the author’s scale (TOTALBE) and Yoo and Donthu’s total brand

equity (TOTYBE).

Table 8

16

Correlations

1.000 .898**

. .00020 20

.898** 1.000

.000 .

20 20

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

TOTALBE

TOTYBE

TOTALBE TOTYBE

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

The output indicate the correlation between TOTALBE and TOTYBE is

significant with r = 0.898 and p<0.01. Thus we may conclude that

there is almost 100% confidence that TOTALBE and TOTYBE values

are positively associated. The strength of the association (indicated

by Pearson correlation coefficient value of 0.898) is also very high

(nearing the value of +1 which indicates very strong positive

correlation, see Hair et al, 2003).

This finding suggests that it is highly likely that the author’s scale

and Yoo and Donthu’s scale measure the same thing, since a positive

value in one scale is also reflected with positive value in the other

scale. We may say that both scales have convergent validity.

Table on the next page presents the mean value of the original scale

as reported in Yoo and Donthu’s article (2001). By comparing the

mean values of each dimension as well as the total brand equity

values, we may conclude that the author’s scale and scale adapted

from Yoo and Donthu exhibit higher mean values. But this result is

not comparable because the author used 7 points modified Likert

scale, while Yoo and Donthu used 5 points Likert scale. Other than

that, another source of difference might be in the object of the study

used in both studies.

Table 9Mean of original scale from Yoo and Donthu’s original study

17

Americans Koreans Korean

AmericanBrand Loyalty 2.29 2.00 2.26Perceived Quality 3.48 3.05 3.3Awareness/associations 3.42 2.94 3.42Total Brand Equity 3.06 2.66 2.99

B. Critiques and Reservations of the Study and Suggestion forFuture Research

The main weakness of the author’s scale probably lies in the

methodology used to test the scale. To test a scale that measures

complex multidimensional construct like brand equity require more

rigorous methodology and more powerful statistical analysis such as

confirmatory factor analysis. Real researchers use confirmatory factor

analysis to prove the relationship between the variables (this is

observed in many journal articles cited in this report).

In this small research, the interrelationships between the

variables/dimensions are taken for granted, for it is assumed to exist

based on the work of researchers. For instance, the author just

assumes that brand awareness and brand association are separate

dimensions based on Aaker’s conceptual framework. The author could

not assess for himself whether or not the two dimensions are really

separated and whether or not his scale can really be used to

discriminate the two dimensions.

The second weakness comes from the number of respondents (here

the author only used 20 respondents) as well as the sampling method

used to collect the sample.

Despite those weaknesses above, the author believes that his scale is

quite reliable and valid. The Cronbach’s alpha generated by SPSS has

proven that items in the author’s scale have relatively good reliability.

The convergent validity has been proven by the existence of significant

18

correlation between his scale and Yoo and Donthu’s scale. The latter

itself has been validated a couple of times (Atilgan, 2005; Washburn

and Plank, 2002).

In addition to the facts above, the author’s scale were developed

based on existing theories about brand equity and its dimensions.

Further research may be needed to further assess the author’s scale

validity. More advanced statistical tools such as confirmatory factor

analysis need to be used in order to further test the existing brand

equity model using the author’s scale. Further research also may need

to involve larger number of respondent from more representative

sample in order to gain generalizable result.

Cronbach’s alpha if items deleted for brand awareness dimension

suggest us to remove items 5 and 6 (or at least one of them) in order

to gain acceptable level of reliability. Thus another attempt to validate

this scale might need to exclude items 5 and 6 in order to improve the

scale’s reliability.

Three other items in brand associations dimension may also need to

be excluded or reassessed. Item 4 may need re-examination to

confirm whether its reported low correlation with brand associations

dimension resulted from improper wording, nature of the object used

in the study or could it be just not appropriate item to measure brand

associations? Item 14 might be incorporated into brand awareness

dimension. Although it may not have been proposed in previous

studies, but a new subdimension to brand awareness, namely

company awareness may be proposed. Awareness toward a brand

may be affected by awareness toward company. Aaker (2004)

suggests that brands are somewhat affected by the reputation of the

company behind it. He implied in his book that the manufacturer or

marketer of a brand might affect the way a brand is perceived as well

19

as its credibility and acceptance by consumers. Thus the possibility of

including a new subdimension to brand awareness might need to be

explored further.

For perceived quality and loyalty, there seems to be no items that

need elimination, but items measuring them as well as items

measuring other dimension need to be further validated in another

study.

20

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products andmarkets. California Management Review, 38(3), 102-120.

Aaker, D. A. (2004). Brand portfolio strategy. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal ofMarketing Research, 36(3), 345-355.

Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S., & Akinci, S. (2005). Determinants of brandequity: A verification approach in the beverage industry inTurkey. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 23(2), 237.

Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2002). A comparison of attitudinalloyalty measurement approaches. Journal of Brand Management,9(3).

Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Beal, C., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brandpreference and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25-40.

Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2003). Marketing researchwithin a changing information environment (International Editioned.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualising, measuring and managingcustomer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January),1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuringand managing brand equity (second ed.). New Jersey: PearsonEducation International.

Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-basedbrand equity: improving the measurement -empirical evidence.The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(2/3), 143-154.

Rundle-Thiele, S., & Mackay, M. M. (2001). Assessing the performanceof brand loyalty measures. Journal of Service Marketing, 15(6/7),529-545.

21

Washburn, J. H., & Plank, R. E. (2002). Measuring brand equity: anevaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal ofMarketing Theory and Practice, 10(1), 46-62.

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating amultidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal ofBusiness Research, 42, 1-14.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality andvalue: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal ofMarketing, 52(July), 2-22.

22

APPENDIX 1SPSS OUTPUT: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

OF THE AUTHOR’S OWN SCALE

1. Brand Awareness Dimension

Reliability Statistics

.682 .768 6

Cronbach'sAlpha

Cronbach'sAlpha Based

onStandardized

Items N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

28.35 16.766 .667 .555 .548

27.75 20.724 .548 .427 .618

27.90 21.042 .556 .488 .621

28.10 20.516 .618 .546 .606

30.00 19.579 .238 .118 .720

29.40 18.042 .263 .135 .732

Comes Into Mind

Heard of before

Easy to find

Quicky identified

Logo characteristic recall

Comes into mind whenneed to buy

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

SquaredMultiple

Correlation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

2. Brand Awareness Dimension if Items 5 and 6 Were Deleted


.820 .835 4

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items


19.15 5.082 .706 .529 .771

18.55 7.418 .613 .419 .788

18.70 7.484 .663 .488 .771

18.90 7.358 .681 .529 .763

Comes Into Mind

Heard of before

Easy to find

Quicky identified


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

23

3. Brand Association DimensionReliability Statistics

.840 .848 16

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items


65.05 114.787 .482 .930 .829

65.60 114.779 .486 .933 .829

65.05 113.313 .484 .943 .829

65.75 119.776 .202 .711 .849

65.60 110.884 .594 .955 .822

65.60 114.989 .478 .956 .829

64.15 118.871 .249 .902 .845

65.65 114.134 .488 .767 .829

64.95 111.839 .768 .945 .817

65.25 110.408 .656 .936 .819

65.65 112.871 .628 .824 .822

64.85 108.661 .737 .920 .815

65.85 111.713 .614 .831 .822

63.25 129.566 -.035 .737 .853

64.55 118.155 .311 .868 .839

63.45 121.839 .334 .892 .836

Value

Better performance

Unique characteristics

Clear image of user

Friendly

Sincere

Family values

Excitement

Reliable

Delivers promise

Sophisticated

Strength

Proud to buy

Know the company

Like the company

Good reputation


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

4. Brand Associations Dimension Without Items 4, 7 dan 14Reliability Statistics

.874 .878 13

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items


50.15 92.555 .614 .886 .86250.70 92.853 .606 .930 .862

50.15 93.397 .519 .919 .867

50.70 93.905 .521 .948 .867

50.70 100.011 .307 .915 .87950.75 93.882 .536 .713 .86650.05 91.839 .832 .933 .853

50.35 89.397 .759 .909 .85350.75 93.145 .666 .772 .859

49.95 91.524 .674 .906 .85850.95 92.050 .651 .796 .860

49.65 100.029 .262 .812 .883

48.55 102.471 .317 .641 .876

Value

Better performance

Unique characteristicsFriendly

Sincere

ExcitementReliable

Delivers promiseSophisticated

Strength

Proud to buy

Like the companyGood reputation


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

24

5. Perceived QualityReliability Statistics

.930 .931 6

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items


22.75 35.671 .831 .816 .913

23.30 35.168 .846 .856 .910

22.90 38.411 .795 .808 .91822.70 34.642 .970 .947 .894

22.70 39.695 .726 .786 .926

23.15 38.555 .634 .720 .939

High quality

Performs better thanothersGood quality for price

Signals good qualityPrice reflects quality

Quality perceivedbased on ad


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

6. Brand Loyalty


.922 .921 4

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items


11.15 28.029 .797 .725 .906

11.15 28.555 .729 .659 .928

10.55 24.155 .939 .882 .855

10.50 26.789 .819 .718 .898

Feel happy to buyother brands (r)Committed

Likelihood to buyPepsodent next time

More preffered thanother brands


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

25

APPENDIX 2SPSS OUTPUT: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF SCALE

ADAPTED FROM YOO AND DONTHU

1. Brand Awareness/AssociationReliability Statistics

.793 .804 5

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items


20.80 19.853 .720 .628 .715

20.15 24.871 .350 .248 .812

21.40 18.779 .613 .626 .741

20.90 19.779 .705 .624 .718

21.55 16.471 .575 .537 .775

Can recognizeamong other brands

Aware of Pepsodent

Characteristicsquickly recalled

Logo quickly recalled

Diffficult to imagine (r)


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

2. Perceived QualityReliability Statistics

.922 .938 2

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items


4.80 1.326 .883 .780 .a

4.70 2.221 .883 .780 .a

High likely qualityHigh functionalitylikelyhood


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violatesreliability model assumptions. You may want to check item codings.

a.

3. Brand LoyaltyReliability Statistics

.946 .947 3

Cronbach'sAlpha


onStandardized

Items N of Items

26


7.40 15.095 .856 .743 .948

7.15 12.976 .925 .859 .892

7.75 13.039 .892 .819 .920

Feeling loyal

First choiceWill not buy other brands


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


SquaredMultiple

Correlation


Deleted

27

APPENDIX 3SPSS OUTPUT: MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION,

AND CORRELATIONS

1. Mean and Standard Deviation

Statistics

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.7167 4.3344 4.5833 3.6125 4.5617 5.2400 4.7500 3.7167 4.5689

.8552 .7124 1.2085 1.7062 .9100 1.0889 1.2825 1.8266 1.0984

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

TOTALAWR TOTASSOC TOTALPQ TOTALYLT TOTALBE TOTYAWAS TOTYPQ TOTYLYLT TOTYBE

2. Correlations

Correlations

1 .898**

.000

20 20.898** 1

.000

20 20

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

totalbe

totybe

totalbe totybe

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed).

**.

28

APPENDIX 4LIST OF ORIGINAL QUESTIONS FROM YOO AND DONTHU’S ARTICLE (2001)

29

Documents

Developing and Assessing the Reliability and Validity of