Content validation of value-adding indicators for corporate real estate management: insights from a developing country

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to test the content validity of value-adding indicators derived from a comprehensive review of literature and expert interviews within the context of the nascent corporate real estate management (CREM) practices in Ghana. Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire survey was conducted on a panel of experts to assess the content relevance and clarity of the value-adding indicators. The individual content validity (I-CVI) index as well as the average scale content validity index (S-CVI) were computed. Preliminary interviews were analyzed using summative content analysis. Findings The I-CVI for relevance and clarity ranged from 0.33 to 1.00, whereas the average S-CVI was > 0.80. Critical analysis of the results by corrections, eliminations due to lower I-CVI scores and suggestions from the experts resulted in a final list of 50 indicators grouped under 10 domains. The results from the content validity confirm the applicability of the value-adding indicators in literature within the Ghanaian context. The study provides detailed sustainability indicators while introducing a new value-adding parameter that relates to CREM preparedness for pandemics such as the Covid-19. Research limitations/implications Further psychometric assessment such as construct validity, inter- and intra-examiner reliability and internal consistency of the indicators is recommended. Practical implications The indicators developed through the content validation can assist in the design and review of measures for the assessment of added value by corporate real estate managers and researchers. Originality/value The paper presents the first attempt to test and develop added value indicators within the context of a developing country by taking a systematic content validation procedure.

Modelling the added value of corporate real estate on organizational performance

“…It is worth noting that the study by van der Voordt and Jensen (2018) acknowledged well known indicators such as satisfaction, image, culture, productivity, innovation and risk as value drivers for real estate performance. In a recent study directed towards examining the content relevance and validity of established added value indicators in developing countries, Amos and Boakye-Agyeman (2022) established the usefulness of the indicators outlined by Krumm et al (1998) and Lindholm and Leväinen (2006) while introducing a newly added value parameter that relates to corporate real estate preparedness for pandemics such as the COVID-19.…”

“…Gibler and Lindholm (2012) and van der Voordt et al (2016) highlighted the environmental sustainability of corporate real estate to enhance performance. Within the context of developing countries, Amos and Boakye-Agyeman (2022) demonstrated the relevance of added value indicators in extant literature to corporate performance in multiple sectors in Ghana. The conclusions from these studies indicate that corporate real estate constitutes an essential element of organizational performance.…”

“…Agyeman (2022) established the usefulness of the indicators outlined byKrumm et al (1998) andLindholm and Leväinen (2006) while introducing a newly added value parameter that relates to corporate real estate preparedness for pandemics such as the COVID-19.…”

Conducting research by mixed methods: an autoethnography account of a PhD research in facilities management from a developing country

“…Researchers are therefore expected to develop variables and requisite scales to be explored further in a quantitative phase. In this regard, the measurable attributes should have clear content validity and relevance to the construct under study (Amos and Boakye-Agyeman, 2022). This would lead to a good questionnaire that stands the chance to achieve high statistical validity and reliability to test hypotheses, formulate new theories and generalize the findings of the study (Rosellini, and Brown, 2021).…”

“…The study was worth undertaking because performance measurement initiatives in health-care organizations have mostly centered on clinical performance rather than the non-clinical FM performance (Amos et al , 2021). This is quite unfortunate because FM is essential in creating a hospitable environment that supports the core mandate of rendering clinical services (Amos and Boakye-Agyeman, 2022). Performance measurement is a strategic function that can link FM departments to organizational performance via its corporate objectives.…”