Introduction
Leadership practices inventory (LPI) is a quantitative assessment instrument that was chosen for the mock study. It is frequently used in education to receive statistical data and mostly focuses on the attitude and behavior of individuals, and it is an excellent tool to evaluate the differences between leadership abilities of males and females in a particular environment such as a classroom. It is a questionnaire that consists of 30 items, and it is paramount to say that it has both benefits and weaknesses.
The validity of the Instrument
The response rate is a significant factor that needs to be paid attention to because the credibility of results is extremely dependent on it (Fowler, 2009). It needs to be said that this approach is appropriate in this case because aspects that are related to culture and traditions are taken into account. It is imperative to note that the dissimilarities between the styles of responses are present in most cases (Morren, Gelissen, & Vermunt, 2012). However, one of the recent studies indicates that LPI is culturally universal based on the available data (Rašković, 2014). Ethical aspects also should not be disregarded because it may influence the results. It needs to be said that this method of research also has several weaknesses.
The most significant issue is that the data that is received lacks depth. Another aspect that needs to be discussed is that it may be necessary to repeat the testing process a few days later to identify possible changes in attitude, and it is not an easy task to guarantee that the response rate of students is satisfactory. Some issues with validity may occur, and inferential statistics can be used to identify if any sampling errors are present. This approach is frequently used when similar populations such as students are researched, and one of the studies has shown that its reliability is significant from the perspective of statistics (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). It is also paramount to note that the results that are received may only be viewed as valid when applied to students, and should not be generalized (Zagorsek, Stough, & Marko, 2009). It is also paramount to understand that it is necessary to be aware of possible bias in responses even when it is not confirmed.
Modifications
One of the most significant advantages of LPI is its enormous flexibility, and it is relatively easy to make certain changes to improve the instrument. The issue of response rate needs to be addressed because students frequently disregard questionnaires. Dilman (2000) has noted that it is possible to avoid the complications that are related to surveys if mixed-mode surveys are used. Invitations to participate in a survey should be sent personally to each student, and they can be taken online. One of the studies indicates that such an approach increases the overall number of responses in most cases (Greenlaw & Brown-Weltey, 2009).
Another advantage of this approach is that such issues like social anxiety are eliminated, and participants do not feel pressured by time. Also, it should be said that it is important to take necessary measures to ensure that only those who participated in the study have access to online surveys (Lin, Yang, & Kuo, 2009). It is paramount not to pressure those who agreed to participate because it affects the responses. Also, it is imperative to conduct several sessions to receive the necessary data. However, it needs to be said that this method requires much more resources. There is no need to validate this tool because it is frequently used in similar studies, and it provides reliable data (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). The in-person survey is going to be the primary method of data collection, and an Internet survey will be secondary.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the instrument that was picked for this mock study needs to be modified, and mixed-mode questionnaires will be used to improve response rates and overall efficiency of the research. It is an appropriate tool in this situation, and its reliability has been proven. Most attention should be devoted to the validity of the results.
References
Dilman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Greenlaw, C., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation Review, 33(1): 464-480.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2006). Student leadership practices inventory. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lin, C., Yang, H., & Kuo, L. (2009). Behaviour analysis of internet survey completion using decision trees an exploratory study. Online Information Review, 33(1), 117-134.
Morren, M., Gelissen, J., & Vermunt, J. (2012). Response Strategies and Response Styles in Cross-Cultural Surveys. Cross-Cultural Research, 46(3), 255-279.
Rašković, M. (2014). Measuring culture effect size differences in Slovenian and Portuguese leadership practices: cross-cultural leadership universality or Contigency? South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 8(2), 7-15.
Zagorsek, H., Stough, S., & Jaklic, M. (2006). Analysis of the reliability of the leadership practices inventory in the item response theory framework. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2), 180-192.