The development of an objective wine knowledge scale: the item response theory approach

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of objective knowledge operationalisation with specific focus on varying levels of scale items’ difficulty. The ultimate goal of the study was to develop a scale to measure objective wine knowledge, which would address the domain of wine knowledge and differentiate varying levels of consumer wine knowledge. Design/methodology/approach – The process of items’ development was guided by recommendations suggested by DeVellis (2003) in his influential work on theory and application of scale development. Examination of items’ performance was conducted through a series of field tests with consumer samples (N = 756) in a US wine region. Item response theory (IRT) approach was applied for items’ testing. The developed items were analysed using the two-parameter logistic model in Mplus Version 5. Findings – The study offers a 44-item test suitable for assessing wine knowledge across a broad spectrum of expertise. For example, if the goal is to assess wine ...

[1]  D. Valentin,et al.  Conceptual vs. perceptual wine spaces: Does expertise matter? , 2008 .

[2]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[3]  Michael C. Rodriguez.  Three Options Are Optimal for Multiple‐Choice Items: A Meta‐Analysis of 80 Years of Research , 2005 .

[4]  L. Flynn,et al.  A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge , 1999 .

[5]  Nelson A. Barber.  Wine Consumers Information Search: Gender Differences and Implications for the Hospitality Industry , 2009 .

[6]  Nelson A. Barber,et al.  Impact of Wine Education on Developing Knowledge and Preferences: An Exploratory Study , 2008 .

[7]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Toward a general theory of expertise : prospects and limits , 1991 .

[8]  R. Boakes,et al.  The knowing nose: the role of knowledge in wine expertise , 2002 .

[9]  Gregg E.A. Solomon,et al.  Conceptual Change and Wine Expertise , 1997 .

[10]  E. Dijk,et al.  Wanna trade? Product knowledge and the perceived differences between the gains and losses of trade , 2005 .

[11]  H. Lawless.  Flavor Description of White Wine by “Expert” and Nonexpert Wine Consumers , 1984 .

[12]  J. Zaichkowsky.  Measuring the Involvement Construct , 1985 .

[13]  Catherine A. Cole,et al.  Age differences in consumers' search for information: Public policy implications. , 1993 .

[14]  M. Brucks.  The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior , 1985 .

[15]  P. Ngobo,et al.  Assessment of Consumer Knowledge and Its Consequences: a Multi-Component Approach , 1999 .

[16]  A. Noble,et al.  Preliminary Study of the Effect of Knowledge and Sensory Expertise on Liking for Red Wines , 2002, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[17]  Debra A. Laverie,et al.  Differential Effects of Experience, Subjective Knowledge, and Objective Knowledge on Sources of Information used in Consumer Wine Purchasing , 2005 .

[18]  Catherine Viot,et al.  Subjective knowledge, product attributes and consideration set: a wine application , 2012 .

[19]  Robert L. Gluckman.  A Consumer Approach to Branded Wines , 1986 .

[20]  Ashesh Mukherjee,et al.  The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation : Explaining Consumer Resistance to Technological Innovation , 2001 .

[21]  W. Bearden,et al.  The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs , 2004 .

[22]  R. Boakes,et al.  Perceptual and cognitive aspects of wine expertise , 2001 .

[23]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  The utility of item response modeling in marketing research , 2014 .

[24]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies , 2001 .