Corporate Visual Identity Scale

This paper presents and explicates one of the weaknesses of Utama’s (2012) study in presenting the results of his study in corporate visual identity (CVI). It also fills the gap that appears from his empirical study by explaining comprehensively the development of a CVI scale (CVIS) that could form the basis for a better understanding of the determinants of CVI and re-testing the scale of CVI using different approach. The paper starts by revisiting the results of Utama’s (2012) study in CVI, and executing several steps to explain the development of the CVIS. These steps are, firstly, it’s explained the steps to develop a scale to measure corporate visual identity (CVI), which is called corporate visual identity scale (CVIS). Secondly, it’s used similar scale in two different samples (respondents of two different banks). Whilst Utama’s study was tested to one sample. Furthermore, it’s used a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach to test the model validity. Whilst Utama’s study has used a facto analyses approach. As the author used CFA to test the model validity, the measurement model applied in this research is included in the third-order category. There are three derivatives in explaining the research variables. The first derivative is the sub-variable, followed by indicators and the last derivative is item. The findings give empirical support for the consistency and validity of the scale developed, and the distinction of three main dimensions on the concept that was adapted from Rufaidah, Razzaque & Walpole (2003:2423). The paper discusses the results of two similar studies. In the first study, the questionnaire was given randomly, to a 100-customers of a selected multinational bank and in the second study to a 100-customers of a selected public bank. The customers completed the questionnaires during their visit to the banks to do transactions. Respondents' agreement with each item was measured on a five-point Likert-scale (1=fully disagree to 5=fully agree).To measure CVI, the study developed a multidimensional scale. A 39-item instrument was developed to measure the constructs and its dimensions. The instruments were found to have content validity by experts and further found to be reliable, and have convergent, and discriminant validity. The data of the study is processed using the Partial Least Square Path approach (PLS-PM) that is more robust towards small sample sizes (Henseler (2009). The study recommends extending and replicating the study in a larger sample and in various industries. The results also provide empirical evidence of the scale invariance, meaning that consumers of two different banks interpreted CVI in the same way.