298 and 0.8752. The scale alpha at this stage was very high, well above the required level ( = 0.9674). Table 3. Reasons for item deletionReasonsNumber deletedItem NumbersMeans & S.Ds99,10,15,16,20,23,28,32,36 Correlation Matrix 66,8,12,19,26,27Item-Total statistics51,3,7,14,39Table 3 shows that twenty items were removed from our item pool; on the basis of the above statistics and their effect on the scale statistics (reasons for item deletion can be seen in more detail in App. 3). Method - Time Two ParticipantsThe same 50 participants were used in the second scale application as in the application of the initial 40 item scale.MaterialsAgain, the participants were presented with a Likert scale measuring attitudes towards the recent fuel protest. However, the Likert scale consisted of the 20 items judged to be most reliable and valid from the first scale application. The response set again ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree with a response of strongly agree scored as 1 and strongly disagree as 5. DesignAt time two a repeated measures design was used in the second scale application.Similar to time one, two experimental groups were used; one, which contained those in favour of the fuel protests, and group two, which contained those in opposition to the fuel protests. 50 percent of the items were reversed to reduce agreeing regardless of item content. Again ordering was randomised so that there was no obvious positive - negative pattern among the items. ProcedureThe 50 participants from the first application were contacted a week later and asked to complete the second version of the attitude scale. Again their initials were marked on their response sheet so that their responses could be matched to their first set of responses. This was necessary so that the test-retest reliability of the scale could be evaluated. Once they had completed the scale their responses w...
