My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02064
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02064
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:10:39 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:08:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/21/2002
Description
OWC Section - Drought and Water Supply Assessment
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />0) <br /> <br />e. <br />) <br /> <br />-I <br /> <br />Section 4 <br />Project Approach (RFP Section 4.6) <br /> <br />and allowing responses to be consolidated for groups. On-going analysis and interpretation <br />over time is made easier by closed-ended questions, Open-ended questions do allow <br />respondents a greater amount of flexibility in their response, and we anticipate including a <br />small number of these t}JJes of questions in the final survey illstrument. <br /> <br />Once the survey instrument has undergone an appropriate amount of internal testing, the <br />instrument will undergo primary testing with a representative sample of the target population, <br />It is anticipated that the primary, testing will focus on contacting and major water users and <br />providers, in, part because of their small number, but also to help identify potentially troubled <br />and! or at risk users that should be included in the final target population. <br /> <br />lIVheri rating concepts, issues, and attitudes, theBouvette Consulting Team employs <br />the Five-Point Satisfaction Scale developed by R.A. Likert in 1932, This scale, <br />however, is not simply a five-point scale, it is a five-point scale with a perfect <br />midpoint. Here are three examples: <br /> <br />1. Very Poor <br />2. Poor <br />3. Neutral <br />4. Good <br />5. Excellent <br /> <br />1. Strongly disagree <br />2. Disagree <br />3. Neutral <br />4. Agree <br />5. Strongly agree <br /> <br />1. Not at all Satisfied <br />2. Not Satisfied <br />3. Neutral <br />4. Satisfied <br />5. Extremely Satisfied <br /> <br />A scille ,of this particular type ranging from extremely negative to extremely positive <br />needs a neutral midpoint. This neutrality avoids biasing the respondent's ratings and <br />helps create the high reliability of thescsles, making sure they measure the same <br />way every time, ' <br /> <br />For example, a question might incorporate the ranges of meanings illustrated above <br />by asking: ' <br /> <br />. "Using the 5-point scale, with 1 being very poor and 5 being excellent, ho <br />would you describe your state-of-preparedness for a severe drought simila <br />to the one experienced in Colorado in 1977?" <br /> <br />~ OR ~ <br /> <br />. 'Using the 5-point scale, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongl <br />agree, please tell me how much you agree with the following statement - ' <br />know whom to contact with the State regarding obtaining available resource <br />for drought planning'?" <br /> <br />In order to optimize the questioning, to the extent possible, we try to group questions <br />according to type of rating scale used, The respondent is always introduced to the <br />scale's definition, which is only repeated when necessary. <br /> <br />Section 4, Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.