http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/Survey-Analysis-Questions-tp5062418p5063767.html
I've numbered your asterisks, and I'll comment.
1) Right, pretty much. Especially for data where the actual means
are so useful, I certainly would avoid the rank tests as my main
presentation. If you use the skewed data instead of a modification,
it is possible to mollify the nervous nellies by running those tests, too,
so you can add, "Non-parametric tests give the same results."
2) No effect on analyses. Something to know when you are talking
about them.
3) (How to handle counts of meetings.) I would want to have on
hand the distribution of observed counts and durations: 6 meetings
out of 12 may be different from 6 meetings out of 6. Then I would
want to ask the people running the meetings how they might "rank"
the participation in some sense. What is "good participation" when
you consider the purpose and the clientele?
4) I don't see a question. I can comment -- I once was told that
one of the big factors for poor attendance for psychiatric outpatients
was inadequate bus service.
--
Rich Ulrich
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 17:40:17 -0600
From:
[hidden email]Subject: Re: Survey Analysis Questions
To:
[hidden email]Hi Rich,
Thanks for responding to the topic. I'll try breaking general issues apart by asterisks.
****** (1)
I appreciate the 3 options you provided. With competing ideas on what I should be doing, I want to be sure that I understand your perspective. You believe that I could use parametric tests and that I don't need to use one of the 3 options you provided...right?
****** (2)
You wrote "These items do fail to meet the Likert ideal, because they do not
have averages near the midpoint."
What effect does this have on what I should be doing?
****** (3)
I wrote - For each child for whom I have a survey, I will also
have the # of team meetings attended by a parent and the total # of team
meetings, so I will have the % of team meetings attended by a child.
You wrote - Unless there are always a lot of meetings, that % will not be very
attractive as a score. But you do need to figure out what will make
a useful criterion. What is logical? What will your audience see as
meaningful?"
The team meetings are to occur on a monthly basis and some youth may only be in the program for a few months, so you're right to bring up that concern. I could limit this piece of the analysis to those who had more than 6 team meetings. Any other suggestions on how I should handle this?
I could create a variable based on 25% increments but am not sure if this would be appropriate.
****** (4)
Regarding domains, they are:
Access (location was convenient, services available at convenient times)
Participation (I helped choose services, I helped choose trt. goals)
Cultural Sensitivity (Staff treated me with respect, Staff spoke with me in a way I understood)
Appropriateness (I'm satisfied with the service my child received)
Outcomes (My child is better at handling daily life, doing better at school, etc.)
It seems reasonable that if parents felt the location was inconvenient or staff were disrespectful, that they would not attend team meetings. I will look at the scatterplots of the different domain scores by the % of team meetings attended by parents and look for correlations.
[snip, previous]