User:Alexander L. Davis/Notebook/In the Problem Pit/2013/03/14

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Corrections)
(Corrections)
Line 39: Line 39:
==Corrections==
==Corrections==
* Broke the questionnaire up into multiple pages, with a random subset of two questions on each page.
* Broke the questionnaire up into multiple pages, with a random subset of two questions on each page.
 +
* Cut the length by having participants do two-thirds of the predictions.
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->

Revision as of 11:55, 15 March 2013

Project name Main project page
Next entry

Entry title

First Pass

Comments

These are the first two pretests. I have a vague concern about the research, not knowing exactly what the focus or story is. I am considering xx. Created a qualification in MTurk for one participant to allow him to be in future problem pit studies. I need to create an acceptance sampling method to keep the number of pre-test participants bounded.

  • The questions they wanted to ask seemed to be very specific to the problem, much more specific than we were thinking. Their main concerns were logistic issues, issues of confidentiality, security, what to do with the frame, how it works.
  • They seemed to base their questions on what would concern them, confirming the self-projection theory.

Unexpected Observations

  • Insert content here...

New Hypotheses

  • Insert content here...

Current Protocol

  • Insert content here...

Current Materials

New Data

  • Data
  • Both participants were U.S. and had MTurk masters qualification.

Participant 1

"The survey itself was nicely designed, but it was frustrating to have to advance the page so often. More than one question per page is preferable, in my opinion. I didn't really like the Recruitment Document being in a separate window, I think it could be included in the survey itself, as an example, and it would be easier to reference. I thought it was really too long, with too many questions that seemed like variations on the same theme. Those are pretty much the only suggestions that I have to offer, outside of what I answered in the survey itself."

Participant 2

  • Insert content here...

Faults

  • Advancing page too often
  • Include recruitment document in the survey itself, rather than a separate window
  • Too long
  • Redundant questions

Corrections

  • Broke the questionnaire up into multiple pages, with a random subset of two questions on each page.
  • Cut the length by having participants do two-thirds of the predictions.


Personal tools