User:Alexander L. Davis/Notebook/In the Problem Pit/2013/03/14: Difference between revisions
(Autocreate 2013/03/14 Entry for User:Alexander_L._Davis/Notebook/In_the_Problem_Pit) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### --> | <!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### --> | ||
==Entry title== | ==Entry title== | ||
First Pass | |||
==Comments== | ==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. | |||
==Unexpected Observations== | ==Unexpected Observations== | ||
* Insert content here... | * Insert content here... | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==New Data== | ==New Data== | ||
===Participant 1=== | ===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=== | ===Participant 2=== | ||
* Insert content here... | * Insert content here... | ||
Revision as of 07:18, 15 March 2013
 Project name
|
<html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html> |
Entry titleFirst Pass CommentsThese 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. Unexpected Observations
New Hypotheses
Current Protocol
Current Materials
New DataParticipant 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
Faults
Corrections
| |
