• No results found

“Improving the Quality of the IAF Methods Database”

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "“Improving the Quality of the IAF Methods Database” "

Copied!
42
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

I

Appendices for the Master Thesis

“Improving the Quality of the IAF Methods Database”

“The development of a dashboard”

(2)

II Table of contents

Appendix I – Questionnaire ...III Appendix II – Methods...XVI Appendix III – Evaluation form...XVII Appendix IV – Requirements Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis ...XIX Appendix V – Statistics per dashboard element ... XX Appendix VI – Hofstede...XXXVIII Appendix VII – First sketch of dashboard design...XL Appendix VIII – Creating a Group Facilitation Method ... XLI

(3)

III Appendix I – Questionnaire

Dear user of the International Association of Facilitators Methods Database, We would like to ask you to fill in this questionnaire to improve the quality of the IAFMD. We are trying to find out which methods in the database are the most reliable, valid, usable, applicable and applicable in multiple cultures. As you are the user of the database, you know the most about the methods that are in it. The questions are about the method that you are most familiar with, or that you use the most. If you like, you can take the questionnaire several times, and fill it in for multiple methods. The questionnaire will take about 15 minutes of your time. If you would like a copy of the results you can leave your email address at the end of the questionnaire.

You can click on the link to start the questionnaire, Thank you in advance,

Kind regards,

……….

Demographic and general questions

1. When I use a group meeting method I am in the first place a (1 answer possible)

! Facilitator

! Participant

! Client

! Manager

! Other:……….

2. I am in group facilitation for

! Less then 1 year

! 1-5 years

! 6-10 years

! 11-15 years

! More than 15 years

3. I spend ……. Of my professional time on group facilitation

! Less than 20%

! 20% - 40%

! 41% - 60%

! 61% - 80%

! 81% - 100%

(4)

IV 4. My nationality is:………..

5. The country I live in is:………..

6. I am a

! Male

! Female 7. My age is

! Under 25

! 25-34

! 35-44

! 45-54

! 55-64

! 65 or older

8. What is your favorite method of the IAFMD? (The following questions will be about this method) Please name one:

___________________________________________________________

9. This is an

! Application (facilitated process that is complete in itself)

! Method or Model (standardized process that produce a product but are usually used in conjunction with other Methods and Models to create a final product)

! Intervention (methods or techniques that are usually not planned in the design and development of a group process event but are used when specific situations present themselves)

10. What is the main reason you use this method? (1 answer possible)

! Your client wants you to

! This method gives the best results

! This method is your specialty

! The method fits the budget

! Easy to facilitate

! _____________________________

11. Where did you get the method the first time you used it?

! IAF Methods Database

! Another database: ……….

! Literature

! I saw someone else using it

! Someone recommended it to me

! I invented it myself

! Somewhere else:………..

(5)

V 12. Did you know the method (from other resources) before the first time you used it?

! Yes

! No

13. If you did know it, where did you know it from?

! Literature

! Other facilitators

! Don’t remember

! N/A

! Other:………

14. How often do you use this method?

! Less than 20% of my facilitation activities

! 21 – 40 % of my facilitation activities

! 41 – 60 % of my facilitation activities

! 61 – 80 % of my facilitation activities

! 81 – 100 % of my facilitation activities

15. How much time did you spend preparing for the method the first time you used it?

______________________________________________________________

16. How much time do you spend on preparation for the method on average?

_________________________________________________________________

17. What do you like most about the method? (1 answer possible)

! It gives the required results

! It gives quick results

! There are low costs

! It is easy to facilitate

! Many people can participate

! Something different:………..

18. What do the participants like about the method? (1 answer possible)

! They got the required result

! Everybody had an equal chance to speak

! It gives quick results

! It is active

! Something different:………

19. What didn’t the participants like about the method? (1 answer possible)

! The method took too much time

! They could not speak freely

! The did not reach the required result

(6)

VI

! It took too much time

! It was boring

! Something different:………..

20. Did the participants like the method in general?

! Yes

! No

21. How do you rate the effort / outcome

! High effort / High outcome

! High effort / Little outcome

! Low effort / High outcome

! Low effort / Little outcome

22. Could you estimate the cost per participant for this method? (Including everything, such as project budget and hidden costs)

_______________________________________________________

23. Do you think this is a ……… cost for a method?

! High

! Medium

! Low

24. Could you give your appreciation of the method in a number, 1 being low and 6 being high?

1 2 3 4 5 6

25. Would you recommend this method to someone else?

! I already have

! I definitely would

! Maybe

! No (please explain ………..) 26. Would you use the method again?

! Yes

! Maybe

! No

Please explain why ………..

Validity of the method

27. This method has a solid theoretical basis

(7)

VII

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

28. The critics are positive about the method in the literature

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

29. The creator of the method is well known

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

30. Hoe many participants do you facilitate in general when using this method ______________________________________________________________

31. The largest group I facilitated with this method consisted of ………. Participants 32. The method is appropriate to use in large groups

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

33. The method gives provides excellent ways of evaluating the results

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

34. The method stimulates individual input from the participants

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

35. The output of the method is identifiable per person

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

36. The method gives each participant an equal opportunity to speak

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

37. Social loafing (people restraining from participating) can occur when using this method

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

38. The method itself does not create trust (Extra facilitation techniques are needed)

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

(8)

VIII 39. The method does what it says it will do

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

40. Do you think this is a valid method?

! Yes

! No Reliability of the method

41. The method gives clear instructions for the facilitator to prepare

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

42. The method gives clear instructions for the start of the method

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

43. The method gives clear instructions for using the method to the facilitator

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

44. The method gives clear instructions for the participants

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

45. The method gives clear instructions for the evaluation afterwards

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

46. The method gives clear instructions overall

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

47. The method gives detailed instructions overall

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

48. The method is divided into step by step actions to undertake

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

49. Is the method written in your mother tongue?

! Yes

! No

(9)

IX 50. If not, is there a translation available in your mother tongue?

! Yes

! No

! N/A

51. If you have used this method more than once, did you get the same results (results being relative measure) as every other time?

! Yes

! No

! I have only used this method once 52. Do you think this method is reliable?

! Yes

! No

! Don’t know

Usability of the method

53. The method has a clear (specified) goal in the description of the method

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

54. The goal of the facilitation activity is mainly set by: ( 1 answer possible)

! The creator of the method

! The client

! The facilitator (you)

! The participants

! Someone else: ……….

55. The method has clear objectives in the description of the method

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

56. The method has a clear purpose in the description of the method

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

57. The method is difficult to understand

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

58. The method helps identify what has been learned or achieved

(10)

X

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

59. The method fits the concept ( decision making, team building, problem solving etc.)

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

60. Much effort is needed (from the facilitator and the participants) to make the method a success

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

61. The method is easy to use

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

62. The method requires professional facilitation skills

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

63. The method allows people to express their ideas without being judged

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

64. The method has a clear structure

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

65. What are the constraints of the method (more answers possible)?

# Limited time

# Difficult to facilitate

# Not for large groups

# Not for small groups

# Difficult to understand

# No clear instructions

# Other:………..

66. Did the participants understand why you used this method or did you have to explain?

! The participants understood and had no questions

! The participants understood but had some questions

! The participants did not understand and asked to explain the reason

! The participants did not understand, but it was not necessary to explain the reason

67. Did the participants propose to use another method?

(11)

XI

! Yes (Please state method)………..

! No

68. Did the client understand why you used this method or did you have to explain?

! The client understood and had no questions

! The client understood but had some questions

! The client did not understand and asked to explain the reason

! The client did not understand, but it was not necessary to explain the reason

69. Did the client propose to use another method?

! Yes: (Please state method) ………

! No

70. Do you think that this method is usable

! Yes

! No Applicability

71. The method is flexible

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

72. The method is easily modified

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

73. The instructions have to be followed strictly to make the method a success

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

74. The method is sensitive to changes in circumstance

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

75. The method requires certain conditions

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

76. The method will work everywhere

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

77. The method requires prior knowledge on the part of the facilitator about

(12)

XII

# The content of the method itself

# The organization that the method is carried out for

# The group of participants

# Facilitation beyond the method

# Other:...

# No specific knowledge is required

78. Do the participants need to prepare before participating with the method

! Yes

! No

79. The method requires high participation from the participants to be a success

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

80. The method is difficult to facilitate

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

81. The method is complex

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

82. The method is applicable in a wide spectrum of goals

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

Cultural sensitivity, explain talking about national culture 83. In general, in which country do you use the method?

_____________________________________________________________

84. The method closely fits the culture where I generally use this method

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

85. Have you used the method in different cultures? If so, please note the countries ______________________________________________________________

86. Have you ever used the method in a country where it was not a success? Which country?

(13)

XIII __________________________________________________________________

87. Does the method need modification when it is used in a different culture?

! Yes, a lot of modification (Please mention the country:………..)

! Yes, to a small extend

! Yes, but the amount of modification depends on the country

! It should, but it is not possible

! No

! I never used the method in a different culture

Geert Hofstede describes culture in 5 different dimensions: Femininity/Masculinity, Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance and Long/Short term orientation. We will give a short description of each dimension, after which you are asked to what extend the method fits the dimension.

Power Distance (PDI) measures the dependence of relationships in a country. When a culture has low Power Distance, people depend less on bosses and have a preference for consultation. There is a small emotional distance and subordinates will easily approach their bosses. Where PDI is high there is high dependence and subordinates are not very likely to approach their bosses.

88. The method I used should best fit in a country where the level of Power Distance is:

Low PDI ! ! ! ! ! ! High PDI

Individualism and collectivism (IDV) explains if a country is more individual or group interested. In collectivist countries the power of the group predominates, the family is very important. In an Individualism country the interest of the individual is most

important. Everyone is supposed to look after themselves while in a collectivist country people are integrated in the in-group with high lifetime loyalty to each other

89. The method I used would best fit in a country that is:

Individualistic ! ! ! ! ! ! Collective Masculinity-Femininity (MAS) describes the masculine and feminine characteristics of a country. In a masculine country emotional gender roles are clearly dissimilar, men are assertive, tough and focused on material success and women are modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life.

90. The method I used would best fit in a country that is

Feminine ! ! ! ! ! ! Masculine

(14)

XIV Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) rates the extend to which the members of a culture feel threatened by unclear or unfamiliar situations. This can be rated by nervousness or stress. In a country where the UAI is strong there will be a lot of stress and people think that what is different is dangerous. In weak UAI countries there is little stress and are curious about the unknown and differences. Also results are attributed to a persons own ability while in a strong UAI country results are attributed to the circumstances or luck.

91. The method I used would best fit in a country where the level of UAI is

Low UAI ! ! ! ! ! ! High UAI

Long- and Short-Term Oriented (LTO) stand for the goals set in the life of the members of the culture. Long Term orientates towards future rewards such as perseverance and thrift while Short Term focuses on the past and the present especially respect for tradition and “face” and fulfilling social obligations.

92. The method I used fits best in a country with

S.T. Orientation ! ! ! ! ! ! L.T.O

93. The method can easily be applied in different cultures

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

94. This method would work well in cross cultural situations

Disagree ! ! ! ! ! ! Agree

Some last questions

95. What is your favorite method? Why?

______________________________________________________________

96. What other methods do you use regularly?

_______________________________________________________________

97. What is the most important thing to you in a method?

_______________________________________________________________

98. Have you ever used a method that was difficult to apply? Please state the name of the method:

________________________________________________________________

(15)

XV Why was the method difficult to apply?

________________________________________________________________

99. Have you ever used a method that was not satisfactory in the results? If so please state the name of the method:

_________________________________________________________________

100. Please fill in your email address if you want to receive a copy of the results of the research:

______________________________________________________________

(16)

XVI Appendix II – Methods

Most named methods

- Affinity Diagram (4) - Appreciative Inquirey (9) - Brainstorming (7) - Consensus building (5) - Focus conversation (11) - Metaplan (2)

- Nominal (3) - Open Space (10) - Problem solving (2) - Strategic planning (4) - SWOT (2)

- ToP Methods (14) - World Cafe (4)

Methods evaluated in the questionnaire that are in the IAFMD - Affinity Diagram

- Appreciative Inquiry - Ask for contribution - Brainstorming - Card workshop

- Cause and effect charting - Consensus workshop - Donut prioritization

- Dynamic systems ice breaker - Field force analysis

- Focus conversation - Future search conferences - 6 thinking hats

- MATEC - Model building - Open space - Positive deviance - Problem solving - Risk analysis - SWOT analysis - Wagon wheels

(17)

XVII Appendix III – Evaluation form

(18)

XVIII

Me tho d

Clear intent / purpose Clear - bit clear - not clear

10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 U

Recognizable components* yes - no

10 / 1 / 0 10 / 1 / 0 10 / 1 / 0 10 / 1 / 0 R

Group size <30 – 30/80 - >80

10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 V

Optimal time <2hrs – 2/5hrs - >5

10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 U

Level of participation Lowmedium - high

10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 A

Ideal conditions*** No / yes

10 / 1 10 / 1 10 / 1 10 / 1 A

Potential pitfalls Stated / not stated

10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 U

Difficulty to facilitate No skills skills specific skills

10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 A

Pre-work required Yes – little - no

10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 U

Follow up required Yes / no

10 / 1 / 0 10 / 1 / 0 10 / 1 / 0 10 / 1 / 0 V

Flexible Yes / somewhat / no

10 / 5/ 1 / 0 10 / 5/ 1 / 0 10 / 5/ 1 / 0 10 / 5/ 1 / 0 U

Instructions / procedures** Clear / bit clear / unclear

10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 10 / 5 / 1 / 0 R

Developer known Yes / no

10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 V

References / book Yes / no

10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 V T ota l Sc ore U R V A U R V A U R V A U R V A

* Or step by step actions to undertake ** Also look at method files, sometimes the instructions are (only) stated here *** In this case if it is not stated, cross No.

IA F Methods Database E valuatio n Form

(19)

XIX Appendix IV – Requirements Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis Reliability Analysis

Cronbach's Alpha is used to find out about the homogeneity of the combined indicators.

When the score is 0.00 there is no correlation between the indicators, the score of 1 means a complete overlap of the indicators. To have a reliable and homogenate set of indicators, the score of Alpha should at least be 0.6 for complex issues and 0.8 for non complex issues. Since we are evaluating opinions about social sciences, an Alpha of 0.6 will be sufficient (Baarda, De Goede & Van Dijk, 2003).

Factor Analysis

A factor analysis is mostly carried out when the data needs to be reduced. It is also used to find relations between variables. The questionnaire facilitates a wide range of variables.

To find out if there are any relations between the variables the factor analysis is carried out. This is done for each of the four dashboard elements.

To carry out the factor analysis the data needs to fulfill several requirements. First of all the variables have to be measured on interval scale or on a Likert-scale with a minimum of 5 points. Additionally there need to be 5 respondents for every variable and the correlation between the variables has to be sufficiently high. This is tested with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)-test. This test explains the variance of the items that is caused by the unobserved factor. When the KMO-value is higher than 0.50 it is sufficient for a factor analysis, but a minimum score of 0.70 is desirable.

There are several methods available to find a correlation between the indicators. For this research the principal components analysis is used. This analysis consolidates the original information to a minimum number of factors. SPSS states which factors, on the basis of the Eigenvalues. Only the factors with an Eigenvalue higher than 1 are significant. To come to a unique set of factors the results of the factor analysis need to be rotated. This is done with the Varimax-method. This is the most used and successful method.

(20)

XX Appendix V – Statistics per dashboard element

Validity

Factor Analysis

Communalities

1,000 ,603

1,000 ,676

1,000 ,347

1,000 ,312

1,000 ,637

1,000 ,658

1,000 ,628

1,000 ,556

1,000 ,456

1,000 ,403

SMEAN(Theory) SMEAN(Critics) SMEAN(Creator) SMEAN(Evaluation) SMEAN(IndInput) SMEAN(Output) SMEAN(Equal) SMEAN(DoesDo) SMEAN(RTrust) SMEAN(LargeGroup)

Initial Extraction

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

2,934 29,338 29,338 2,934 29,338 29,338 2,187 21,868 21,868

1,268 12,684 42,022 1,268 12,684 42,022 1,629 16,287 38,155

1,073 10,734 52,756 1,073 10,734 52,756 1,460 14,601 52,756

,943 9,428 62,184

,876 8,756 70,941

,767 7,668 78,609

,656 6,564 85,173

,557 5,573 90,745

,491 4,906 95,652

,435 4,348 100,000

Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa

,688 -,361 ,000

,647 -,507 -,022

,467 -,331 ,137

,528 -,135 ,125

,491 ,543 ,319

,339 ,093 ,731

,571 ,549 -,001

,700 ,073 -,247

,348 ,378 -,438

-,503 -,015 ,387

SMEAN(Theory) SMEAN(Critics) SMEAN(Creator) SMEAN(Evaluation) SMEAN(IndInput) SMEAN(Output) SMEAN(Equal) SMEAN(DoesDo) SMEAN(RTrust) SMEAN(LargeGroup)

1 2 3

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

3 components extracted.

a.

(21)

XXI

Rotated Component Matrixa

,750 ,184 ,080

,814 ,108 -,035

,580 -,012 ,102

,493 ,123 ,231

,036 ,297 ,740

,262 -,289 ,711

,061 ,566 ,551

,448 ,574 ,159

-,034 ,672 ,051

-,327 -,542 ,056

SMEAN(Theory) SMEAN(Critics) SMEAN(Creator) SMEAN(Evaluation) SMEAN(IndInput) SMEAN(Output) SMEAN(Equal) SMEAN(DoesDo) SMEAN(RTrust) SMEAN(LargeGroup)

1 2 3

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

a.

Component Transformation Matrix

,743 ,523 ,417

-,662 ,485 ,571

,097 -,700 ,707

Component 1 2 3

1 2 3

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Cronbach’s Alpha

Case Processing Summary

178 100,0

0 ,0

178 100,0

Valid Excludeda Total Cases

N %

Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

a.

Reliability Statistics

,603 10

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

41,086 25,319 ,449 ,541

41,339 26,698 ,376 ,561

42,610 23,577 ,338 ,562

41,743 24,888 ,388 ,549

40,533 28,591 ,367 ,577

42,743 25,344 ,190 ,612

40,645 28,433 ,352 ,577

40,833 27,702 ,486 ,561

42,437 27,532 ,105 ,627

42,187 25,840 ,192 ,607

SMEAN(Theory) SMEAN(Critics) SMEAN(Creator) SMEAN(Evaluation) SMEAN(IndInput) SMEAN(Output) SMEAN(Equal) SMEAN(DoesDo) SMEAN(RSocLoaf) SMEAN(RTrust)

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

(22)

XXII Questionnaire

This method has a solid theoretical basis

1 ,6 ,7 ,7

6 3,4 4,0 4,7

9 5,1 6,0 10,7

16 9,0 10,7 21,3

39 21,9 26,0 47,3

79 44,4 52,7 100,0

150 84,3 100,0

24 13,5

4 2,2

28 15,7

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

The critics are positive about the method in the literature

2 1,1 1,4 1,4

1 ,6 ,7 2,1

11 6,2 7,8 9,9

26 14,6 18,4 28,4

56 31,5 39,7 68,1

45 25,3 31,9 100,0

141 79,2 100,0

33 18,5

4 2,2

37 20,8

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

The method stimulates individual input from the participants

1 ,6 ,7 ,7

1 ,6 ,7 1,3

5 2,8 3,3 4,6

28 15,7 18,3 22,9

118 66,3 77,1 100,0

153 86,0 100,0

21 11,8

4 2,2

25 14,0

178 100,0

2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

(23)

XXIII

The output of the method is identifiable per person

32 18,0 21,2 21,2

18 10,1 11,9 33,1

23 12,9 15,2 48,3

27 15,2 17,9 66,2

23 12,9 15,2 81,5

28 15,7 18,5 100,0

151 84,8 100,0

23 12,9

4 2,2

27 15,2

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Evaluation

What is the group size

29 7,8 7,8 7,8

12 3,2 3,2 11,1

23 6,2 6,2 17,3

307 82,7 82,7 100,0

371 100,0 100,0

Not present Bigger than 80 Between 30 - 80 Smaller than 30 Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Is a follow up required

97 26,1 26,1 26,1

150 40,4 40,4 66,6

124 33,4 33,4 100,0

371 100,0 100,0

Not Stated No Yes Total Valid

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Is the developer known

150 40,4 40,4 40,4

221 59,6 59,6 100,0

371 100,0 100,0

no yes Total Valid

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Are there any references

112 30,2 30,2 30,2

259 69,8 69,8 100,0

371 100,0 100,0

No Yes Total Valid

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

(24)

XXIV Reliablity

Cronbach’s Alpha

Case Processing Summary

178 100,0

0 ,0

178 100,0

Valid Excludeda Total Cases

N %

Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

a.

Reliability Statistics

,907 8

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

34,138 35,150 ,793 ,887

34,054 36,396 ,776 ,889

34,054 37,573 ,778 ,891

34,241 37,854 ,580 ,905

35,213 36,822 ,493 ,919

34,172 36,759 ,877 ,884

34,563 34,660 ,816 ,884

34,303 36,102 ,661 ,899

SMEAN(InPrepare) SMEAN(InStart) SMEAN(InFacilitator) SMEAN(InParticipants) SMEAN(InEvaluation) SMEAN(InOverall) SMEAN(InDetailed) SMEAN(Steps)

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted

Questionnaire

The method gives clear instructions for the facilitator to <b>prepare</b>

3 1,7 2,1 2,1

7 3,9 4,8 6,9

7 3,9 4,8 11,7

11 6,2 7,6 19,3

43 24,2 29,7 49,0

74 41,6 51,0 100,0

145 81,5 100,0

29 16,3

4 2,2

33 18,5

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

(25)

XXV

The method gives clear instructions for the <b>start</b> of the method

2 1,1 1,4 1,4

4 2,2 2,8 4,2

8 4,5 5,6 9,7

12 6,7 8,3 18,1

42 23,6 29,2 47,2

76 42,7 52,8 100,0

144 80,9 100,0

29 16,3

5 2,8

34 19,1

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

The method gives clear instructions for using the method to the

<b>facilitator</b>

3 1,7 2,1 2,1

8 4,5 5,6 7,6

18 10,1 12,5 20,1

44 24,7 30,6 50,7

71 39,9 49,3 100,0

144 80,9 100,0

29 16,3

5 2,8

34 19,1

178 100,0

2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

The method gives clear instructions overall

1 ,6 ,7 ,7

2 1,1 1,4 2,1

6 3,4 4,2 6,3

24 13,5 16,7 22,9

54 30,3 37,5 60,4

57 32,0 39,6 100,0

144 80,9 100,0

30 16,9

4 2,2

34 19,1

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

(26)

XXVI

The method gives detailed instructions overall

2 1,1 1,4 1,4

10 5,6 7,0 8,4

14 7,9 9,8 18,2

23 12,9 16,1 34,3

50 28,1 35,0 69,2

44 24,7 30,8 100,0

143 80,3 100,0

30 16,9

5 2,8

35 19,7

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

The method is divided into step by step actions to undertake

6 3,4 4,1 4,1

5 2,8 3,4 7,6

7 3,9 4,8 12,4

18 10,1 12,4 24,8

46 25,8 31,7 56,6

63 35,4 43,4 100,0

145 81,5 100,0

28 15,7

5 2,8

33 18,5

178 100,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Valid

missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Is the method written in your mother tongue?

112 62,9 77,2 77,2

33 18,5 22,8 100,0

145 81,5 100,0

28 15,7

5 2,8

33 18,5

178 100,0

Yes No Total Valid

Missing System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

If not is there a translation available in your mother tongue?

17 9,6 54,8 54,8

14 7,9 45,2 100,0

31 17,4 100,0

45 25,3

95 53,4

7 3,9

147 82,6

178 100,0

Yes No Total Valid

Missing N/A System Total Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Evaluation

(27)

XXVII

Are the instructions clear

16 4,3 4,3 4,3

29 7,8 7,8 12,1

62 16,7 16,7 28,8

264 71,2 71,2 100,0

371 100,0 100,0

Not stated 2 4 6 Total Valid

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Are there recognizable components

310 83,6 83,8 83,8

11 3,0 3,0 86,8

49 13,2 13,2 100,0

370 99,7 100,0

1 ,3

371 100,0

Not present 2 6 Total Valid

System Missing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Usability Factor Analysis

Communalities

1,000 ,910

1,000 ,545

1,000 ,580

1,000 ,506

1,000 ,440

1,000 ,587

1,000 ,664

1,000 ,895

SMEAN(Goal) SMEAN(Learned) SMEAN(EasyUse) SMEAN(Feelings) SMEAN(RUnderstand) SMEAN(REffort) SMEAN(RSkills) SMEAN(Structure

Initial Extraction

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

2,147 26,835 26,835 2,147 26,835 26,835 1,878 23,479 23,479

1,781 22,263 49,097 1,781 22,263 49,097 1,789 22,368 45,846

1,200 14,997 64,095 1,200 14,997 64,095 1,460 18,248 64,095

,823 10,284 74,378

,759 9,483 83,861

,633 7,910 91,771

,500 6,253 98,024

,158 1,976 100,000

Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

(28)

XXVIII

Component Matrixa

,869 -,124 -,374

,469 -,050 ,568

,190 ,635 ,375

,580 ,052 ,408

,166 ,637 -,078

,097 ,758 ,057

-,158 ,601 -,526

,858 -,120 -,379

SMEAN(Goal) SMEAN(Learned) SMEAN(EasyUse) SMEAN(Feelings) SMEAN(RUnderstand) SMEAN(REffort) SMEAN(RSkills) SMEAN(Structure

1 2 3

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

3 components extracted.

a.

Rotated Component Matrixa

,943 ,002 ,146

,101 ,040 ,730

-,112 ,668 ,349

,267 ,154 ,641

,106 ,653 -,049

-,037 ,765 ,017

,074 ,553 -,593

,936 ,004 ,135

SMEAN(Goal) SMEAN(Learned) SMEAN(EasyUse) SMEAN(Feelings) SMEAN(RUnderstand) SMEAN(REffort) SMEAN(RSkills) SMEAN(Structure

1 2 3

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

a.

Component Transformation Matrix

,841 ,156 ,517

-,117 ,987 -,107

-,527 ,030 ,849

Component 1

2 3

1 2 3

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Cronbach’s Alpha

Case Processing Summary

178 100,0

0 ,0

178 100,0

Valid Excludeda Total

Cases N %

Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

a.

Reliability Statistics

,588 5

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Because in today’s time whoever is working here in a separate zone altogether, somebody is doing dialogue, somebody is doing effects, somebody is doing ambience, somebody is

3.4 Where organic products or ingredients are destined for use in ethically traded organic products, all relevant suppliers must also be certified as ethically traded organic for the

Sofern für die Verwertung der Entwicklungsergebnisse zur Herstellung des ZSB Schieber Produkte die Benutzung von Erfindungen, die vor Beginn oder während der Dauer des

The preferred alternative per product in the event of a contingency, the lead time of this alternative and accurate information about the (historic) stock levels so that the mean and

The present disaster management in Aceh is already combine the pro-active (before disaster: prevention, mitigation, and preparedness) and re-active (after disaster: emergency

For instance, it is assumed that the residuals are normally distributed, they have a mean of zero and a constant variance across levels of independent variables,

Proc3 and Proc4 compose multiple risk management documents and register everything, in order to be able to report everything to their stakeholders and for instance the

Figure 152 illustrates these changes in Chi-square values and significance with reference to the present case; the conclusion must be that these values are more dependent on