F-Test on variances for independent samples

1. 62 Tests The PRD Technique – (Previous Rating Displayed)Don‘t You Forget About Me Start Here We would like to thank the employees of Luft-hansa Technik who took part in this survey, as well as all colleagues for their input, suggestions and comments. Question: How do you feel about the possibility of seeing the ratings you previously gave the other products? The Challenge • How to optimize the intranet sites of HAM TS (Marketing & Sales Department of Lufthansa Technik) regarding the following aspects: • Content - Layout - Usability • Design - Formation We would like to thankDiageo plc., London/UK,for the kind support ofthis research project HAM TS Lufthansa Technik Intranet Home The Problem • The display of the previous ratings is essential for a survey using Magnitude Estimation Scaling (MES). • As a by-product we tested the utility of the PRD Technique for 7-point-scales Summary of Socratic Data Analysis • Jeffrey: “Overall, I would say that PRD does not result in scores different from the classic method.” Third Concept Rating The Survey in Figures • Switch design (each site separate) • 10 comparisons; 89 pages in total • 57 question pages; 28 filter structures • 2 random selection structures • 2 random rotation structures • 120 hiding condition exits; 306 variables The final ratings for both concepts are now displayed General Online Research 2007  Résumé • We could prove that the PRD Technique increases the comfort of online surveys. • For more than 50% of all participants in both surveys the display of the previous rating was helpful. • The PRD Technique does not influence the concept rating itself. Given ratings with PRD are equivalent to those without PRD. • The PRD Technique causes higher programming effort. But: • How does the PRD Technique works with longer item lists? • Is it possible to use PRD in combination with a sophisticated random rotation algorithms for the item lists? • Further basic research about PRD variations is necessary. The Employee Survey with Integrated Methodical Test • Employees of Lufthansa Technik in Germany with their ownMicrosoft Outlook account and with intranet access • 4,661 test persons (without executive personnel), random allocation to: • Magnitude Estimation Scaling Survey: 1,865 test persons (= 40%) • 7 Point Scale Survey with PRD: 1,398 test persons (= 30%) • 7 Point Scale Survey without PRD: 1,398 test persons (= 30%) • Field time: October, 4th to October, 17th, 2006 (13 days) Second Concept Rating With PRD Without PRD Question Programming Question Programming The new rating is now displayed  Identical   Changing Initial Rating With PRD Without PRD Question Programming Question Programming It works!!!  Different By clicking on the rating, a pop-up window opens to allow the respondent to change their previous answer Comments? Suggestions? Please take a post-it and place it in this box. Thank you. Question: The Display of the Previous Rating… Second Concept Rating The respondent sees his ratings of the previous concept Beverage Survey with Integrated Methodical Test • Concept test within the access panel of Socratic Technologies in the US • 360 test persons, screened by beverage usage, random allocation to: • Concept evaluation with PRD: 181 test persons (= 50%) • Concept evaluation without PRD: 181 test persons (= 50%) • Field time: February, 14th to February, 23rd, 2007 (10 days) The Survey in Figures • Switch design (each site separate) • Comparisons of 3 concepts • 6 random structures F-Test on variances for independent samples F-Test on variances for independent samples Interim Results • PRD increases the comfort of online surveys • PRD has no influence on the ratings But were these fortuitous results? 7 times significance on 5% level3 times significance on 1% level Do you want to know more details?Do you want to discuss the poster with us?Do you want to see a live demonstration? Please visit us at the topcom booth (MML Mediencampus, Foyer 2nd floor) or call Stefan: ++49 (0)172 44.77.096 Stefan Althoff Marketing Research Manager Lufthansa Technik AG, Hamburg/Germany Udo Dumke Senior Consultant topcom Datenverarbeitungs- gesellschaftmbH, Hamburg/Germany Jeffrey Kerr Vice-President Socratic Technologies Chicago/USA Dr. William MacElroy President Socratic Technologies San Francisco/USA