05-16-2017, 11:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2017, 07:11 AM by Pheidippides.)
Having filled out the Spurline crossing at Union survey I am a little disappointed in the survey questions.
The response categories are biased, and are not mutually-exclusive.
For example, take the question, “When crossing Union, how safe do you feel as a trail user?” the options are:
“I cross at the nearest signalized intersection”
“Very safe”
“Somewhat safe”
“Not safe”
“I do not use the Spurline trail at this location”
The first and last categories do not fit with the middle three categories. A more typical Likert scale, either a 3 (safe, neutral (neither safe or unsafe), unsafe), 4 (very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe), or 5 (very safe, somewhat safe, neutral (neither safe or unsafe), somewhat unsafe, very unsafe) should have been used.
As a result, there are an unequal number of positive (“Very safe”, “somewhat safe”) and negative response categories (“Not safe”).
Someone selecting the first response option could be thinking, “I cross at the nearest signalized intersection…because I do not feel safe,” but they could also be answering, “I feel safe because…I cross at the nearest signalized intersection” or “I cross at the nearest signalized intersection …because it is faster etc.” You just don’t know what the respondent was thinking at the time.
Similarly, someone selecting the last response option could be answering “I do not use the Spurline trail at this location…because I do not feel safe” but they could be answering “I do not use the Spurline trail at this location because it takes too long” or “It is not applicable to me - I do not use the Spurline trail at this location because I don’t use the Spurline trail.” Again, you just don’t know what the respondent was thinking at the time.
The second question is only moderately better because it removes the first category and makes it clear that the last category is for non-applicable respondents, but the response categories are still skewed to the positive.
So, when staff summarize the data the bias toward the positive response categories could influence a decision. I can easily imagine the staff report stating that, “only 37% of trail users and 17.8% road users did not feel safe so we can defer this work for another time.”
Finally, the survey asks about the safety of the crossing, but it does not ask about the convenience of the crossing being a reason for enhancing the crossing (there is an free text/open ended question for other comments and concerns). So 54.3 per cent of respondents feel safe at the intersection (47.8 + 6.5), but maybe 90 per cent of trail users are frustrated with the amount of time it takes to cross union and 80% of road users are frustrated in the delays caused by the current crossing design and they won’t know because they did not specifically ask.
The response categories are biased, and are not mutually-exclusive.
For example, take the question, “When crossing Union, how safe do you feel as a trail user?” the options are:
“I cross at the nearest signalized intersection”
“Very safe”
“Somewhat safe”
“Not safe”
“I do not use the Spurline trail at this location”
The first and last categories do not fit with the middle three categories. A more typical Likert scale, either a 3 (safe, neutral (neither safe or unsafe), unsafe), 4 (very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe), or 5 (very safe, somewhat safe, neutral (neither safe or unsafe), somewhat unsafe, very unsafe) should have been used.
As a result, there are an unequal number of positive (“Very safe”, “somewhat safe”) and negative response categories (“Not safe”).
Someone selecting the first response option could be thinking, “I cross at the nearest signalized intersection…because I do not feel safe,” but they could also be answering, “I feel safe because…I cross at the nearest signalized intersection” or “I cross at the nearest signalized intersection …because it is faster etc.” You just don’t know what the respondent was thinking at the time.
Similarly, someone selecting the last response option could be answering “I do not use the Spurline trail at this location…because I do not feel safe” but they could be answering “I do not use the Spurline trail at this location because it takes too long” or “It is not applicable to me - I do not use the Spurline trail at this location because I don’t use the Spurline trail.” Again, you just don’t know what the respondent was thinking at the time.
The second question is only moderately better because it removes the first category and makes it clear that the last category is for non-applicable respondents, but the response categories are still skewed to the positive.
So, when staff summarize the data the bias toward the positive response categories could influence a decision. I can easily imagine the staff report stating that, “only 37% of trail users and 17.8% road users did not feel safe so we can defer this work for another time.”
Finally, the survey asks about the safety of the crossing, but it does not ask about the convenience of the crossing being a reason for enhancing the crossing (there is an free text/open ended question for other comments and concerns). So 54.3 per cent of respondents feel safe at the intersection (47.8 + 6.5), but maybe 90 per cent of trail users are frustrated with the amount of time it takes to cross union and 80% of road users are frustrated in the delays caused by the current crossing design and they won’t know because they did not specifically ask.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.