 |
The Questionnaire |
|||
Contents |
A single questionnaire was used in an ex post facto design: respondents were asked to respond to most questions twice—once for “NOW” (mid-2001) and once for 1995 (“THEN”). The “treatment” to be assessed—the third mission innovations—took place in the intervening six years, beginning in 1995. Although there is no plausible control group, different sub-groups among the respondents (by program area, location, and administrative role) experienced somewhat different versions of the “treatment” and therefore provided an opportunity to test the consistency of results across groups and across treatment variations. Questionnaire text Because of the lack of a control group and because of the non-random assignment of individuals to the “treatment variations,” this is properly understood as a quasi-experimental design. The primary precaution associated with this is that where between-group differences are found – for example, between two program areas – it is impossible to be certain whether they are the result of treatment differences or characteristics of the individuals. Findings are presented with this in mind. Description of questionnaire sample and respondentsOSU Extension professionals were treated as the appropriate population
to address the variety of questions selected for inclusion in the questionnaire.
For some questionnaire items, the respondents report on their own attitudes;
for other items, they are serving as an “expert panel” to assess
the organization’s performance and impacts. The questionnaire was distributed by email on July 27, 2001. In order
to maximize the response, it was distributed to a 100 percent sample of
county Extension faculty, campus-based Extension faculty, Extension program
leaders, and also OSU department heads with Extension responsibilities.
This was done by means of existing email lists that are actively maintained
by OSU Extension. The questionnaire was returned by approximately 56% of the potential respondents. The rate of response was similar across all breakout groups: breakouts by program area, location (county/campus/other), hire decade, and administrative role all produced no group with a response rate lower than 48%. The response rate – overall and within each breakout group – is adequate for the intended analyses. Response details RespondentsThe respondents are representative of all program areas in similar proportions to the overall staff mix The Agriculture program area is a near-majority of the respondents, as
it is of the total Extension faculty. Because of this preponderance of
respondents from the Ag program area, averages for questions that specify
“… in my program area …” (questionnaire
items 4a-f and 5a-k)
are weighted toward agriculture. See program area breakouts for each questionnaire
theme (in the Results by Theme section)
for a complete understanding of the results. County staff chairs, department heads with Extension responsibilities, and Extension program leaders make up 20% of the staff and 22% of the respondents.
Interpreting the Results
|
(