2012 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

Table 4
Instrument Refinement Data Collected from Focus Groups
Data collected in the instrumentation refinement focus groups (the 9 th and 10 th focus groups)
based on results of the ―American Evaluation Association‘s Independent Consulting Group‘s
Instrument Peer Review Rubric.‖ Data illustrates participants‘ perceptions of the instrument
created to assess client satisfaction of student public relations firms, or other client coursework
completed for clients.
Question Results Description of comments for nonanswers,
fair, poor, or very poor
Alignment to the
purpose
Appropriateness for
target population
Instructions
Appearance
Layout and order of
questions
Close-ended question
wording
6-very good
2-good
0-fair
1-poor
0-very poor
8-very good
1-good
0-fair
0-poor
0-very poor
4-very good
5-good
0-fair
0-poor
0-very poor
5-very good
4-good
0-fair
0-poor
0-very poor
5-very good
3-good
1-fair
0-poor
0-very poor
9-very good
0-good
0-fair
0-poor
0-very poor
The participant who noted ―poor‖
felt that there should be more on
evaluation of the actual campaign
and if the objectives were met than
about how the client felt about the
project. As these things can be
measured by the instructor, the
suggestion was not used.
The respondent who noted ―fair‖ felt
that the outcomes section should be
asked before questions such as
professional demeanor.
(continues)
17