www.sharexxx.net - free books & magazines

196 Mullany and Lay
Of significance is the question of whether or not complaints were distinguished
in a consistent manner. With this in mind, notes were carefully taken at each
interview of any unusual occurrences and responses, and how they were handled.
Similar action was thus ensured where similar circumstances arose subsequently.
For example, experience soon showed that responses to seven-point scales
required special handling, because several of the respondents could not remember
all the options at once. Even though the respondent was shown the form, he often
required help in making his assessment. This assistance was given in the form of a
two-tiered approach. First, the respondent was asked to make a crude assessment
out of options 2, 4 and 6, and then he was asked to refine his choice by making a
selection within one of his original choice. For example, if he first chose option 6,
he would then be asked to make a final assessment out of 5, 6 or 7.
The criticism that points of complaint were recorded to correlate with KAI
scores and/or differences was counteracted in the research design as follows: the
user R-score was measured close to the beginning of the interview, before the user’s
KAI score was measured, and before it became possible to make a reliable guess
of the user’s KAI score. Other questions on the System Satisfaction Schedule were
not asked until after the R-score had been measured in the case of a user, once again
to avoid guesses as to the user’s cognitive style.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, thirty-four systems were researched, hence the data is divided
into several univariate samples of thirty-four (that is, sample-size n = 34 in all cases).
The levels of significance employed in this study were based on the opinions
found in human science and statistical literature. These opinions are summarized in
Table 1. Based on the opinions of respected experts as recorded in Table 1, the
qualitative ratings listed in Table 2 were assumed for this study. The data was then
stratified into those univariate samples identified in Table 3.
The mean and standard deviation was calculated for each sample, which was
then tested for goodness-of-fit to the normal distribution.
The Randomness of the Data Samples
The means for the analyst and user KAI score samples were respectively,
102.9 and 101.6, while their respective standard deviations are 12.55 and 14.09.
Kirton’s British sample of KAI scores for 562 persons exhibited a normal
distribution with mean 95 and standard deviation 18 (Kirton, 1987). In studies cited
by Kirton, in which the KAI scores for various occupational groups were
Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.