Case Study

This case study describes the development of questionnaires used to gather data in a pre-test/post-test study comparing the effectiveness of two training programs for reducing Work-Related Body-Part Discomfort (WRBPD) among office computer users (Cameron, 1997). Its provides a worked example of the systems approach to Questionnaire Design described by Moroney and Cameron (2019). There are 2 parts to this case study.

Office Ergo Case Study PART 1 FINAL 12-22-18.pdf

Part I: Preliminaries to Writing Questions

Provides background on the evaluation study with an emphasis on Kirkpatrick’s model for training evaluation
Describes the purpose of the study including defining objectives and formulating research questions.
Addresses prerequisites to writing questions and questionnaires including: identifying possible metrics/parameters and selecting appropriate administration methods
Describes constraints, concerns, and schedule development
Discusses personalizing questionnaires, which increases response rate
Contains four appendices containing:
- a blank Questionnaire Development Form (QDF),
- a completed QDF for this evaluation study,
- invitation and consent forms, which can be modified to meet your questionnaire design needs, and
- a sample persona of participants in this evaluation study.

Office Ergo Case Study PART II FINAL 12 23 18.pdf

Part II: Drafting and Evaluating Questions

This brief tutorial addresses issues found in very early versions of ten questions that were ultimately revised, refined, and included in this study. After presenting each question, the question is discussed in terms of three questions:

WHAT problem(s) are present in this question?
WHY is it important to address this/these problems?
HOW might this question be revised and refined to eliminate the problem(s)?

We address:

asking the right question.
avoiding questions with mixed attributes, and double-barreled questions.
Selecting appropriate question types and response options/scales. Specifically addressing: open versus closed-end options, rating scales of known psychometric characteristics, developing an assessment tool, and providing all-inclusive but mutually-exclusive response options.
the impact of thinking aloud pretesting, and formal testing.