Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
DiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWord
DirectoryUser Groups
Related Topics
Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ...

MS Office Forum / Excel / New Users / May 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Indices - Agreed Standards?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jay - 23 May 2006 21:52 GMT
I have inherited a file which converts survey feedback (questions with
multiple choice answer options of 'up','down' & 'level') to indices. The
calculation gives an Index of between 90 and 110, with 110 indicating
totally positive feedback(up) & 90 indicating totally negative feedback
(down) and 100 neither +ve or -ve (level).  This can then be graphed over
time.

My question is:  Is an Index of 90 - 110 an accepted standard?  And does
anyone know any good sources of info on this type of thinking.

Cheers

-Jay-
Pete_UK - 24 May 2006 00:30 GMT
I don't know of any "standards" for this. It's just a number range,
after all, and you could just as easily use -1, 0, +1 or -100 through
to +100 depending on how many gradations you want to use.

Hope this helps.

Pete
Jay - 24 May 2006 07:30 GMT
On 24/5/06 00:30, in article
1148427042.105371.164000@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com, "Pete_UK"
<pashurst@auditel.net> wrote:

> I don't know of any "standards" for this. It's just a number range,
> after all, and you could just as easily use -1, 0, +1 or -100 through
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Pete

Cheers Pete, I didn't want to change it if there was a 'standard' & I think
it may need changing as the index no. can so easily be confused with  a %age
in its current form. Particularly as it is giving an index for something
which *is* given in %ages elsewhere in the same report.

Then again, maybe that was the thinking? Elsewehere in the report 90% would
generally considered to be poor & 110% considered good. So it's drawing on
the readers' existing reference points.

But it can *still* be read as a %. I think -10 to 10 sounds good - it
reflects the -ve, level & +ve indicators in the survey, has the same scale
(20 units from bad to good), and there's no way anyone would read it as a %.
And the 0 line is a more obvious mid-point.

I'd welcome your input though.

Cheers

Jay
Pete_UK - 24 May 2006 12:02 GMT
If you do change the range to -10 through to +10, then you will also
have to look at the formulae which convert the existing values into a
percentage - these will obviously need amending.

Hope this helps.

Pete
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.