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
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