Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 1 Guidelines For Interpretation Of Results.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
My Voice is Sydney Institute’s staff survey Your opportunity to have your say Voluntary Online Confidential Open to all levels and categories of Institute.
Advertisements

QPSC Overall KDA Based on Q38 – Intention to Leave.
CASPA Comparison and Analysis of Special Pupil Attainment SGA Systems SGA Systems Limited A brief overview of CASPA's graphs and reports.
Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 1 March 2006 Overall Report For Macquarie University.
QPSC Overall KDA Job Engagement. Contents  Introduction  What is Key Driver Analysis?  Methodology  Factor Analysis Solution  Results.
Reporting tools Webinar Thursday 5 th September 2013.
UGA Libraries Compensation Satisfaction Consulting Project Carrie McCleese Starr Daniell.
Measurement in Survey Research Developing Questionnaire Items with Respect to Content and Analysis.
Lesson Fourteen Interpreting Scores. Contents Five Questions about Test Scores 1. The general pattern of the set of scores  How do scores run or what.
1 1 Slide IS 310 – Business Statistics IS 310 Business Statistics CSU Long Beach.
PPA 415 – Research Methods in Public Administration Lecture 2 - Counting and Charting Responses.
Why does employee engagement matter?
BASIC STATISTICS WE MOST OFTEN USE Student Affairs Assessment Council Portland State University June 2012.
©SHRM 2008SHRM Weekly Online Survey: February 13, Benchmarking Metrics Sample comprised of 423 randomly selected HR professionals. Analyzing 423.
- 1 - Organizational Culture and Employee Engagement 18 th Percentile ENGAGEMENT FACTOR 89 th Percentile Bottom 25 Top 25 DOCS OVERALL.
Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square Testing. Cross-Tabulation While a frequency distribution describes one variable at a time, a cross-tabulation describes.
2010 Annual Employee Survey Results
Principles and Strategies of KEYS 2.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation GAE Training January 1009 Jacques Nacson Senior Policy Analyst NEA New Products.
Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment January 24, 2011 UNDERSTANDING THE DIAGNOSTIC GUIDE.
Student Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.
Statistical Analysis to show Relationship Strength.
QPSC Overall KDA Agency Engagement. Contents  Introduction  What is Key Driver Analysis?  Methodology  Factor Analysis Solution  Results.
Graphical Summary of Data Distribution Statistical View Point Histograms Skewness Kurtosis Other Descriptive Summary Measures Source:
Page 1 Purpose, Participation & Progress: Academia & Big Business Are Close Cousins Dr Peter Langford & Dr Louise Parkes Voice Project Macquarie University.
BEST Survey 2010 City report: Helsinki Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport.
Provider Member Surveys for Resident and Staff Satisfaction Presented By: Jocelyn Martin & Connie Wolfe May 10th, 2010.
Agency Health and the State of the Service Report 2006–07.
Quantitative Skills 1: Graphing
BEST Survey 2011 City report: Stockholm Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport.
PPA 501 – Analytical Methods in Administration Lecture 5a - Counting and Charting Responses.
Employee engagement Guide Global Human Resources June 2014.
Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) Main results of the BEST 2010 Survey.
Descriptive Statistics
Developing a Tool to Measure Health Worker Motivation in District Hospitals in Kenya Patrick Mbindyo, Duane Blaauw, Lucy Gilson, Mike English.
© 2007 Pearson Education Canada Chapter Eighteen The Research Report Winston Jackson and Norine Verberg Methods: Doing Social Research, 4e.
Mountain View College ModernThink © Survey Results Analyzed MVC College-wide Forum April 9, 2009 MVC Core Values: Celebration of Student & Employee Success.
C ULTURE & C LIMATE S URVEY. Sample Employee Survey Report Findings ACME Widgets.
The University of Western Australia working life survey July 2009 high-level results Voice Project Survey Report, (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd, Page 1.
Stats/Methods I JEOPARDY. Jeopardy Validity Research Strategies Frequency Distributions Descriptive Stats Grab Bag $100 $200$200 $300 $500 $400 $300 $400.
UTOPPS—Fall 2004 Teaching Statistics in Psychology.
Standard view – default to week tab – all ok! Please make Price with an upper case P When you click on the month tab, the average is not correct – it should.
Chapter 2, Part A Descriptive Statistics: Tabular and Graphical Presentations n Summarizing Categorical Data n Summarizing Quantitative Data Categorical.
A. P. Moller - Maersk Employee Engagement Survey 2011 MDSI Corporate IT-Admin; RVA018 - Roberto - Valenciano Report.
11/23/2015Slide 1 Using a combination of tables and plots from SPSS plus spreadsheets from Excel, we will show the linkage between correlation and linear.
Psy 230 Jeopardy Measurement Research Strategies Frequency Distributions Descriptive Stats Grab Bag $100 $200$200 $300 $500 $400 $300 $400 $300 $400 $500.
Question Everything.  Questionnaire should be: ◦ Valid – Questions should measure what was meant to be measured ◦ Reliable – Should give you the same.
Uniform Distributions and Random Variables Lecture 23 Sections 6.3.2, Mon, Oct 25, 2004.
OneVoice W Group Results 16 June 2014 Human Resources Employee Engagement.
Chapter 6: Analyzing and Interpreting Quantitative Data
Page 1 Institutional Climate: Relevance For Teaching At Macquarie University Dr Peter Langford Voice Project Department of Psychology Macquarie University.
Employee Opinion Survey Results Highlights Lending Services 2012 Auth: People Research Associates Ltd Normative Values © PRA Ltd December 2012 GFS.
Copyright © 2014 by Nelson Education Limited Chapter 11 Introduction to Bivariate Association and Measures of Association for Variables Measured.
Office of Institutional Research CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY FALL, 2006.
PXGZ6102 BASIC STATISTICS FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION
Quantitative Literacy Assessment At Kennedy King College Fall 2013 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY 1 Prepared by Robert Rollings, spring 2014.
Human Resources Office of 1 Summary of Results College of Design Dean’s Reports.
UKZN Employee Engagement Survey – 2013 Overall Report 1.
DESIGNING GOOD SURVEYS Laura P. Naumann Assistant Professor of Psychology Nevada State College.
insights from voice project’s university employee engagement surveys
CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY SPRING 2009
Teaching Statistics in Psychology
The Business Case for Investing in Employee Engagement
Spearman Rank Order Correlation Example
Numerical Measures: Skewness and Location
The Business Case for Investing in Employee Engagement
Empire Southwest 2017 Companywide EOS Results.
Analyzing test data using Excel Gerard Seinhorst
How to Start This PowerPoint® Tutorial
Reporting Site Manager User Guide February 2019.
Presentation transcript:

Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 1 Guidelines For Interpretation Of Results

Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 2 This report presents information about both performance and importance for the items and scales within the Voice climate survey At the most basic level of reporting for scale and items scores is the commonly used “agreement index” (represented by “% Fav”) that shows the percentage of people who responded favourably (i.e., with either an “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”) to the survey items. “Traffic lights” are used to indicate whether the percentage is “Poor”, “Good” or “Excellent” based on commonly used, but nevertheless arbitrary, cut-offs of “ = 80%” Fav responses At the next level, the distribution of responses for each item and scale is shown (i.e., what proportion of respondents gave “Strongly Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Mixed”, “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”) Performance – How To Interpret SDDMASA Agree Disagree/ Mixed Good >=80% Fav >=80% Fav 50-<80% Fav <50% Fav Legend Excellent Poor

Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 3 For each item and scale, the percentage of respondents who did not give an answer, or who answered “Not applicable” is shown in the column labelled “%N/A”. Analyses on all items and scales did not include these responses For each item and scale, a “mean” is also shown. The mean is the average score on the 1-to-5 scale where 1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 5 = “Strongly Agree” The % Fav statistics are shown using the same “traffic lights” described on the previous page Where external benchmark data are available, the percentile rank (represented by “%ile Rank”) of your organisation is shown. The percentile rank shows the percentage of organisations in our benchmark database whose performance you exceed – so, a score of 91% means you scored better than 91% of organisations in our database (nb. the percentile rank is based on the Mean scores) The %ile rank is colour-coded using traffic lights, with red representing the bottom quartile, yellow the mid-50%, and green the top quartile Performance – How To Interpret

Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 4 The report also estimates the importance of each of the scales and items for driving (1) employee engagement and (2) bottom line results. Importance is estimated using correlations (denoted statistically with an “r”). The report shows importance using blue bar graphs – the longer and darker a bar, the more likely it is that that management practice is an important driver of either employee engagement or bottom line results (eg, if leadership and employee engagement were highly correlated, improving leadership may improve employee engagement). It is important to note, however, that correlation does not prove causality. Importance estimates are only shown for groups with 30 or more respondents because the statistics behind these estimates are more robust when larger numbers of responses are included. Sometimes no bar is shown because it’s not appropriate to calculate a correlation between two variables when one of the variables is either the same as the other variable or was calculated from the other variable (e.g., job satisfaction is used to calculate employee engagement so no correlation is shown between these scales). Importance – How To Interpret High Correlation (r >.50) Medium Correlation (.40 < r <.50) Low Correlation (r <.40)

Voice Project Survey Report (c) Voice Project Pty Ltd & Access Macquarie Ltd – Overview Of Results Page 5 The outcome variables used to estimate importance are: –Employee Engagement Index –Bottom Line Results Index The Employee Engagement Index is the average of the three scales: –Organisational Commitment –Job Satisfaction –Intention To Stay The Bottom Line Results Index is the average of the three scales: –Organisation Objectives –Change & Innovation –Customer Satisfaction Importance – How To Interpret Employee Engagement Index Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction Intention To Stay Intention To Stay Organisational Commitment Organisational Commitment Bottom Line Results Index Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction Organisation Objectives Organisation Objectives Change & Innovation Change & Innovation