Research Findings. Introduction This chapter discusses the findings and results developed from this research. It begins with the purpose of the study and is followed by an instrument summary and data analysis. The data analysis details the hypotheses used and is ordered by a presentation of the results of the data framed around each. Through this process a generous amount of information about multi-rater feedback was developed, the implications of which will be discussed in Chapter 5. Purpose The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions regarding multi- rater feedback in the context of the FBI work setting.
1. Is there a greater perceptual agreement between others (peers and subordinates) and self on the second multi-rater assessment than the initial assessment?
2. What are the dimensions (sub-categories of the LCCIS) of any differences found?
3. Are there differences in agreement between peer and self-ratings and subordinate and self-ratings at time two and time one?
4. What are the dimensions of any differences found in peer and self-ratings?
5. What are the dimensions of any differences found in subordinate and self- ratings?
6. Are there differences in agreement between peer and subordinate ratings at time one and time two? These questions were answered through five hypotheses, which included a number of related sub-hypotheses. Examining them resulted in further knowledge of the multi-rater feedback process, particularly as it relates to law enforcement supervisors in the FBI. The way the Research Questions correspond to the Hypotheses is depicted in Table 1. Table 1 Research Questions and Corresponding Hypotheses Research Question Corresponding Hypotheses Question 1 Hypothesis 1 Question 2 Hypothesis 2 Question 3 Hypotheses 3 & 4 Question 4 Hypothesis 3 Question 5 Hypothesis 4 Question 6 Hypothesis 5 Instrument Summary As articulated in Chapter 3, this study made use of the Leadership Commitments and Credibility Inventory System (LCCIS). Previous validation of this instrument indicated that overall values of alpha reliability were high. However, reliability tests were also conducted here to verify these previous results.19 With regard to these tests, results showed that the overall value alpha reliabilities were .84 or better for each of the subscales, and were consistent with the previous validity and reliability tests reported by the Leadership Research Institute at the University of Connecticut, which are attached as Appendix C.20 Data Analysis To ...
Research Findings. The Sandwich Deli : Morning Trade The Sandwich Deli is not open in the morning. Afternoon Trade Daily, The Sandwich Deli has about 150 customers. Just Sandwiches : Morning Trade Just Sandwiches serve around 75 people for breakfast. Afternoon Trade Afternoon Trade is higher at around 200 customers per day. Tramezzino : Morning Trade Tramezzino are open, but do not sell any form of sandwich in the morning. Afternoon Trade Tramezzino typically serve about 200 customers per day. This includes both sit down and take away customers. The Supermarket : Morning Trade The Supermarket don't sell any breakfast type sandwiches. Afternoon Trade From observing the sandwich fridge, The Supermarket sells about 200 to 300 sandwiches a day. Packed lunches : There is significant competition from customers who eat sandwiches made at home at lunchtime. To try and gather some additional information, we conducted a questionnaire on the high street. We used this questionnaire to try and get a feel for what the local customers had for breakfast and lunch, how much they paid and where they bought it. Over a two week period we interviewed 1,000 people at different times of the day. Research Findings Of the 1,000 people interviewed : • 56% were Men • 44% were Women Breakfast Sandwiches : • 20% had some sort of sandwich for breakfast. • 80% did not have a sandwich, or had no breakfast. The top five fillings for breakfast sandwiches were : Example Sandwich Co. • Bacon • Egg • Tomato • Sausage • Mushrooms Or any combination of the above. 75% of customer stated that they usually buy a coffee with their sandwich. Lunch Sandwiches : • 80% had a sandwich for lunch. • 20% did not have sandwiches, or had no lunch. The top five fillings for lunch sandwiches were : • Chicken • Ham • Cheese • Bacon • Tuna 75% of customer normally also buy a soft drink and crisps. 25% of customer would normally buy a coffee instead of a soft drink. Pricing : • Breakfast Sandwich Customers are typically prepared to pay : 29% - Up to £1.50 51% - £1.50 to £2.00 17% - £2.00 to £2.50 3% - £2.50 and over • Lunch Sandwich Customers are typically prepared to pay : 21% - Up to £1.50 56% - £1.50 to £2.50 17% - £2.50 to £3.00 6% - £3.00 and over Where they buy : 55% bought a sandwich either on the high street or at the supermarket. 45% take sandwiches to work. From the questionnaire that we conducted on the high street, we have extrapolated the gathered data to assist in forecasting the potential number of sandwiches we can ...
Research Findings. The present chapter illustrates the current e-Governance training status and training needs research findings. The findings are split into two parts, presented in two different sections. Information regarding e-Governance training programs is presented in section 3.1 and survey/workshop results related to e-Governance training needs are presented in section 3.2.
Research Findings. 67 Research Question 1 .................................................................................................. 67 Research Question 2 .................................................................................................. 68 Research Question 3 .................................................................................................. 69 Research Question 4 .................................................................................................. 69 Key Findings .............................................................................................................. 70 Implications for Practice ............................................................................................ 70 Recommendations for Further Research.................................................................... 71 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 72 Perspectives................................................................................................................ 74 Parents........................................................................................................................ 74 School Counselors ..................................................................................................... 75 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 76 APPENDICES 101 Appendix A: Site Authorization 101 Appendix B: IRB Authorization to Conduct Research Study 000 Xxxxxxxx X: Telephone Call Script to Parents Soliciting Interview 104 Appendix D: Telephone Call Script to Parents Soliciting Interview Spanish Translation 105 Appendix E: IRB Consent to Participate Form 106 Appendix F: IRB Consent to Participate Form - Spanish 000 Xxxxxxxx X: IRB Consent to Use Audio Form 110 Appendix H: IRB Consent to Use Audio Form - Spanish 111 Appendix I: Parent Pilot Survey 112 Appendix J: Responses to Pilot Parent Survey 116 Appendix K: Counselor Pilot Survey 118 Appendix L: Responses to Pilot Counselor Survey 119 Appendix M: Parent Demographic Survey 000 Xxxxxxxx X: Encuesta Demográfica Para Los Padres - Spanish 122 Appendix O: Parent Interview Questions and Prompts 125 Appendix P: Parent Interview Questions and Prompts – Spanish 000 Xxxxxxxx X: Counselor Survey 129
Research Findings. Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Research Question 3 Research Question 4 Key Findings
Research Findings. Content required by the form in QERI for submitting the results of Research and evaluations involving Queensland state schools and other Departmental Sites and/or data. It contains provision for the inclusion of information on: the title of the research; content keywords; the location of the research, research questions, research methodology; a summary of major findings; research limitations; relationship with other research; additional research needed; practical implications; end-users likely to benefit from the research findings; value of the research; list of relevant publications; and Researcher’s contact information.
Research Findings. 6.1 The Researcher must provide a summary of the Research Findings, using a format, language and concepts that are non-technical, to:
(a) participants, unless it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to provide the summary to the participant (for example, it may be inappropriate to provide a summary of the Research Findings to a child participant who does not have sufficient maturity/ capacity to understand the Research Findings); and
(b) the school and/or other Departmental Sites.
6.2 The Researcher must provide the Research Findings to the Department, using the template provided by the Department, for consideration and comment.
6.3 The Department may publish the Research Findings on QERI where the Researcher has provided its consent in QERI.
6.4 The Department reserves the right not to publish the Research Findings on QERI.
Research Findings. Living memories of de-industrialisation and urban decline In the course of our research in the Xxxxxxx Art Gallery and Museum we came to realise that in the course of investigating the memories of the ‘difficult past’ we had been documenting a widespread atmosphere of the ‘depressing present’ of contemporary life in de-industrialised urban centres. Such a finding is not surprising; after all memory is as much about the present as the past (Mah, 2010). People are involved in on-going memory work when they re-interpret the meanings of past events in order to make sense of the present and, perhaps, project possible trajectories for the future (Hamilakis and Labany, 2008). This feeling of the ‘depressing present’
Research Findings. To answer how the judges had implemented the law of targeting and to identify any factors that had influenced their findings required a consideration of the framework within which the judges were working; this was set within the war crimes jurisdiction of the ICTY and was constructed from the relevant charges brought against the accused, substantive law (including that of criminal responsibility) and the rules of procedure and evidence. It also required that the different aspects of the decisions reached by the judges were broken down: that is, the findings as regards legal definitions, evidence and individual responsibility all required judicial determination and were relevant to answering the research question. There are four key findings of this study which arise across four substantive chapters (Law, Evidence I: The witnesses, Evidence II: Finding criminal intent and Responsibility) which cover the elements that must be considered by the judges to come to a finding of guilt or innocence, to place the line on the ground between lawful and unlawful conduct: the law, the evidence and individual responsibility. Some of the findings are specific to one of these elements, others cross the whole thesis. The first key finding of this study is that the ICTY developed the law of targeting in line with the precedence of the principle of humanity and a worldview strongly guided by the International Committee of the Red Cross (‘ICRC’). In affirming that the provisions of Additional Protocol I relating to targeting can be the basis for a conviction, the judges rendered certain earlier provisions incorporating ‘military necessity’ (although not the broader principle itself) potentially obsolete in this context. The second key finding is that the ICTY judges did not lose sight of the military viewpoint and they considered that their judgments were always supported by a body of military opinion – even if in places there were strongly opposing views. This is important as it shows the judges were not interested in making findings that were incomprehensible or unworkable to those in fact having to make the targeting decisions. The third key finding was the importance of the evidence provided by civilian witnesses with lived experience of the effects of artillery. This was even the case where there was also a large amount of technical or expert evidence available. The fourth key finding is that ICTY jurisprudence gave precedence to convictions pursuant to Article 7(1) of t...
Research Findings. Although not a research grant, there are a series of lessons learnt that are worth sharing in this report.
