May 1, 2007 Minutes

Members Attending: Dale Moore (Chair), Dr. Michelle Visio, Dr. Wes Scroggins, Teresa Steele, Sara Clark

Absent: Jana Estergard, Ladonna Hansen

Michelle gave a report on the pilot tests she was able to perform. Michelle interviewed 2 clerical staff and one administrator as they took the test survey. Issues discussed were:

WORK LIFE (GENERAL):

  • No one had a problem with the introductory paragraph.
  • Administrator felt he would be too busy to complete survey, and that it could possibly get buried among the many other e-mails he receives,
  • All parties just briefly scanned the informed consent statement.
  • One staff member was concerned that it was a timed survey, and pointed out that many staff would be interrupted quite often while in the process of taking it. (Michelle explained that it was not a timed survey.)
  • Michelle notified the test subjects not to close out browser during the survey, as the answers would not be stored. (Sara indicated that the survey participants will need to be informed that the survey will automatically close out after 20 minutes of inactivity.
  •  Administrator expressed concern that many questions appeared to him to be repetitive and redundant. He suggested that we focus and have fewer questions. Wes expressed concern that if we had fewer questions as it would interfere with the psychometrics. The decision of the committee was to keep all of the questions.
  •  One clerical staff commented while taking the survey that “they won’t give me this”, and Michelle reminded her that she needed to think in terms of all the university employees and what they might need, which helped the clerical staff understand.
  •  Once the administrator realized that choosing a certain answer prompted another box to appear that required an answer, he avoided those answers. 
  • The administrator suggested that there be a disclaimer, as when employees take the survey they might begin to assume that these programs will be offered. Sara offered to make a bulleted list of important information that needs to be highlighted.
  •  It was noted that if the President sends out the survey as a link within an e-mail to the university as a whole, then the introductory section can be deleted. There could also be a link to the Informed Consent section.
  • Administrator expressed concern over work scheduling if programs were offered.
  • Two administrators who completed the test survey expressed concern of the possibility that these programs were going to be offered, which led to a concern about how to fund. The clerical staff that took the pilot test did not have the same opinion when taking the survey.

HOME & FAMILY SECTION

  • One staff employee taking the test survey expressed the opinion that if she could not designate a specific recipient of the gift of sick days or vacation days, she would not be in favor of the program.
  • One staff employee taking the test survey did not know what “domestic partner” meant. The term needs to be clarified or alternate term used.

FINANCIAL SECTION

  • No problems noted

There appears to be a recency effect, in that when asked the question to indicate which two items the respondent felt was most important, the participants could not remember the ones at the beginning of the survey. It was decided to delete that question and use the data collected from the previous answers to determine the top two important programs.

DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION

One clerical staff member expressed a comment regarding “primary care of children” as not including her grandchildren, even though she does take care of them. Need to determine if the question should be clarified.

  • There were no concerns expressed about having the demographic information pre-filled.
  • Administrator suggested adding a question regarding department size. It was decided to not ask that question as it would be potentially identifiable.
  • One clerical staff member suggested the reason the information was being collected be re-iterated.
  • Sara indicated she will add the option not to have an answer for these items.
  •  It was indicated by one respondent that there was a concern that if she answered the questions she would be put in a focus group. Time factor and coverage was a problem, as she did not think she could be away from her job for long. It was asked if there was a way to determine how long a focus group would be, and Wes indicated he didn’t think it would be much longer than an hour.
  • One clerical respondent suggested giving a choice of days and times to be on a focus group.

Michelle indicated she would like to do more preliminary testing with employees from other areas of the university, such as part-time faculty with a 12-month appointment, custodial, etc., to get their viewpoints. Sara agreed she would like a faculty member to take the survey to get another viewpoint. Dale indicated he will talk to Ronnie Climer to set up having a representative from Custodial take the test survey. Michelle will try to meet with the custodial representative on Monday. It was suggested that we offer a bubble sheet version for use by those with limited access to computers. It was determined that it would interfere with results. Sara indicated that Human Resources has room with four computer stations that could be used by employees that do not have access to computers in their departments. Michelle felt the estimated timeframe given of 10-15 minutes to complete the survey mentioned at the beginning is fairly accurate. Dale indicated he would like to have a good draft by the end of May and give the President a completed survey instrument to look at. It was decided that since all of the committee is on campus during the summer, the committee will continue to meet through the summer to refine the instrument. Dale indicated he would like to have the survey on-line by the third week of the fall semester.

Next meeting:    May 8, 2007 at 3:30 in Carrington 104

Respectfully submitted,
Teresa Steele
Executive Assistant to the Associate Vice President