Indices - Agreed Standards?

[Jay]

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]

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]

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

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]

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