council3_rubal
Well-known member
We will soon evaluate elements of the Vision 35 comprehensive plan. It is important to understand the survey tools and how they were applied by the consultant.
Surveys are tools that use sampling methods most often to make generalizations about a larger population (in this case, our residents). They are done because of the cost and time to get complete data from the entire population. For survey results to be generalizable, they require two cornerstones. Samples of the population must be both representative and randomly chosen. So, consider that "generalization" is equivalent to what we appreciate about the entire pot of soup, and the survey is the spoon you take your first taste. If the soup was not stirred before tasting (sampling), you may be getting a very salty taste that is very different from the taste of the stirred pot. If you do not taste the meat with the broth, you may find the bowl of soup not very satisfactory. If you don’t stir the pot first, you may have a bias for or against the soup, if you do not get to taste the meat with the broth, you fail to appreciate the complexity of what the cook has made for you (the true resident population).
In assessing the action items that are recommended in the comprehensive plan, the strength of data that forms supporting elements must also be considered. We must be confident that the consultant stirred the pot and gave us a representative spoon of our soup because we want to be sure that the one sip we take is enough to tell us the truth about the whole meal before we serve it to our residents.
When the only demographic data provided in the community survey in Vision 35 (How long you lived in Universal City?) was compared to Census data, there is only a 1-in-1000 chance the post was stirred, and our spoon of soup was further contaminated by the inclusion of 22 non-residents of the 332 individuals surveyed. The consultant uses "convenience sampling methods" to present recommendations for action items. The risk of accepting non-representative, non-randomized convenience study results has a high probability of not accurately reflecting the reality within our community, compared to a survey in which efforts were made to ensure sampling was representative and randomly sampled.
Surveys are tools that use sampling methods most often to make generalizations about a larger population (in this case, our residents). They are done because of the cost and time to get complete data from the entire population. For survey results to be generalizable, they require two cornerstones. Samples of the population must be both representative and randomly chosen. So, consider that "generalization" is equivalent to what we appreciate about the entire pot of soup, and the survey is the spoon you take your first taste. If the soup was not stirred before tasting (sampling), you may be getting a very salty taste that is very different from the taste of the stirred pot. If you do not taste the meat with the broth, you may find the bowl of soup not very satisfactory. If you don’t stir the pot first, you may have a bias for or against the soup, if you do not get to taste the meat with the broth, you fail to appreciate the complexity of what the cook has made for you (the true resident population).
In assessing the action items that are recommended in the comprehensive plan, the strength of data that forms supporting elements must also be considered. We must be confident that the consultant stirred the pot and gave us a representative spoon of our soup because we want to be sure that the one sip we take is enough to tell us the truth about the whole meal before we serve it to our residents.
When the only demographic data provided in the community survey in Vision 35 (How long you lived in Universal City?) was compared to Census data, there is only a 1-in-1000 chance the post was stirred, and our spoon of soup was further contaminated by the inclusion of 22 non-residents of the 332 individuals surveyed. The consultant uses "convenience sampling methods" to present recommendations for action items. The risk of accepting non-representative, non-randomized convenience study results has a high probability of not accurately reflecting the reality within our community, compared to a survey in which efforts were made to ensure sampling was representative and randomly sampled.