UKC

Posted with permission of UKClimbing

Hi,

I am currently conducting research for my dissertation, for my Outdoor Adventure Management BA Hon’s degree. This project will investigate how perceived risk is influenced by self-confidence within recreational rock climbers.

If you are interested in completing the questionnaire then please follow the link below:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/THQSHKT

It should take approximately 10 minutes to complete.

Finally, thank you for taking part; your help is really appreciated. If anyone has any questions about the questionnaire please feel free to post below or use the link to email myself directly (I will be checking UKC daily, but will check my private mail more often).

Thanks,

Anthony

In reply to the ant hill mob:
Done.

Not terribly easy to complete, I didn't know what you meant by "average year achieved" and as you know the grade conversions are problematic. I don't really see what stops you having different scales for different disciplines.

I used font grades for bouldering, could have been useful to specify that.

I think you could get some pretty arsey responses from the usual suspects on here. As always, it could have done with more testing before unleashing it on a load of people who love nothing more than slagging off an under-grad research project questionnaire for the tiniest of flaws.

Good luck though, I hope you manage to get some usable data.

In reply to the ant hill mob:

Oh dear....

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Hi Jon,

I understand I'm in for some stick on here, as have all the previous dissertation questionnaires.

This questionnaire has been tested with a local population (31 replies), but some things have had to be adapted to be used on an internet questionnaire, for example the different grades for different disciplines would have needed one question per climbing type and I have a limited amount of 10 questions to use.

The 'average year achieved' was used instead of 'year achieved' as some respondents were not 100% of when it was achieved, in the local survey. So it was changed to accommodate the forgetful and those without a log of climbs.

Thanks for raising the bouldering grades point, something that has been overlooked. Im going to have to think how to rectify this, as I have no more questions available on Survey monkey to insert another chart and I'm unable to change the conversion chart from rock fax without it compromising the data I've already received. One potential option might be to remove the bouldering data during the results to avoid unreliable data collection.

Thanks for the feedback

In reply to the ant hill mob:

So, for average year achieved do you want a guess if not known or an estimate of how many year I achieved the grade..which would tell you more

In reply to the ant hill mob:



Not true. There has been the odd one where everyone has gone 'wow, what a thoroughly well thought out piece of research'.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


Probably not one including questions such as
"I am never intimidated by the thought of a sexual encounter" or asking for your "Favourite climbing Modality"

In reply to Slarti B:

One day someone might ask 'I'm thinking of doing a climbing questionnaire; can you give me some tips re: design?'

Errm regardless of the design it appears borked the "rate the risk section always reverts to 1-7 regardless of what I put in it...

In reply to the ant hill mob:

wtf some really weird and random questions!

In reply to the ant hill mob:

What do you mean by 'average year'. Some of your other questions also need a rethink!
Your 'personal tutor/course supervisor' should have read and commented/corrected this before allowing it out to UKC, or anywhere else.

In reply to the ant hill mob:

I gave up on this "I do not hesitate about disagreeing with people bigger than me" agree or disagree. I haven't a clue. To disagree with something that says I do not disagree, does that mean I agree that I disagree with people bigger than me or that I disagree that I agree with people smaller than me???

In reply to the ant hill mob:

Why have you out so many negatives in the questions "I find I am not accident prone" it is like a mental agility test!

In reply to the ant hill mob:

And 1 is agree in the first half and disagree in the second half. Arghh.

In reply to the ant hill mob:

You should have had trad grades.

In reply to ablackett:

yup looks like a mental agility test

In reply to the ant hill mob:

Why not give Survey Monkey the £24 quid rather than distort your questions and lose data by trying to live with the free version?

In reply to Slarti B:

Hi,

Although i am replying to Slarti B, this is not a direct response and I will try and answer the questions posted from all the others whilst i am here.

For average year achieved, Im asking when was the last date you completed the grade, if you are not sure then just an average year... this is mainly for those who have climbed to a higher grade in the past who now do not climb that grade anymore. To try and gain the information of how many years that grade was completed for would be good information, but each questionnaire needs limitations otherwise the results would be endless, so the information collected needs to be reigned in somewhere. (Bulls Crack, John Cook)

There are a few changes in the scale systems as stated in the introduction page, this is due to each question being from different sources, if i was to change the scale then I would need to re pilot each questionnaire to ensure that the new scale was reporting the same results as the previous scale. Due to time limitations, this was not an option (duchessofmalfi, blackest).

All but questions 1. Profile Questionnaire and 6. Risk Modality Questionnaire are not of my own design. I have had to quite radically adapt the 2 climbing experience questions so they can be used on the online survey as the original is very complex, and when analysing the first local survey, much of that data was grouped to make analysis easier. These are the groups that have been selected for the questionnaire. (Bulls Crack)

As i said previously, some of the questionnaires are not of my design, but have been previously used in academic journals. I chose to do this as it removes the need for pilot questionnaires, that in the time given would never truly be justified for their use. This will also help explain some of the weird questions in the study.

Out of the 2 self efficacy questionnaires, 1 measures physical self efficacy (Ryckman), and the other is a climbing specific measure developed from the Physical scale. The physical self efficacy questionnaire was developed in 1989 but has been used ever since as an accepted measure of physical self efficacy. However the climbing version is a very different set of questions to the physical, that measures other elements of self efficacy such as mental. So using both in the questionnaire is to help justify the reliability of the new climbing self efficacy questionnaire, rather than just using it when there is little academic justification to do so. ( I think these bits relate to everyone else's comments)

Sorry about the essay guys!

In reply to the ant hill mob:

Well, apart from the 'average year' bit, I found it straightforward. Ps 1988 would be my guess. I'm the one with the n/as and the question marks.

In reply to the ant hill mob:

Done, please be sure to direct us to the finished paper!

In reply to David Alcock:

Sorry for that I have wrote the wrong date, the physical self efficacy scale was published in 1982.

Thanks for those who have filled this out so far, really grateful for the help.

I will ask whether i am allowed to release the finished paper, or at least a revised edition once completed.

In reply to the ant hill mob:

Sorry. I generally try to help by answering requests like yours and completing the surveys. I gave it a good go but the thing wouldn't let me leave blank a number of questions (like "People think negative things about me because of my posture") so I've binned it.

In reply to nwclimber:

Me too. Surely we should be able to leave blank the one about physical dexterity tests if we don't go round taking physical dexterity tests? And why have an agree/disagree scale with no midpoint for neither agree nor disagree?

Oh, and what is a climbing principle? Is that an autocorrect result from a mis-spelling of discipline?

In reply to nwclimber:

Hi,

If I allowed for parts of the survey to be not completed, then the data in that questionnaire would be unusable (which is what I've done so far) or i can get an average figure for the missing question which i think corrupts the data somewhat.

As stated above that questionnaire is measuring physical self efficacy. Both the perceived physical ability and the perception of your physical self.

If I was to use the relatively untested climbing self efficacy questionnaire without justifying its use against the questionnaire that it was developed from (The physical self efficacy questionnaire), then the research would be questioned from the outset.

In reply to the ant hill mob:

I think one problem here is that you mean 'estimated year' and yet you are saying 'average year' which actually has a very different meaning.

I found it very hard to complete some of the sections on grades as I couldn't remember the grades, particularly for bouldering where I tend to look at the problem, rather than a book, so have no idea of the grade. Bouldering grades often weren't really know just a few years ago - it was just something you did to play around at the end of the day. You could have had a 'not known' option.

I agree that the double negatives made it pretty hard to answer some of the questions and I might have got some of them the wrong way around! Who knows?!

I wasn't sure what you meant by risk. Do you mean risk of injury (pulled tendons) which is probably more likely in indoor bouldering, or risk of being hit by lose rock, or risk of getting off route, or risk of gear failure, or risk of falling? or all of them bunged together? It's a pretty complex thing to summarise in an ordered list!

Anyway - you will most certainly learn more about doing research by doing research, so enjoy the experience!

In reply to the ant hill mob:

So many of these questions don't allow for different answers according to context. For example, in a discussion in a business context or between friends I will not be concerned about the physical size of the person I am debating with, whereas in an argument with a drunk in a pub who thinks I might have looked at his bird or dissed his football team it is very much an issue.

The problem with so many of these questionnaires is that they highlight the need to use language precisely, which it seems isn't taught these days even at undergraduate level.