This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH SURVEY:
Have you ever considered the reasons you participate in high risk sports? What personality traits do people possess that make them want to risk their life?
You can assist our research into personality types in high risk sports simply by taking our survey; will take no more than 10-15 minutes.
Thanks for your time
Please follow the link if you are interested:
https://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/bangor/highrisksports/
Have you ever considered the reasons you participate in high risk sports? What personality traits do people possess that make them want to risk their life?
You can assist our research into personality types in high risk sports simply by taking our survey; will take no more than 10-15 minutes.
Thanks for your time
Please follow the link if you are interested:
https://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/bangor/highrisksports/
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Why do people (usually non-climbers) always assume climbers "want to risk their life"?
Maybe they just like climbing? Maybe there's precious little if any risk-taking going on at all? Maybe even if there is then it's a necessary evil rather than an active choice?
Why do people (usually non-climbers) always assume climbers "want to risk their life"?
Maybe they just like climbing? Maybe there's precious little if any risk-taking going on at all? Maybe even if there is then it's a necessary evil rather than an active choice?
In reply to john arran:
> Why do people (usually non-climbers) always assume climbers "want to risk Wasn't there a survey on here yesterday that hoped to proove the opposite?
In reply to Doddzi_72:
The sort of climbing I mostly do is lower risk than cycling to the wall. Might be scary to the uninitiated, but it's very safe.
Neil
The sort of climbing I mostly do is lower risk than cycling to the wall. Might be scary to the uninitiated, but it's very safe.
Neil
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Yet another vacuous and moronic survey which has absolutely no chance at all of delivering a useful result. I genuinely hope these students aren't having to pay thousands of pounds of tuition fees for this meaningless tosh.
Yet another vacuous and moronic survey which has absolutely no chance at all of delivering a useful result. I genuinely hope these students aren't having to pay thousands of pounds of tuition fees for this meaningless tosh.
In reply to Doddzi_72:
In what sense is a climber risking their life more than a driver?
"Have you ever considered the reasons you drive? What sort of personality traits do drivers possess that makes them want to risk their lives"
You hypothesis is "not even wrong"
In what sense is a climber risking their life more than a driver?
"Have you ever considered the reasons you drive? What sort of personality traits do drivers possess that makes them want to risk their lives"
You hypothesis is "not even wrong"
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Sorry, I did try but there were too many assumptions that what I am doing is dangerous/risky, particularly when compared to other day-to-day activities such as driving, as another poster has said. I did try to fill it in with driving being the activity; using times I've stopped to help at or witnessed traffic accidents, but then realised that it was 1: a waste of your time, and 2: a waste of my time.
Key point would be the difference between actual and perceived risk. Most climbers are very good at identifying, managing and avoiding risk.
Best of luck.
Sorry, I did try but there were too many assumptions that what I am doing is dangerous/risky, particularly when compared to other day-to-day activities such as driving, as another poster has said. I did try to fill it in with driving being the activity; using times I've stopped to help at or witnessed traffic accidents, but then realised that it was 1: a waste of your time, and 2: a waste of my time.
Key point would be the difference between actual and perceived risk. Most climbers are very good at identifying, managing and avoiding risk.
Best of luck.
In reply to Doddzi_72:
I Enjoy climbing a lot. Of the hundreds of climbs outdoors, maybe 2 or three would be risky.
Of the thousands i have done indoors, none were risky.
I Enjoy climbing a lot. Of the hundreds of climbs outdoors, maybe 2 or three would be risky.
Of the thousands i have done indoors, none were risky.
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Modern undergraduate research is not likely to deliver a useful result, but it does teach people about research. Survey design is complex, and not an easy thing to do and I wouldn't expect an undergraduate to be able to build a perfect one.
That said, you could teach some important aspects of questionnaire design from going through this one:
"Personalities and Behaviours in High Risk Sport" - this title and the way you have asked for help, aside from seeming to offend many people on UKC, is an important source of bias. You are telling people that their sports are high risk, and then trying to ask them about how they view the risk. Why didn't you just call it "Personalities and behaviours in sport" and take out all references to high risk when asking questions? It all sounds very judgemental and therefore biased. This undermines any conclusions you try and draw.
I also have some comments on particular questions that jumped out at me:
"I have physical sensations that even doctors don't understand." this is a leading statement - high risk of bias
"I prefer to just let things happen rather than to understand why they turned out that way." - sentence doesn't make sense.
"It is difficult for me to reveal my innermost feelings, even to close friends." - again the use of the word even to emphasise the feelings of the question which causes bias.
Changing the scale between pages 3 and 4 - is this necessary? It is bad practice to be inconsistent unless there is a particular reason they need to be different.
On page 5 "It's like gambling, you can't win unless you try it." This question doesn't fit the scale applied to it, this is an agree/disagree question and should be on the previous scale.
P.S. Have you considered survivor bias? (i.e. you're losing the answers from the thousands of climbers killed every day at Stanage who therefore can't answer the questionnaire).
Modern undergraduate research is not likely to deliver a useful result, but it does teach people about research. Survey design is complex, and not an easy thing to do and I wouldn't expect an undergraduate to be able to build a perfect one.
That said, you could teach some important aspects of questionnaire design from going through this one:
"Personalities and Behaviours in High Risk Sport" - this title and the way you have asked for help, aside from seeming to offend many people on UKC, is an important source of bias. You are telling people that their sports are high risk, and then trying to ask them about how they view the risk. Why didn't you just call it "Personalities and behaviours in sport" and take out all references to high risk when asking questions? It all sounds very judgemental and therefore biased. This undermines any conclusions you try and draw.
I also have some comments on particular questions that jumped out at me:
"I have physical sensations that even doctors don't understand." this is a leading statement - high risk of bias
"I prefer to just let things happen rather than to understand why they turned out that way." - sentence doesn't make sense.
"It is difficult for me to reveal my innermost feelings, even to close friends." - again the use of the word even to emphasise the feelings of the question which causes bias.
Changing the scale between pages 3 and 4 - is this necessary? It is bad practice to be inconsistent unless there is a particular reason they need to be different.
On page 5 "It's like gambling, you can't win unless you try it." This question doesn't fit the scale applied to it, this is an agree/disagree question and should be on the previous scale.
P.S. Have you considered survivor bias? (i.e. you're losing the answers from the thousands of climbers killed every day at Stanage who therefore can't answer the questionnaire).
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Well it's a cheap and easy way of getting most of your thesis wrtten for you, I suppose.
I used to climb because I enjoyed the scenery, the fresh air, the physical sensations and the precision of the exercise. Not much to do with risk.
Well it's a cheap and easy way of getting most of your thesis wrtten for you, I suppose.
I used to climb because I enjoyed the scenery, the fresh air, the physical sensations and the precision of the exercise. Not much to do with risk.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Same for me, it's about the journey, the shared friendships, and the viewpoints from up there, obviously becoming good at your chosen pursuit has many benefits.
Same for me, it's about the journey, the shared friendships, and the viewpoints from up there, obviously becoming good at your chosen pursuit has many benefits.
In reply to Doddzi_72:
give the guys a break lads there just trying to pass there university course whilst integrating something that stimulates them such as the outdoors.
I've seen many of these on here and they always get stick. I think people overestimate the level an undergraduate is on and as outdoor practitioners you should welcome any attention and research into the industry as perfect or not it provides an insight that you can use to better yourselves in a personal and professional context. As for whether this is useful or not depends on the methods used to analyse the data it is also likely that this is not the only data collection method utilized and that when combined with focus groups or interviews the results could be quite revealing. If you are all so much better I assume that you have a higher level of qualification into psychology and outdoor research that has been externally assessed and not just based on the presumption that you are better just because you are you. That is known as arrogance a trait fortunately not overly prevalent in this industry as we are time and again humbled by our own mistakes and the outdoor in general.
give the guys a break lads there just trying to pass there university course whilst integrating something that stimulates them such as the outdoors.
I've seen many of these on here and they always get stick. I think people overestimate the level an undergraduate is on and as outdoor practitioners you should welcome any attention and research into the industry as perfect or not it provides an insight that you can use to better yourselves in a personal and professional context. As for whether this is useful or not depends on the methods used to analyse the data it is also likely that this is not the only data collection method utilized and that when combined with focus groups or interviews the results could be quite revealing. If you are all so much better I assume that you have a higher level of qualification into psychology and outdoor research that has been externally assessed and not just based on the presumption that you are better just because you are you. That is known as arrogance a trait fortunately not overly prevalent in this industry as we are time and again humbled by our own mistakes and the outdoor in general.
In reply to Doddzi_72:
I have to disagree with many of you. Whilst climbing is far safer than it used to be there is still a bigger risk of death than the average pastime. And why do so many people just assume rock climbing when climbing is mentioned. Ice climbing, alpinism and expedition climbing all carry a greater degree of risk than a day on a sport crag. The number of people I have known, many of whom I regarded as friends, who have been killed whilst climbing runs well into double figures. At the last count I think it was 21 but increased by 1 last year when a guy I had met in Rjukan had an accident in the Cairngorms. In contrast I don't know anyone who has died or even been injured in a road accident so the so called higher statistical risk of that is nonsense to me.
I have to disagree with many of you. Whilst climbing is far safer than it used to be there is still a bigger risk of death than the average pastime. And why do so many people just assume rock climbing when climbing is mentioned. Ice climbing, alpinism and expedition climbing all carry a greater degree of risk than a day on a sport crag. The number of people I have known, many of whom I regarded as friends, who have been killed whilst climbing runs well into double figures. At the last count I think it was 21 but increased by 1 last year when a guy I had met in Rjukan had an accident in the Cairngorms. In contrast I don't know anyone who has died or even been injured in a road accident so the so called higher statistical risk of that is nonsense to me.
In reply to splat2million:
I know that your comments are well meaning (unlike some of the other sneering stuff on this thread) but you've misunderstood the nature of the measurement tools used in this questionnaire. For reasons that I don't want to explain - because I hope some people will complete this questionnaire and this would affect their responses - criticising individual items in this way isn't appropriate. This isn't a "survey" in the sense that I think you are understanding it.
In reply to some others:
There's a jeering crowd mentality on this thread that I find really unpleasant. For goodness sake either help them out by completing the questionnaire, or keep out of it. As final year undergraduates they are still learning - we all are - but unless you know more about this kind of research than they do (no evidence of this in responses so far) then your comments are not valuable.
To people saying "you are assuming that climbing is high risk": They are posting on here (I guess - I don't know anyone involved) because they think that it's a good place to find some people who engage in genuinely high risk activities. In the questionnaire itself they are, as far as I can tell, making no assumptions. The first few questions assess, on the basis of respondents self-reported experience, how risky your behaviour is.
I know that your comments are well meaning (unlike some of the other sneering stuff on this thread) but you've misunderstood the nature of the measurement tools used in this questionnaire. For reasons that I don't want to explain - because I hope some people will complete this questionnaire and this would affect their responses - criticising individual items in this way isn't appropriate. This isn't a "survey" in the sense that I think you are understanding it.
In reply to some others:
There's a jeering crowd mentality on this thread that I find really unpleasant. For goodness sake either help them out by completing the questionnaire, or keep out of it. As final year undergraduates they are still learning - we all are - but unless you know more about this kind of research than they do (no evidence of this in responses so far) then your comments are not valuable.
To people saying "you are assuming that climbing is high risk": They are posting on here (I guess - I don't know anyone involved) because they think that it's a good place to find some people who engage in genuinely high risk activities. In the questionnaire itself they are, as far as I can tell, making no assumptions. The first few questions assess, on the basis of respondents self-reported experience, how risky your behaviour is.
In reply to Mark Torrance:
yep I think a lot of folk just look at these surveys so they can criticise them!
>
> There's a jeering crowd mentality on this thread that I find really unpleasant. For goodness sake either help them out by completing the questionnaire, or keep out of it. As final year undergraduates they are still learning - we all are - but unless you know more about this kind of research than they do (no evidence of this in responses so far) then your comments are not valuable.
>
> There's a jeering crowd mentality on this thread that I find really unpleasant. For goodness sake either help them out by completing the questionnaire, or keep out of it. As final year undergraduates they are still learning - we all are - but unless you know more about this kind of research than they do (no evidence of this in responses so far) then your comments are not valuable.
>
yep I think a lot of folk just look at these surveys so they can criticise them!
In reply to Michael Gordon:
What us like to know us how many of the"I don't take risks" folk on here lead routes, particularly trad. If so, why lead and not top rope? The only difference really is psychology -managing the fear, staying calm, keeping an awareness of gear placements. I.e. managing the RISKS! Sure, for most climbers the risks are relatively small, but to claim that climbing is not potentially high risk is to be in denial (or bravado).
What us like to know us how many of the"I don't take risks" folk on here lead routes, particularly trad. If so, why lead and not top rope? The only difference really is psychology -managing the fear, staying calm, keeping an awareness of gear placements. I.e. managing the RISKS! Sure, for most climbers the risks are relatively small, but to claim that climbing is not potentially high risk is to be in denial (or bravado).
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Done.
I don't know if these comments will be useful in your review:
HTH
Done.
I don't know if these comments will be useful in your review:
- It's not clear if Q8 relates to your most significant accident / close call ever, or only to the one referred to in Qs 6 and 7.
The inclusion of the word 'would' in Q10 seems incomprehensible (e.g. 'I would enjoy my favourite tv or radio programme'). I haven't answered this question.
Part 'e' in Q11 doesn't make sense in the context of the question.
HTH
In reply to Monk:
How is leading a well protected trad route riskier than driving a car?!? I mean - you might maybe graze a knee or something...
> What us like to know us how many of the"I don't take risks" folk on here lead routes, particularly trad.
How is leading a well protected trad route riskier than driving a car?!? I mean - you might maybe graze a knee or something...
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Done.
I thought it was a typically standard psychological questionnaire and not sure what the fuss is about.
Yeah, it's been done plenty of times before, but we all have to start somewhere.
Done.
I thought it was a typically standard psychological questionnaire and not sure what the fuss is about.
Yeah, it's been done plenty of times before, but we all have to start somewhere.
In reply to tlm:
Not a jeering crowd perhaps but maybe a constituency of people who are very committed to an activity which seems to be so hopelessly misunderstood.Bear in mind that many of us will have had spent years seeking to explain that the attraction of these activities is precisely the opposite of what is suggested in the OP ("that make them want to risk their life") Those years sometimes punctuated by devastating injury and/or bereavement.
Could our frustration not be a genuine desire to have our motivations properly understood or properly investigated ( perhaps even to properly understand and investigate them ourselves?), something which seems enormously unlikely when faced with (yet another) poorly written (ie ambiguous) survey.
Is it a near miss to successfully and uneventfully complete the solo of a winter gully? Is it a near miss to fall on a sport climb with a bolt clipped above your head? If I always climb within my well known limits am I "always" putting myself at risk or "never"? How are we defining danger or identifying high risk behaviours. Can we identify them as high risk without that identification carrying a pejorative burden of meaning
I don't look at these surveys to despise them, I'd love to help but invariably find myself disappointed by their quality,idiom and assumptions. It seems to me that these surveys could be improved enormously by a bit of research before committing to a particular analytical tool. Nor indeed do I think that I've aimed my criticism at the student making, I thought, quite a clear statement regarding the quality of tuition that would lead to such a poorly designed and blunt instrument being made public.
Not a jeering crowd perhaps but maybe a constituency of people who are very committed to an activity which seems to be so hopelessly misunderstood.Bear in mind that many of us will have had spent years seeking to explain that the attraction of these activities is precisely the opposite of what is suggested in the OP ("that make them want to risk their life") Those years sometimes punctuated by devastating injury and/or bereavement.
Could our frustration not be a genuine desire to have our motivations properly understood or properly investigated ( perhaps even to properly understand and investigate them ourselves?), something which seems enormously unlikely when faced with (yet another) poorly written (ie ambiguous) survey.
Is it a near miss to successfully and uneventfully complete the solo of a winter gully? Is it a near miss to fall on a sport climb with a bolt clipped above your head? If I always climb within my well known limits am I "always" putting myself at risk or "never"? How are we defining danger or identifying high risk behaviours. Can we identify them as high risk without that identification carrying a pejorative burden of meaning
I don't look at these surveys to despise them, I'd love to help but invariably find myself disappointed by their quality,idiom and assumptions. It seems to me that these surveys could be improved enormously by a bit of research before committing to a particular analytical tool. Nor indeed do I think that I've aimed my criticism at the student making, I thought, quite a clear statement regarding the quality of tuition that would lead to such a poorly designed and blunt instrument being made public.
In reply to andrew ogilvie:
I guess the thing is that any such research probably has to have a time limit on when it needs to be completed by, and no matter how much guidance is given to the student, at the end of the day, they are an adult, and responsible for their own choices and actions. However, it really isn't possible to get better at doing things without practising them, and that is what they are doing here....
> Nor indeed do I think that I've aimed my criticism at the student making, I thought, quite a clear statement regarding the quality of tuition that would lead to such a poorly designed and blunt instrument being made public.
I guess the thing is that any such research probably has to have a time limit on when it needs to be completed by, and no matter how much guidance is given to the student, at the end of the day, they are an adult, and responsible for their own choices and actions. However, it really isn't possible to get better at doing things without practising them, and that is what they are doing here....
In reply to andrew ogilvie:
The problem is, though, that unless you know (a) the particular theoretical questions that the researchers are trying to answer, (b) the details of the tools that they are using - only some of which will have actually been prepared by the researchers, and (c) the ways in which the researchers are planning to analyse their data, and have the necessary background knowledge to understand these, then you are not in a position to make judgments about the quality of their questionnaire.
Oh, and Bump. I hope after the slagging that these guys have got that some people will be nice and actually complete the thing!
The problem is, though, that unless you know (a) the particular theoretical questions that the researchers are trying to answer, (b) the details of the tools that they are using - only some of which will have actually been prepared by the researchers, and (c) the ways in which the researchers are planning to analyse their data, and have the necessary background knowledge to understand these, then you are not in a position to make judgments about the quality of their questionnaire.
Oh, and Bump. I hope after the slagging that these guys have got that some people will be nice and actually complete the thing!
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Is it just me or does question 10- (page 4) make zero sense?
a. I would enjoy my favourite television or radio programme.
b. I would enjoy being with my family and close friends.
c. I would find pleasure in my hobbies and pastimes.
d. I would be able to enjoy my favourite meal.
Is it just me or does question 10- (page 4) make zero sense?
a. I would enjoy my favourite television or radio programme.
b. I would enjoy being with my family and close friends.
c. I would find pleasure in my hobbies and pastimes.
d. I would be able to enjoy my favourite meal.
In reply to Doddzi_72:
I've always found climbers' personalities to exhibit selfishness to a high degree.
I don't have a problem with that - I've lived with it for a long time. But it always amuses me that employers seem to think "teamwork" is a likely characteristic whereas the opposite is usually true
I've always found climbers' personalities to exhibit selfishness to a high degree.
I don't have a problem with that - I've lived with it for a long time. But it always amuses me that employers seem to think "teamwork" is a likely characteristic whereas the opposite is usually true
In reply to andrew ogilvie:
And how would that reaserch be conducted?, and would you recognise it for what it was?
> ....seems to me that these surveys could be improved enormously by a bit of research before committing to a particular analytical tool.
And how would that reaserch be conducted?, and would you recognise it for what it was?
In reply to Mark Torrance:
I think you should give splat a break. He at least tried to give some useful pointers. I tell my students about piss poor preparation on public surveys and to avoid public websites unless their questionairres meet good research standards, and they are technology students. This OP was almost certainly dishonest (a dissertation or uni research?), probably lazy, as social scientists are taught good questionnaire design (leading questions etc) and obviously not very good, and as such deserves some flack. If UKC wants to be swamped with similar 'spam' surveys by all means fill such in uncritically but dont kid yourself that you are helping the student or academia (as for this, critique is vital, yet some surveys here are so bad that I don't know where to start helping and even when I do I normally won't bother unless its obvious they have tried real hard (eg a nice intro), as I need a rest from the day job).
I think you should give splat a break. He at least tried to give some useful pointers. I tell my students about piss poor preparation on public surveys and to avoid public websites unless their questionairres meet good research standards, and they are technology students. This OP was almost certainly dishonest (a dissertation or uni research?), probably lazy, as social scientists are taught good questionnaire design (leading questions etc) and obviously not very good, and as such deserves some flack. If UKC wants to be swamped with similar 'spam' surveys by all means fill such in uncritically but dont kid yourself that you are helping the student or academia (as for this, critique is vital, yet some surveys here are so bad that I don't know where to start helping and even when I do I normally won't bother unless its obvious they have tried real hard (eg a nice intro), as I need a rest from the day job).
Post edited at 11:52
In reply to Doddzi_72:
Surveys on here always get stick. I thought this one actually came across a lot better than others.
Surveys on here always get stick. I thought this one actually came across a lot better than others.
In reply to Offwidth:
Sure. However see my other response above. It really makes no sense criticising individual items in this way, or the questionnaire as a whole, unless you know what they are trying to find out (and understand this stuff). It's like pointing to your rev counter and complaining about the colour of the needle. (Ok, not quite like that, but you get the idea.)
The quality or otherwise of these students' work will become apparent when they analyse and interpret their data. The biggest help that you can be to them, whatever your opinion, is to complete the thing so that they have some data to analyse. The second biggest help is to keep well out of it so that others aren't put off completing it.
There is, incidentally, no sense in which these forums are swamped by surveys of this sort.
> I think you should give splat a break. He at least tried to give some useful pointers.
Sure. However see my other response above. It really makes no sense criticising individual items in this way, or the questionnaire as a whole, unless you know what they are trying to find out (and understand this stuff). It's like pointing to your rev counter and complaining about the colour of the needle. (Ok, not quite like that, but you get the idea.)
The quality or otherwise of these students' work will become apparent when they analyse and interpret their data. The biggest help that you can be to them, whatever your opinion, is to complete the thing so that they have some data to analyse. The second biggest help is to keep well out of it so that others aren't put off completing it.
There is, incidentally, no sense in which these forums are swamped by surveys of this sort.
In reply to Mark Torrance:
This is almost certainly a piece of badly formulated undergraduate work. Go ask some independant academic Social Scientists what they think of it if you like. If the questions are badly phrased even the best research tools in the world will produce nothing much that's useful. The only useful thing this could be is a weird Psychology experiment to test our website response to a mediocre survey. We don't help teach students by leaving probable problems uncommented. This does not look to me anything like serious research worthy of pressing people to help.
As for swamped, we seem to get one a week and I can't remember the last one I'd be fully happy with even my Technology students posting. Its depressing that with all the excellent resources available these days on good questionnaire design and the interesting work that can be done in climbing, that more good surveys are not posted here.
This is almost certainly a piece of badly formulated undergraduate work. Go ask some independant academic Social Scientists what they think of it if you like. If the questions are badly phrased even the best research tools in the world will produce nothing much that's useful. The only useful thing this could be is a weird Psychology experiment to test our website response to a mediocre survey. We don't help teach students by leaving probable problems uncommented. This does not look to me anything like serious research worthy of pressing people to help.
As for swamped, we seem to get one a week and I can't remember the last one I'd be fully happy with even my Technology students posting. Its depressing that with all the excellent resources available these days on good questionnaire design and the interesting work that can be done in climbing, that more good surveys are not posted here.
Post edited at 12:37
In reply to Mark Torrance:
I would think it would be quite useful to know what sort of impression your questionnaire is creating with those filling it out? I would welcome any sort of feedback if it were me.... Are you really saying there is no point in letting the OP know that their questions might be very difficult to interpret or answer, that they make no sense to those reading them etc?
> Sure. However see my other response above. It really makes no sense criticising individual items in this way, or the questionnaire as a whole, unless you know what they are trying to find out (and understand this stuff).
I would think it would be quite useful to know what sort of impression your questionnaire is creating with those filling it out? I would welcome any sort of feedback if it were me.... Are you really saying there is no point in letting the OP know that their questions might be very difficult to interpret or answer, that they make no sense to those reading them etc?
In reply to tlm:
Yes, pretty much. It depends on the question. Some of the questions will have been developed by the researcher, and if these are genuinely impossible to answer (as in you have no clue what your response will be) then letting them know might be valuable, though probably then only if they are asking for this sort of feedback. However, some of the items may be from existing questionnaires with known psychometric properties. I know that this is the case for this particular questionnaire because I googled one of the items (though please don't do this if you plan to complete it). In this case commenting on individual items is really of no value to them at all.
The wider discussion about which of our behaviours we, as climbers, label as risky is interesting (to me at least, and possibly to the researchers). But that's a rather different issue.
Yes, pretty much. It depends on the question. Some of the questions will have been developed by the researcher, and if these are genuinely impossible to answer (as in you have no clue what your response will be) then letting them know might be valuable, though probably then only if they are asking for this sort of feedback. However, some of the items may be from existing questionnaires with known psychometric properties. I know that this is the case for this particular questionnaire because I googled one of the items (though please don't do this if you plan to complete it). In this case commenting on individual items is really of no value to them at all.
The wider discussion about which of our behaviours we, as climbers, label as risky is interesting (to me at least, and possibly to the researchers). But that's a rather different issue.
In reply to Offwidth:
As an independent academic social scientist my opinion is that you have no basis at all for making that claim. I certainly wouldn't want to pass judgement, and I really do know about this stuff.
> This is almost certainly a piece of badly formulated undergraduate work. Go ask some independent academic Social Scientists what they think of it if you like.
As an independent academic social scientist my opinion is that you have no basis at all for making that claim. I certainly wouldn't want to pass judgement, and I really do know about this stuff.
Post edited at 13:07
In reply to tlm:
The consequences of poor driving are certainly as bad as poor climbing. But climbing is more skilled (many people who drive would not be able to climb, not vice-versa) and hence requires greater mastery of the associated risks.
> How is leading a well protected trad route riskier than driving a car?!? I mean - you might maybe graze a knee or something...
The consequences of poor driving are certainly as bad as poor climbing. But climbing is more skilled (many people who drive would not be able to climb, not vice-versa) and hence requires greater mastery of the associated risks.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Really? I see plenty of people successfully climbing with no instruction at all. What skills are involved? You just have to hold on and not let go and move upwards. Most people manage to climb the stairs in their homes very successfully.
I've never heard of a person learning how to drive without any instruction or practice.
If you mean to climb at a high grade, that is a very different thing, and if you mean ropework, then that is different again, but I see plenty of kids out toproping, who have never climbed before, who don't look particularly fit or agile and who I certainly wouldn't trust to drive a car.
or do you mean leading? There is some skill involved, but you can work out for yourself what is likely to happen and you can take as long as you want over each move, whereas in a car, you don't have those luxuries.
Really? I see plenty of people successfully climbing with no instruction at all. What skills are involved? You just have to hold on and not let go and move upwards. Most people manage to climb the stairs in their homes very successfully.
I've never heard of a person learning how to drive without any instruction or practice.
If you mean to climb at a high grade, that is a very different thing, and if you mean ropework, then that is different again, but I see plenty of kids out toproping, who have never climbed before, who don't look particularly fit or agile and who I certainly wouldn't trust to drive a car.
or do you mean leading? There is some skill involved, but you can work out for yourself what is likely to happen and you can take as long as you want over each move, whereas in a car, you don't have those luxuries.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Kids of 3 or 4 climb, its natural, but I think they might struggle with a car.
Kids of 3 or 4 climb, its natural, but I think they might struggle with a car.
In reply to tlm and GrahamD:
Obviously I wasn't referring to children. Many more people will have the ability to learn to drive than climb, it's as simple as that. Much of the general population is obese or afraid of heights.
I'm not saying that cramponning up an exposed snow slope or romping up a v-diff is anything other than straightforward. But would much of the general population manage? Er, no.
Obviously I wasn't referring to children. Many more people will have the ability to learn to drive than climb, it's as simple as that. Much of the general population is obese or afraid of heights.
I'm not saying that cramponning up an exposed snow slope or romping up a v-diff is anything other than straightforward. But would much of the general population manage? Er, no.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Learning to do something is very different from having the ability to do something. I don't think there are many people who wouldn't be able to climb if they wanted to - it isn't that complicated. Even being fat or scared isn't enough to stop people - I know plenty of both who climb.
The fact is that more people want to drive cars than want to climb.
Learning to do something is very different from having the ability to do something. I don't think there are many people who wouldn't be able to climb if they wanted to - it isn't that complicated. Even being fat or scared isn't enough to stop people - I know plenty of both who climb.
The fact is that more people want to drive cars than want to climb.
In reply to tlm:
To be fair, when I first made that comment it was in reply to you comparing driving a car to leading a well protected route, not top-roping. I still think leading safely is more difficult than driving safely, if only because (and I'm convinced of this) less people overall would have the ability to learn to do this.
To be fair, when I first made that comment it was in reply to you comparing driving a car to leading a well protected route, not top-roping. I still think leading safely is more difficult than driving safely, if only because (and I'm convinced of this) less people overall would have the ability to learn to do this.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Yes! Why does everyone focus on this risk aspect - are they being pushed that way by (non climbing) supervisors? Most of the students seem to be involved in climbing, but the questions and the structure of the surveys doesn't support this. Is there some uber sports psychology textboock somewhere pushing them in this direction? It's becoming absurd
> (In reply to Doddzi_72)
>
> Well it's a cheap and easy way of getting most of your thesis wrtten for you, I suppose.
>
> I used to climb because I enjoyed the scenery, the fresh air, the physical sensations and the precision of the exercise. Not much to do with risk.
>
> Well it's a cheap and easy way of getting most of your thesis wrtten for you, I suppose.
>
> I used to climb because I enjoyed the scenery, the fresh air, the physical sensations and the precision of the exercise. Not much to do with risk.
Yes! Why does everyone focus on this risk aspect - are they being pushed that way by (non climbing) supervisors? Most of the students seem to be involved in climbing, but the questions and the structure of the surveys doesn't support this. Is there some uber sports psychology textboock somewhere pushing them in this direction? It's becoming absurd
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I was thinking that both are spectrums, with the easiest lead climb being far easier than the easiest driving, and the hardest lead climb being harder than the hardest driving (in my mind - after all, what do I really know about the hardest climbing or the hardest driving?)
So if you weren't considering someone leading a well protected mod, then I can see where you are coming from.
The majority of climbers seem to be leading up to HVS, and on the whole, stuff that is pretty well protected - but as to the stuff that some people are doing, that is a whole different thing...
I was thinking that both are spectrums, with the easiest lead climb being far easier than the easiest driving, and the hardest lead climb being harder than the hardest driving (in my mind - after all, what do I really know about the hardest climbing or the hardest driving?)
So if you weren't considering someone leading a well protected mod, then I can see where you are coming from.
The majority of climbers seem to be leading up to HVS, and on the whole, stuff that is pretty well protected - but as to the stuff that some people are doing, that is a whole different thing...
In reply to tlm:
Aye, fair enough. I was probably subconsciously thinking v-diff/severe, though it doesn't really matter. Even on easy stuff like this more thought is surely involved than in nipping down to the local shops?!
Aye, fair enough. I was probably subconsciously thinking v-diff/severe, though it doesn't really matter. Even on easy stuff like this more thought is surely involved than in nipping down to the local shops?!
In reply to Beat me to it!:
Its personal perception, and its others perceptions that can affect others perceptions, but in the end its a personal thought or feeling to what is risk averse and what is not. In my view anyway haha
Its personal perception, and its others perceptions that can affect others perceptions, but in the end its a personal thought or feeling to what is risk averse and what is not. In my view anyway haha
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I don't think so... how often do you drive your car? How familiar are you with it? That maybe is what is making driving seem so simple and easy, but if you remember right back to when you first started, co-ordinating your clutch, steering, indicating, accelerating, breaking, and looking all around you all at the same time is overwhelming for most beginners.
If you lead climb every day, (or even just regularly) then it is pretty straightforward. All you have to do is place gear (taking as long as you want to do it). You only have to do one thing at a time, and you don't have to consider any other people at all, you can just focus and take your time.
I don't think so... how often do you drive your car? How familiar are you with it? That maybe is what is making driving seem so simple and easy, but if you remember right back to when you first started, co-ordinating your clutch, steering, indicating, accelerating, breaking, and looking all around you all at the same time is overwhelming for most beginners.
If you lead climb every day, (or even just regularly) then it is pretty straightforward. All you have to do is place gear (taking as long as you want to do it). You only have to do one thing at a time, and you don't have to consider any other people at all, you can just focus and take your time.
In reply to Mark Torrance:
In addition to splats useful comments, climbing isnt a sport in the way most of us engage with it. Most climbing isn't high risk compared to many (if not most) common participant sports: my sports scientists would get a ticking off for that, as well for the implied bias in the preamble and the questions. This is a climbing website, if people want help from here they might think on producing something we can relate to.
"However, some of the items may be from existing questionnaires with known psychometric properties. ...In this case commenting on individual items is really of no value to them at all." This is a dreadful statement and helps give Social Science a bad name; such is partly why the 'Bad Science' columns and website happened. Nevermind if a question is incomprehensible, bias-inducing or has other obvious problems eh? To an engineer that comes across as saying there is no point arguing about the spanner being broken and being used to undo a screw, because that's the only spanner the size that it needs to be when they are in spanner class. I'm hoping though that good students in good departments would be expected to better research their target population and activity and take good care in their own question construction (and in their fit if used in any standard format).
As a climber I think challenging clear misunderstandings of climbing risk appearing in academic research is important. I see asking students to think about trying to adapt their questionaires to meet climbing culture, if they really want to maximise our help, as a perfectly reasonable request. As an academic I see advice on detail that may flaw a research project, like badly worded questions, as always being useful.
I do hope my basis is clearer now.
In addition to splats useful comments, climbing isnt a sport in the way most of us engage with it. Most climbing isn't high risk compared to many (if not most) common participant sports: my sports scientists would get a ticking off for that, as well for the implied bias in the preamble and the questions. This is a climbing website, if people want help from here they might think on producing something we can relate to.
"However, some of the items may be from existing questionnaires with known psychometric properties. ...In this case commenting on individual items is really of no value to them at all." This is a dreadful statement and helps give Social Science a bad name; such is partly why the 'Bad Science' columns and website happened. Nevermind if a question is incomprehensible, bias-inducing or has other obvious problems eh? To an engineer that comes across as saying there is no point arguing about the spanner being broken and being used to undo a screw, because that's the only spanner the size that it needs to be when they are in spanner class. I'm hoping though that good students in good departments would be expected to better research their target population and activity and take good care in their own question construction (and in their fit if used in any standard format).
As a climber I think challenging clear misunderstandings of climbing risk appearing in academic research is important. I see asking students to think about trying to adapt their questionaires to meet climbing culture, if they really want to maximise our help, as a perfectly reasonable request. As an academic I see advice on detail that may flaw a research project, like badly worded questions, as always being useful.
I do hope my basis is clearer now.
In reply to Offwidth:
I think I understand where you're coming from here, but you do really need to know a bit more about how these scales work, why the researchers have chosen them, and what they hope to find out before you can comment. I know that comes across as patronising, but it's nonetheless true.
If each question in the questionnaire were analogous to a spanner, then I can see exactly what you mean. However, a better analogy is to see each question as a component on the circuit board of an instrument that is meant to measure X. It's perfectly reasonable (in fact a very good idea) to question whether the instrument actually measures X. However you do this, initially at least, by testing to see whether or not the instrument as a whole measures X, not by looking at individual components. If it does what it's meant to, there's no need to explore further. If it doesn't then you might have to look at separate components, but when you do this you are asking why they are preventing the instrument as a whole measuring what it is meant to.
There is a lot of well established theory around this. Wikipedia has an article on classical test theory which, at a quick glance, might give you some ideas.
I am definitely not arguing that this questionnaire, or any other that you see on here, are fit for purpose. I'm also well aware of the general shortcomings of a lot of psychological testing - I'm not trying to defend the field as a whole.
I'm also not arguing that you should never criticise individual questions. At the early stages of questionnaire development, when you are constructing your own items, it's really useful to get feedback on individual items.
What I am arguing though is that you can't just point to a questionnaire, or an individual questionnaire item without knowing what it is meant to achieve and say "that's no good". As I said before, I would never criticise without knowing much more of the background first, and this is (partly) what I do for a living.
> "However, some of the items may be from existing questionnaires with known psychometric properties. ...In this case commenting on individual items is really of no value to them at all." This is a dreadful statement...
I think I understand where you're coming from here, but you do really need to know a bit more about how these scales work, why the researchers have chosen them, and what they hope to find out before you can comment. I know that comes across as patronising, but it's nonetheless true.
If each question in the questionnaire were analogous to a spanner, then I can see exactly what you mean. However, a better analogy is to see each question as a component on the circuit board of an instrument that is meant to measure X. It's perfectly reasonable (in fact a very good idea) to question whether the instrument actually measures X. However you do this, initially at least, by testing to see whether or not the instrument as a whole measures X, not by looking at individual components. If it does what it's meant to, there's no need to explore further. If it doesn't then you might have to look at separate components, but when you do this you are asking why they are preventing the instrument as a whole measuring what it is meant to.
There is a lot of well established theory around this. Wikipedia has an article on classical test theory which, at a quick glance, might give you some ideas.
I am definitely not arguing that this questionnaire, or any other that you see on here, are fit for purpose. I'm also well aware of the general shortcomings of a lot of psychological testing - I'm not trying to defend the field as a whole.
I'm also not arguing that you should never criticise individual questions. At the early stages of questionnaire development, when you are constructing your own items, it's really useful to get feedback on individual items.
What I am arguing though is that you can't just point to a questionnaire, or an individual questionnaire item without knowing what it is meant to achieve and say "that's no good". As I said before, I would never criticise without knowing much more of the background first, and this is (partly) what I do for a living.
In reply to Mark Torrance:
The person who made the survey knows what they are trying to do. If people comment, if their comments are ignorant or miss the point, then the person who created the survey can ignore them. If the comments actually point out something which is a mistake, or which really is stopping the survey from working, then that is useful to the person who wrote the survey.
So I would think it was always a good idea to put forward comments, and then let the person who is running the survey filter them...
> I think I understand where you're coming from here, but you do really need to know a bit more about how these scales work, why the researchers have chosen them, and what they hope to find out before you can comment. I know that comes across as patronising, but it's nonetheless true.
The person who made the survey knows what they are trying to do. If people comment, if their comments are ignorant or miss the point, then the person who created the survey can ignore them. If the comments actually point out something which is a mistake, or which really is stopping the survey from working, then that is useful to the person who wrote the survey.
So I would think it was always a good idea to put forward comments, and then let the person who is running the survey filter them...
In reply to tlm:
Irrespective of this, Mark is not answering our main critique of such postings: false assumptions about risk and the bias around this.
If a component doesn't work in a circuit board its most likely the circuit won't work: we don't put components in for fun. These questionnaires have more redundancy (a broken spanner could be used to unscrew?) but there comes a point where with enough faults the whole thing is pointless. Even a perfect questionnaire will have uncertainties, including statistical ones.
Irrespective of this, Mark is not answering our main critique of such postings: false assumptions about risk and the bias around this.
If a component doesn't work in a circuit board its most likely the circuit won't work: we don't put components in for fun. These questionnaires have more redundancy (a broken spanner could be used to unscrew?) but there comes a point where with enough faults the whole thing is pointless. Even a perfect questionnaire will have uncertainties, including statistical ones.
Post edited at 12:57
In reply to tlm:
Absolutely. What annoyed me, and prompted me to comment, was people then going on to make inferences about the value of the project as a whole and competence of the researchers on the basis of (what they saw as) inadequacies in the questions. These general comments have no value, and in some cases were just nasty.
I hope the researchers will have laughed these off. I suspect they also have posted on lots of different forums - I don't think their research is specifically about climbing - and may not have even come back to read the thread.
> The person who made the survey knows what they are trying to do. If people comment, if their comments are ignorant or miss the point, then the person who created the survey can ignore them.
Absolutely. What annoyed me, and prompted me to comment, was people then going on to make inferences about the value of the project as a whole and competence of the researchers on the basis of (what they saw as) inadequacies in the questions. These general comments have no value, and in some cases were just nasty.
I hope the researchers will have laughed these off. I suspect they also have posted on lots of different forums - I don't think their research is specifically about climbing - and may not have even come back to read the thread.
In reply to Offwidth:
I don't really have anything to say about this, beyond that it's an interesting question. I don't know if there is an existing literature on risk perception in climbing. I guess there must be. For me this is more interesting than the topic of this particular research. However, that's a different issue.
Yes, absolutely. There are methods for assessing the value of individual items, though. These require data from lots of people actually completing the questionnaire. You can't just point to an item and say "that looks crap so it must be".
This only applies to some of the questions. The ones of risk are a bit different (but I still am not sure that they are bad).
> Irrespective of this, Mark is not answering our main critique of such postings: false assumptions about risk and the bias around this.
I don't really have anything to say about this, beyond that it's an interesting question. I don't know if there is an existing literature on risk perception in climbing. I guess there must be. For me this is more interesting than the topic of this particular research. However, that's a different issue.
> If a component doesn't work in a circuit board its most likely the circuit won't work: we don't put components in for fun. These questionnaires have more redundancy (a broken spanner could be used to unscrew?) but there comes a point where with enough faults the whole thing is pointless. Even a perfect questionnaire will have uncertainties, including statistical ones.
Yes, absolutely. There are methods for assessing the value of individual items, though. These require data from lots of people actually completing the questionnaire. You can't just point to an item and say "that looks crap so it must be".
This only applies to some of the questions. The ones of risk are a bit different (but I still am not sure that they are bad).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...