|
|
The online output questionnaire included three questions about comparing 2011 with 2001 Census data.
They asked if users have a requirement to make comparisons, if so then at what level of geography, and if users think the inclusion of comparisons within standard core output will be useful. Results from the questionnaire clearly show that there is a firm need for users to be able to make comparisons. Overall almost 83 percent of users who answered the questionnaire said they would have this requirement and this view seems to be representative across all key user groups. Table 4.1
* Third sector - Community Group / Voluntary Sector and Charities Chart 4.1 
Looking at the geographies for which users need to make comparisons, the results indicate a reasonable spread across the range of standard higher level geography options, with a peak at the district or equivalent level. Chart 4.2 
This pattern is also loosely reflected when users are asked whether they would find the inclusion of comparisons in standard output useful. Almost three quarters of respondents rated ‘County/UA/LA district’ comparative outputs as very useful, 53 per cent for Regional, and 38 per cent rated U.K. comparative outputs as very useful. These results while seemingly clear will in future be worthy of further investigation due to the potential for the respondent type to introduce a bias. A large number of respondents from local or district governmental background may be disproportionately representing the use of 'County/UA/LA district’ comparisons. Table 3
Chart 4.3 
There are obviously a number of issues which may complicate the production, use, and analysis of comparisons. The discontinuity between censuses in areas such as population base, geography, and variable definition will all have an impact on the degree to which logical comparisons can be made and interpreted productively by users. User preferences and some technical issues may further influence specific areas of user needs when it comes to accessing comparisons. We are interested to hear the opinions of users about these issues – how they may affect the need for and use of comparisons, and how the impact of such issues might be considered or mitigated. We are also asking for some user feedback to supplement the questionnaire results. The questionnaire did not ask about the methods and tools that users have or intend to use to make comparisons
The questionnaire asked about the levels of geography for which users will want to make comparisons, including a bespoke option, but did not cover in depth any lower level areas below Local Authority District (LAD) - such as ward, parish, Output Area, or health geographies. No firm plans or commitments have yet been proposed or developed by the Census to make available any form of online comparisons, but we are interested in gauging the level of user interest for such a system that might allow higher level or less complex comparisons. Alternatively some users might prefer to see more attention devoted to delivering a richer set of lower level data for comparison in users own systems. So we are asking……….. Metadata and the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) Next post »» «« Previous post Online output questionnaire results III: Adding value See other posts similar to this one: |
Scotland’s Spring 2010 Census Consultation: Statistical Outputs, created: 1266486505|%O ago, 0 response(s) 2011 Output Consultation - Main Statistical Outputs, created: 1260870597|%O ago, 0 response(s) Autumn 2009 output consultation events, created: 1256552153|%O ago, 0 response(s) |
Online output questionnaire results IV: 2011 / 2001 data comparisons
On the last question could we have an option of don't know? I can answer the other questions but at the moment I simply don't know on the last.
Thanks Richard
That extra 'don't know' option is there now - if it does not appear then just refresh the page and it should be OK.
Sorry to make a rather negative comment with my first posting but 3-d charts are far from best statistical practice (and are one of my pet hates). Using them here does not set a good example.
Thanks for your comments Hywel. Your point is well made and appreciated, and in future we plan to avoid any use of the 3-D stuff and keep a better balance of statistical graphical presentation vs colourful web pictures.
The past graphs should also be replaced gradually with traditional flat versions