Pearl jewelry for bridal and wedding tradition, bridal pearl necklace set for wedding ceremony, pearl jewelry for graduation and wedding celebration
As can be seen from the table, the data of the first and second columns differ significantly from each other. In the first case, the number of respondents who reads often is 30%, in the second case, their number increases twice and is already 60%. What data is correct? Obviously the second column of the table. In the first column depend on all respondents to the question and those who read and those who don't read. But these data do not accurately reflect the essence of the question: "How often do You read fiction?" Imagine that in the first embodiment, the two bases would be introduced once the fifth alternative "reading scientific and technical literature", i.e. actually a set of alternatives would be built on three bases, which not infrequently occurs. Then the number of respondents on the merits (in percentage distribution of the total number of respondents to this question) would be even less.The set of alternatives must respond in a meaningful essence of the issue. If we are interested in the number of reading and not reading respondents, it is accordingly necessary to formulate the question and to introduce alternatives: "do You Read fiction?" (Yes, no). Even here you cannot enter alternative "occasionally" or "sometimes" because it immediately introduces a new basis for dividing the intensity reading. If we are interested in what books the Respondent reads, respectively, formulated the question and build alternatives (I read this kind of and such literature).Again, the introduction of alternatives for various reasons (two or three) changes the substantive nature of the issue, resulting in distortion of quantitative data, when depending on the set of alternatives changes and interpretation of the question by the Respondent. The fact that the set of alternatives perceived by the respondents as a specific context of the question, its logical decoding, in the direction of logical analysis. This logic is preserved, if the alternatives are built on a single logical Foundation. Otherwise, the set of alternatives is not associated with the logical meaning of the question significantly complicates the work of the Respondent. He has to abandon the semantic content of the question and build on each alternative a special system of reasoning. In fact, the question breaks down into a series of other issues, around which are grouped the alternatives have a common base. It happens often unconsciously because of the need to preserve the sequence of logical operations.Reading through the proposed set of alternatives and feeling the lack of a common basis, bona fide, the Respondent begins to choose and to group the proposed number in a logical sequence. By itself, this work is difficult enough, it becomes doubly difficult in the case of difficulty determining the conceptual content and the size of the proposed alternatives. It is not always possible clearly and definitely to relate alternatives to identify a common ground, to build a logical chain of reasoning. Sometimes the conceptual content of the two or three alternatives so close that they are very difficult to separate, or so different that to choose a single basis is not possible.
Post a Comment