Guiding Questions for Data Analysis - Revision history

Wiki Gardener at 15:25, 6 October 2014

2014-10-06T15:25:15Z

Wiki Gardener at 13:10, 4 June 2014

2014-06-04T13:10:10Z

Katharina Wiedemann at 14:55, 17 May 2012

2012-05-17T14:55:26Z

Katharina Wiedemann at 08:53, 17 May 2012

2012-05-17T08:53:12Z

Katharina Wiedemann at 08:27, 17 May 2012

2012-05-17T08:27:25Z

Katharina Wiedemann: moved Guiding Questions for data analysis to Guiding Questions for Data Analysis

2012-05-17T08:19:26Z

moved Guiding Questions for data analysis to Guiding Questions for Data Analysis

Katharina Wiedemann at 08:18, 17 May 2012

2012-05-17T08:18:55Z

Rauwol mar at 12:06, 2 June 2010

2010-06-02T12:06:52Z

Robert at 14:49, 27 January 2010

2010-01-27T14:49:32Z

Intern at 09:40, 28 October 2009

2009-10-28T09:40:34Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 = Overview<br/> =
-The '''entered data''' has to be first of all checked for both '''correctness''' (spot checks whether entered data corresponds to the information on the questionnaire sheet) and '''consistency'''. Depending on which software has been used to enter the data, the data may then need to be transferred into specific statistical software package (e.g. from Excel to STATA). A commonly used software package for both data entry and analysis is SPSS. For simple unconditioned analytical purposes, Excel is, however, often enough.<ref name="RWI (2009)">RWI (2009)</ref>
+Analysing data to summarise it and look for patterns is an important part of every evaluation. The options for doing this have been grouped into two categories: [[Impact_Evaluation_-_Mixed_Methods#Quantitative_Impact_Evaluation|quantitative data]] and [[Impact_Evaluation_-_Mixed_Methods#Qualitative_Impact_Evaluation|qualitative]] data.<ref name="Better Evaluation: http://betterevaluation.org/plan/describe/look_for_patterns">Better Evaluation: http://betterevaluation.org/plan/describe/look_for_patterns</ref>
 <u>These basic purposes comprise<ref name="RWI (2009)">RWI (2009)</ref></u>:
@@ Line 15: / Line 25: @@
 <br/>
-While there is some risk of bias in working with '''qualitative data '''in particular, the application of statistics to analyze '''quantitative data '''does not protect from providing biased results either. Orienting data analysis too much along '''positive impact hypotheses '''(“Fuel Savings”, “Better Conditions …”) '''hampers interpretations '''most consistent with the data. The ultimate guidance should therefore be to let the data instead of the researcher tell the story.<ref name="RWI (2009)">RWI (2009)</ref>
+While there is some risk of bias in working with [[Impact_Evaluation_-_Mixed_Methods#Qualitative_Impact_Evaluation|qualitative data]] in particular, the application of statistics to analyze [[Impact_Evaluation_-_Mixed_Methods#Quantitative_Impact_Evaluation|quantitative data]] does not protect from providing biased results either. Orienting data analysis too much along '''positive impact hypotheses '''(“Fuel Savings”, “Better Conditions …”) '''hampers interpretations '''most consistent with the data. The ultimate guidance should therefore be to let the data instead of the researcher tell the story.<ref name="RWI (2009)">RWI (2009)</ref>
 Caution in the concrete '''data analysis process '''is, in particular, always advised in relation to the population used, i.e. the group that is made reference to (“… among female adults”, “of households having bought an improved stove during the last two years.”). Both choosing the '''logically appropriate population '''and technically applying the correct data filtering and manipulation may be sources of miscalculations.<ref name="RWI (2009)">RWI (2009)</ref>
@@ Line 21: / Line 31: @@
 <br/>
-= References<br/> =
+= Further Information =
-<references />
+*[[Portal:Impacts|Impact Portal on energypedia]]
-[[Category:Questionnaires_/_Interviews]]
+= References<br/> =
 [[Category:Impacts]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The '''entered data''' has to be first of all checked for both '''correctness''' (spot checks whether entered data corresponds to the information on the questionnaire sheet) and '''consistency'''. Depending on which software has been used to enter the data, the data may then need to be transferred into specific statistical software package (e.g. from Excel to STATA). A commonly used software package for both data entry and analysis is SPSS. For simple unconditioned analytical purposes, Excel is, however, often enough.
+= Overview<br/> =
-<u>These basic purposes comprise</u>:
+The '''entered data''' has to be first of all checked for both '''correctness''' (spot checks whether entered data corresponds to the information on the questionnaire sheet) and '''consistency'''. Depending on which software has been used to enter the data, the data may then need to be transferred into specific statistical software package (e.g. from Excel to STATA). A commonly used software package for both data entry and analysis is SPSS. For simple unconditioned analytical purposes, Excel is, however, often enough.<ref name="RWI (2009)">RWI (2009)</ref>
 *frequencies (numbers, a count of how many),
 *percent distributions (proportion),
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *modes (the most frequent value),
 *money (costs, revenues, expenditures),
-*percent change over two points in time and ratios.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>
+*percent change over two points in time and ratios.<span></span><span></span>
-While there is some risk of bias in working with '''qualitative data '''in particular, the application of statistics to analyze '''quantitative data '''does not protect from providing biased results either. Orienting data analysis too much along '''positive impact hypotheses '''(“Fuel Savings”, “Better Conditions …”) '''hampers interpretations '''most consistent with the data. The ultimate guidance should therefore be to let the data instead of the researcher tell the story.
+Caution in the concrete '''data analysis process '''is, in particular, always advised in relation to the population used, i.e. the group that is made reference to (“… among female adults”, “of households having bought an improved stove during the last two years.”). Both choosing the '''logically appropriate population '''and technically applying the correct data filtering and manipulation may be sources of miscalculations.<ref name="RWI (2009)">RWI (2009)</ref>
-−
 Caution in the concrete '''data analysis process '''is, in particular, always advised in relation to the population used, i.e. the group that is made reference to (“… among female adults”, “of households having bought an improved stove during the last two years.”). Both choosing the '''logically appropriate population '''and technically applying the correct data filtering and manipulation may be sources of miscalculations.
-−
 = References<br/> =
-Source: RWI (2009)
+<references />
-[[Impact Monitoring Guidelines|--> Back to&nbsp;Impact Monitoring Guidelines]]
+[[Category:Questionnaires_/_Interviews]]
-−
 [[Category:Impacts]]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
-[[Impact_Monitoring_Guidelines|--> Back to&nbsp;Impact Monitoring Guidelines]]
+[[Impact Monitoring Guidelines|--> Back to&nbsp;Impact Monitoring Guidelines]]
 [[Category:Impacts]]
-[[Category:Questionnaires]]
+[[Category:Questionnaires_/_Interviews]]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
-[[Impact_Monitoring_Guidelines|--> Back to&nbsp;]][[Impact Monitoring Guidelines|Impact Monitoring Guidelines]]
+[[Impact_Monitoring_Guidelines|--> Back to&nbsp;Impact Monitoring Guidelines]]
 [[Category:Impacts]]
 [[Category:Questionnaires]]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
-Go back to [[Impact_Monitoring_Guidelines|Impact Monitoring Guidelines]]
+[[Impact_Monitoring_Guidelines|--> Back to&nbsp;]][[Impact Monitoring Guidelines|Impact Monitoring Guidelines]]
 [[Category:Impacts]]
 [[Category:Questionnaires]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 2 June 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:
	''Source: RWI (2009)''		''Source: RWI (2009)''

−	[[Category:~~Monitoring~~]]	+	[[Category:Impacts]]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Caution in the concrete '''data analysis process '''is, in particular, always advised in relation to the population used, i.e. the group that is made reference to (“… among ''female adults''”, “of ''households having bought an improved stove during the last two years''.”). Both choosing the '''logically appropriate population '''and technically applying the correct data filtering and manipulation may be sources of miscalculations.
+<br>
 ''Source: RWI (2009)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:40, 28 October 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	While there is some risk of bias in working with '''qualitative data '''in particular, the application of statistics to analyze '''quantitative data '''does not protect from providing biased results either. Orienting data analysis too much along '''positive impact hypotheses '''(“Fuel Savings”, “Better Conditions …”) '''hampers interpretations '''most consistent with the data. The ultimate guidance should therefore be to let the data instead of the researcher tell the story.		While there is some risk of bias in working with '''qualitative data '''in particular, the application of statistics to analyze '''quantitative data '''does not protect from providing biased results either. Orienting data analysis too much along '''positive impact hypotheses '''(“Fuel Savings”, “Better Conditions …”) '''hampers interpretations '''most consistent with the data. The ultimate guidance should therefore be to let the data instead of the researcher tell the story.

−	Caution in the concrete '''data analysis process '''is, in particular, always advised in relation to the population used, i.e. the group that is made reference to (“… among ''female adults''”, “of ''households having bought an improved stove during the last two years''.”). Both choosing the '''logically appropriate population '''and technically applying the correct data filtering and manipulation may be sources of miscalculations.	+	Caution in the concrete '''data analysis process '''is, in particular, always advised in relation to the population used, i.e. the group that is made reference to (“… among ''female adults''”, “of ''households having bought an improved stove during the last two years''.”). Both choosing the '''logically appropriate population '''and technically applying the correct data filtering and manipulation may be sources of miscalculations.
		+
		+
		+
		+	''Source: RWI (2009)''