Ticats Stadium Survey

I filled out the stadium survey that the Ticats sent me yesterday, and had some mixed feelings about it. I was very appreciative that the team is looking for input from the fans. And, overall, I'm consistently blown away by how good the team keeps in-touch with the fans.

However, it felt to me like there was some research bias being built into that survey. I've been a part of many studies just like this and keeping things objective isn't easy (and, in a lot of cases, the research companies are briefed on what the client wants to get out of it). It just seemed that some of the questions were constructed in a way that ensured I'd choose parking/highway access -- almost as if the objective of the survey was so the team could say "see, look at this -- our fans don't really want an urban stadium".

I just got the sense that (and I know this is a researcher/survey tactic) to make things black or white. For example, I like elements of tailgating, but I also prefer, ideally, to arrive at the stadium via public transit. The survey, if I remember correctly, doesn't really allow me to chose a wishy-washy grey area like that.

Obviously, I don't want to cloud anyone's judgement - I could totally be reading something that's not there. And, I did answer everything as accurately and as honestly as possible to ensure they get the best info (...and, perhaps, get 'rational/ factual' answers rather than my preconceived notions of where I, emotionally, want a stadium to be. Anywhoo..

So, was just wondering if anyone else felt the same.

Regardless, I am looking forward to hearing the results. My guess (if my survey is anything like anyone elses), 'sightlines' will probably be far and away the most important, and everything else will be mushed in the middle.

Yea I felt the same. I really couldn't answer how I was going to get to the games because I really don't have enough info. I said I'd take public transport to the game and call for a ride home because frankly I don't have a clue what I'll do. As for suggestions I said I wouldn't attend games if the track stays and that they should build at Confederation Park

I agree guys but this isn't validating a medical questionnaire or that which gets published in the referred literature sort of thing, it's just a fan survey for a sports team so it isn't going to get the scientific scrutiny that any questionnaire needs to be both reliable and valid.

Earl, it doesn't matter what the survey if for, if you ask leading questions the results are meaningless. If its not valid or reliable whats the point

The results of any survey don't hold water unless the survey has been tested and proven to be reliable and valid. Of course this survey is basically meaningless therefore. Like many surveys out there. Exactly, what is the point to the more astute observer?

In that case all surveys are worthless according to you

Not at all, just because a survey hasn't proven to be both reliable and valuable doesn't mean it doesn't have some value. In this case, the Tiger-Cats are engaging their fans in dialogue and making them feel more a part of the team, that is all good in my books whether done by a simple survey or what have you. A survey is a communication tool just like an article is, in a different way but still a communication tool I think.

No what you are thinking of is a study. Surveys are never proven, it can't be done.

Well, it does look to me like this survey was either written by research company or done by someone who knows what they're doing. These things aren't as easy as they look. But, I didn't see any third-party logo on there.

I wouldn't say all surveys are useless -- they can give you a pretty quick temperature check. Perhaps, some fan focus groups will take place alongside this. They get expensive though.

I think you just have to be wary that surveys can be an easy way to give the perception that an agenda has the public's support. And again, not saying at all that this is the motivation here. Plus, it is a fan survey -- not a city/ public survey. So, really, if the Ticats aren't really breaking any rules by posing leading questions.

In fact, it might help them guage the resistance. Meaning, if, they knowingly put leading questions in there, yet still receive answers that point toward an urban stadium, then the answers become even clearer.

Lots of examples in the medical literature, here's one:

Addict Behav. 2010 May;35(5):492-8. Epub 2010 Jan 4.

The validity and reliability of an interactive computer tobacco and alcohol use survey in general practice.

Bonevski B, Campbell E, Sanson-Fisher RW.

Centre for Health Research and Psycho-oncology, Cancer Council NSW and The
University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the computer as a data
collection or patient screening tool persists. Previous research evaluating the
validity of computer health surveys have tended to compare those responses to
that of paper survey or clinical interview (as the gold standard). This approach
is limited as it assumes that the paper version of the self-report survey is
valid and an appropriate gold standard. OBJECTIVES: First, to compare the
accuracy of computer and paper methods of assessing self-reported smoking and
alcohol use in general practice with biochemical measures as gold standard.
Second, to compare the test re-test reliability of computer administration, paper
administration and mixed methods of assessing self-reported smoking status and
alcohol use in general practice. METHODS: A randomised cross-over design was
used. Consenting patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups; Group 1.
C-C : completing a computer survey at the time of that consultation (Time 1) and
a computer survey 4-7 days later (Time 2); Group 2. C-P: completing a computer
survey at Time 1 and a paper survey at Time 2; Group 3. P-C: completing a paper
survey at Time 1 and a computer survey at Time 2; and Group 4. P-P: completing a
paper survey at Time 1 and 2. At Time 1 all participants also completed
biochemical measures to validate self-reported smoking status (expired air carbon
monoxide breath test) and alcohol consumption (ethyl alcohol urine assay).
RESULTS: Of the 618 who were eligible, 575 (93%) consented to completing the Time
1 surveys. Of these, 71% (N=411) completed Time 2 surveys. Compared to CO, the
computer smoking self-report survey demonstrated 91% sensitivity, 94%
specificity, 75% positive predictive value (PPV) and 98% negative predictive
value (NPV). The equivalent paper survey demonstrated 86% sensitivity, 95%
specificity, 80% PPV, and 96% NPV. Compared to urine assay, the computer alcohol
use self-report survey demonstrated 92% sensitivity, 50% specificity, 10% PPV and
99% NPV. The equivalent paper survey demonstrated 75% sensitivity, 57%
specificity, 6% PPV, and 98% NPV. Level of agreement of smoking self-reports at
Time 1 and Time 2 revealed kappa coefficients ranging from 0.95 to 0.98 in each
group and hazardous alcohol use self-reports at Time 1 and Time 2 revealed kappa
coefficients ranging from 0.90 to 0.96 in each group. CONCLUSION: The collection
of self-reported health risk information is equally accurate and reliable using
computer interface in the general practice setting as traditional paper survey.
Computer survey appears highly reliable and accurate for the measurement of
smoking status. Further research is needed to confirm the adequacy of the
quantity/frequency measure in detecting those who drink alcohol. Interactive
computer administered health surveys offer a number of advantages to researchers
and clinicians and further research is warranted. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

PMID: 20092954 [PubMed - in process]

that a study not a survey

I guess surveys could be a component of a larger study.
Marketing stuff is a little more loose than medical studies. Variables are a bit harder to control and the effort is more about extracting information from people's brains.

The problem is that what people tell you can be based on how you ask them. Keeping varables/ bias to a minimum isn't easy and can be expensive. So, you just use them with some caution. Often they're used as a disaster check to make sure you aren't totally talking yourself into something.

Ummm AKT, yes, any survey, surveying that is, is a type of study methodology.

They aren’t performing the survey to learn anything, they’re doing it so they have something to wave in the air that supports the position they already hold. I happen to agree with them, so I don’t mind much. They know that many of the people they need to persuade won’t be sensible enough to question its validity or reliability.

Yes safety and Mayor Fred isn't going to stand up in this case and say "the survey is meaningless because it wasn't tested to be reliable and valid." Then he would look very, well, not sure what you want to insert in there but very something... :wink:

Quick question, does anyone know if this survey is only being sent to the persons whose name is on the tickets or are they sending that person one survey form for each ticket. For example if one persons name is on the record for 8 season tickets it would not be accurate for just them to send back a form, the other 7 people might have completly different thoughts on the subject. I am sure that many of you are in the same situation.

I just completed the survey myself. I did not view any of the questions as "leading", but rather relevant to the most commonly raised issues regarding the construction of a new stadium as currently planned.

Part of the criteria for building a new stadium was to assist in the redevelopement of the downtown core, from day 1. I don't know how people seem to think that building it outside of downtown is going to do that?

It would make him look like any other politician that questions the validity of polls. In other words, he might question the source and he likely wouldn’t be laughed out of office for doing so Earl and I completed a survey by clicking on the link on the email even tho I’m not a STH. There appears to be nothing stopping you from filling it out as many times as you wish Matelot

Tks AKT, my ticket is as stated is under someone else's name. Will await the mentioned e-mail.

There is a link to the email earlier in another thread. I'll repost it for you

http://www.ticats.ca/page/sshupdateapr6