Validity, Reliability, and Weights

C. Kenneth Tanner

School Design & Planning Laboratory

http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/sdpl.html

Department of Educational Leadership

310 River's Crossing

The University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602

This document is protected by U. S. Copyright Laws © and may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the SDPL.

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International, Baltimore, MD (November 1-5, 1999).

Abstract: A Design Assessment Scale for Elementary Schools (DASE) has been constructed at the University of Georgia's School Design and Planning Laboratory. Its purpose is to assist educators and architects in the planning and designing of developmentally appropriate learning environments for elementary schools (pk -5). The DASE is intended to evaluate existing design patterns of schoolhouses and outdoor learning areas. When compared to test scores, the results of these appraisals will show how various school design patterns influence cognitive learning. Therefore, from these findings we will know which patterns to design and build or not to build to improve student learning. This report includes the final step in the instrument's validation process, the reliability coefficients, and weights assigned by planners and architects. In only rare cases will a school have all these design elements included in its design.

The School Design Assessment Scale

Introduction

Since its creation in May of 1997, the University of Georgia's School Design and Planning Laboratory has conducted research with the goal of improving the physical learning environments of schools. We want to make schools more "user-friendly." The Laboratory has focused attention on the ways schools are designed and how various design patterns influence cognitive learning. The clients of the SD&PL are educators, planners, architects, and citizens involved in designing, planning, and constructing schools, pre-kindergarten through grade college (p -16).

One long-term aim of SD&PL research is to find specific links between student learning, behavior, attitude, self-concept, and the school's physical environment, which is defined through design patterns. Presently we are assessing cognitive learning and its relationship to design patterns. School design patterns are defined as the physical arrangements of the environmental components with which students interact (buildings and all their components, color, the physical context of the school, furniture, landscaping - natural or planned, and equipment). The validity phase of this research project has focused on identifying the design patterns that make up a school setting.

Our research is founded on the assumption that interrelationships exist among a student's cognitive learning, behavior, attitude, self-concept, and the school environment. We also assumed that when design characteristics were cataloged, an association between them and student learning could be tested. Behavior, self-concept, and attitudes have been shown to affect student learning. Our reasoning was if scientific proof could be found regarding the design patterns' influence on learning and behavior, then we could make recommendations, with certainty, concerning the appropriate physical arrangements of the schools' environmental components.

Student Behavior may be measured in terms of social conduct in the schools. A threatening environment is tied to issues of safety, security, discipline, and hindrance of the learning process. Good behavior is equated to good citizenship, and a physical setting without threats fosters good citizens. Research literature on a student's ability to learn in a threatening environment is clear. For example, Carl R. Rogers (1969) contended that learning is more easily assimilated when external threats are minimized. Learning proceeds faster when the threat to the self is low. Behavior and achievement (academic and nonacademic) influence a student's self-concept. Attitudes influence learning; furthermore self-concept and attitude have been found to be related.

An instrument for measuring the relationship between design patterns and student learning is possible to construct given valid components and a reliable scale. The instrument, when constructed and administered properly, will help us say that school design influences student learning. It can also yield an index to actually say "how much".

Development of the Instrument

How was the instrument developed? Before validity can be demonstrated, an instrument must first yield consistent and reliable measurements. Our first step was to review research and the "best practices" in school design. From the field of research, we find that young students' interactions with their physical settings may become their primary medium for learning (Weinstein & David, 1987; Wohlwill & van Vliet, 1985). Physical arrangements of classroom space and class size communicate expectations for behavior.

Since the developmental process of children can be influenced by characteristics of the physical setting, there are important fundamentals to be considered when designing and planning schools. We found 51 items that cover the conceptual design aspects of an elementary school. We welcome arguments to include additional items and reasons to delete some that are included in this version. The bibliography provides all the sources used in developing the instrument. Because the goal was to measure design patterns, we called the instrument the Design Assessment Scale. Since this version was constructed for elementary schools, it is called DASE.

Components of the DASE

What does the DASE consist of? Fifty-one items have been identified to measure school design in six interactive sub-scales. The degrees of functionality, safety, adequacy, quality, presence, and overall impression are measured with a 10-point Likert Scale, where 10 = 100%, 1 = 10%, and 'not present or very weak' = no response. In order to obtain a score for a school, the evaluator completes a thorough tour of the school (building and grounds), hopefully, when students are present, and assigns a score for each item on the instrument.

In the following sections we note the 51 design patterns. A weight, based on research explained later in this article, has been assigned to each pattern.

1- Promenade (4.90) – Walkways linking main outside areas, ideally placing major activity centers at the extremes.

2 - Green Areas (7.24) - Outside spaces, close to the school building, where trees, grass or gardens may be seen [but no cars or roads].

3 - Quiet Areas –Solitary places where students may go to pause and refresh themselves in a quiet setting.

a. Inside Places (7.90)

b. Outside Places (7.16)

4 - Play Areas (8.10) - Special locations where children are given the opportunity to be together, use their bodies, build muscles, and test new skills. Using imagination and releasing energy are two important activities seen in these areas.

5 - Campus Plan (5.84) - Several natural and built structures that may be connected by walkways (sometimes covered), pathways, and/or promenades that complement the delivery of the educational program.

6 - Entrance Area (7.76) – A friendly space connecting the outside world to the inside world. This age appropriate space should be inviting and highly visible for students and visitors. It should evoke a ‘welcome’ feeling.

7 - Private Spaces for Children –Social places where a small group of children may go to be alone (i.e. reading areas, quiet places, reflection areas, listening areas, etc.).

a. Inside (7.40)

b. Outside (5.83)

8 - Instructional Neighborhoods – Places [perhaps wing(s) of the building] that include teacher planning spaces, flex zones (places for multiple use), small and large group areas, wet areas for science and art, hearth areas, and restrooms. The hearth area is a place used for reading and quiet time.

a. Teacher planning areas (7.85)

b. Flex zones (8.25)

c. Small group areas (8.05)

d. Large group areas (7.90)

e. Wet areas for science (8.43)

f. Wet areas for art (8.71)

g. Hearth areas (6.37)

9 – Outdoor Rooms (6.57) - Defined outdoor learning environments - enough like a classroom, but with the added beauties of nature.

10 - Circulation Patterns - Indoor spaces for circulation should be broad and well-lit allowing for freedom of movement.

a. Within learning environments (7.86)

b. Among learning environments (8.10)

11 – Hallways (8.38) – Passageways, allowing students personal space when moving within the school. [Ample spaces – non-crowded]

12 – Reference (8.05)- Main building has an obvious point of reference among the school’s buildings. It is a focal point where paths and buildings connect. This design feature heightens the sense of community. It stimulates students’ imagination.

13 – Scale - A place designed and built to the scale of children (e.g. Door handles or handrails low enough for children to reach to accommodate their heights.)

a. Light switches (6.26)

b. Seats fit children (9.33)

c. Door handles (7.62)

d. Hand rails (7.86)

e. Shortened steps (6.95)

f. Water fountains (8.43)

g. Views (doors/windows that allow the student to easily see the outside) (8.00) 

14 - Administration Centralized (7.14)- Administrative offices are grouped together in a centralized area allowing for connection and convenience. If there are schools within a school or a campus plan, the person in charge should be readily accessible (at least for the safety of the children).

15 – Acoustics (8.75)- Control of internal and external noises levels.

16 – Windows – Spaces bringing natural light into the learning environment. Windows may have some form of glare control, but should be in use (when glare is not a problem), and be without painted obstructions and other devices that restrict views. Windows should invite the outdoors inside.

a. Views overlooking life (8.30)

b. Unrestricted views (when glare is not a problem) (7.33)

c. Adequacy of natural light (includes skylights and borrowed light – natural, reflected light) (8.14)

17 - Intimacy Gradients (6.75)- A sequence from larger to smaller - public to private spaces, giving the effect of drawing people into the area. These are usually found in main entrances, but may be used through out the learning environment.

18 – Technology for Students - Spaces with computers, compact disks, programs, learning packages, Internet connections, television, and video.    

a. Computers are placed within the learning environment in a manner that complements teaching and learning. Computers appear as an integral part of the curriculum. (9.19)

b. Computer laboratories are not arranged in a rigid, institutionalized, manner. (7.80)

c. The teacher can easily view all computer screens from one location. (6.67)

19 –Technology for Teachers (9.10) – Computers (including laptops), multimedia and Internet connections are easily accessible. Teachers have access to technology (outside the media center) for use in research and planning lessons.

20 – Pathways (7.90)- Clearly defined areas that allow freedom of movement among structures. These play a vital role in the way people interact with buildings. Pathways may also connect buildings to one another so that a person can walk under the cover of arcades.

21 - Public Areas – Spaces fostering a sense of community (unity and belonging) that offer inviting and comfortable settings, including ample lighting.

a. Auditorium (7.11)

b. Amphitheater (6.11)

c. Media center (9.35)

d. Commons (place for casual student meeting) (7.70)

e. Dining room (8.10)

22 - Context (8.38)- The school and grounds are compatible with the surroundings and sufficient to facilitate the curriculum and programs.

23 - Harmony (7.62)- The school is "in harmony with nature." It blends with the surroundings and brings nature into the learning environments.

24 - Comfort (8.90)- Classrooms create a stress-free atmosphere.

25 – Excitement (8.05)- Classrooms create an atmosphere of excitement for learning.

26– Learning Zones –

a. Variety of indoor spaces developed to meet individual learning styles. (8.45)

b. Variety of outdoor areas developed to meet individual learning styles. (6.80)

27 - Climate Control (9.38)- A system designed to maintain a comfortable temperature in the classroom learning environment.

28 - Intimacy (7.19)- Spaces suitable for small children to reflect.

29 - Classrooms (7.05)- Exterior doors lead to a courtyard or well planned outdoor learning areas.

30 – Communications –

a. Phones within classrooms (6.48)

b. Two way intercom system (8.38)

c. Phones in teachers’ workrooms (8.45)

d. Fax machines in teachers’ workrooms (7.10)

31 –Workrooms (7.71) - Workrooms are near classrooms.

32 - Classroom Walls (8.90) - Walls are conducive for displaying students’ work

33 - Hallways (8.33) - Hallways are favorable for displaying student work

34 - Roof system (8.74) – A leaking roof can disrupt student learning.

35 - Safe Location (8.60) – The site and learning environments are free of excessive non-pedestrian traffic and noise. Natural or built barriers may protect these areas.

36 - Safe Place– The indoor and outdoor environments guarantee students and teachers secure and comfortable places to learn.

a. Separate age-level playgrounds (7.43)

b. Separation of large and small children (7.00)

c. Bathrooms in classrooms (7.53)

d. Supervisable circulation patterns (8.95)

e. Day security system (alarms, lights, locks) (7.71)

f. Developmentally appropriate playground equipment (8.86)

g. Safe playground equipment (9.19)

h. Evening security system (alarms, lights, locks) (8.50)

37 – Storage (8.52) – Secured spaces for teachers and students to store their personal belongings, tools and supplies.

38 - Ceiling Heights (7.62) - A variation of ceiling heights allows individual comfort and intimacy within the school.

39 - Background Detail (6.95) – Spaces for colorful displays on walls and doors (e.g. light switches, wall outlets, louvers, and surface raceways) that might be unnoticed by adults.

40 - Visual Stimulation (7.15) - Walls and finishes should effectively display color and vivid patterns.

42 - Natural Light/ Full Spectrum (8.10) - Artificial light plus natural light from the outside, preferably on two sides of every room.

43 - Living Views (7.48) - Views of indoor and outdoor spaces (gardens, animals, fountains, mountains, people, etc.) These allow minds and eyes to take a break.

44 - Paths with Goals ( 7.48) - Places designed to provide focal points when walking to particular locations. (E.g. displays of students, work, meaningful posters, benches, or plants).

45 - Personal Space (8.43) - Places for children to participate in activities and tasks without being jammed (crowded).

46 - Activity Pockets (7.76) - Spaces designed for small group work.

47 - Outdoor Spaces (6.90) - Places which are defined; may be surrounded by wings of buildings, trees, hedges, fences, fields, arcades or walkways.

48 - Learning Signature (7.40) - The school’s focus and passion. If, after touring the school, you have to ask, the school probably does not have one.

49 - Animal Life (6.19) - Places in a school or on the school grounds for animals to live (Includes butterfly houses, bird houses, trees, etc…). Caring for animals helps teach the students a sense of responsibility and respect (Values).

50. Community Hub (8.43) – School and community cooperate [school and community projects and community uses school facilities (media center, gymnasium, lunchroom, etc.) and outdoor learning environments].

51 - Overall Impression (8.76) – Judged based on whether the learning environments are student friendly and teacher friendly.

Validity and Reliability

Once we tune the instrument so that it becomes an accurate predictor, we can say that it has good validity. However, before validity can be demonstrated, an instrument must first yield consistent, reliable measurements. In addition to reliability, psychologists recognize three main types of validity.

An instrument has content validity if the sample of items in its content is representative of all the relevant items that might have been used. Problems included in a mathematics test, for example, should cover a wide range of difficulty. The DASE should cover a wide range of design patterns.

Criterion-related validity refers to an instrument's accuracy in specifying a future or concurrent outcome. For example, a mathematics-aptitude test has predictive validity if high scores are achieved by those who later do well in mathematics. A school scoring high on the DASE is expected to influence behavior and learning in a positive manner; and the converse is also true. The concurrent validity of the instrument may be demonstrated if its scores correlate closely with well established tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. If a school has a high score on the DASE, it is assumed that ITBS scores will also be high.

Construct validity is generally determined by investigating what qualities an instrument measures; in this case, by demonstrating that certain design patterns account for some degree of a school's quality. If DASE can be shown to measure quality of the total school design, for instance, then it may also predict quality of student outcomes. The validation task was accomplished through the trials reported here.

Four Tests of Reliability

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), reliability should be at least .70 or higher. Given the indices of reliability as found in Tables 1 and 2, the reliability is sufficient to continue further research. Note that the data reported in Tables 1 and 2 have significant correlation coefficients (p < .01). Therefore, each coefficient was significantly different from "0". This is an indicator of good reliability and validity.

In the Fall of 1999, 15 educators in a beginning graduate class made an assessment of Bramlett Elementary School in Auburn, Georgia. Bramlett is a k-5 school serving middle class students. The graduate students used the DASE as depicted in the 51 items above. Two weeks later, they were asked to repeat the assessment. These data were coded and analyzed for overall reliability and for internal consistency. The results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Tests of the scale's reliability* - Bramlett Elementary School

All Correlations were Significant, (n=15); p < .01

We note that the test re-test reliability is borderline (.68), while the internal consistency of the instrument is good. The reliability coefficient of .68 may be due to the inexperience of the raters. We will look at this variable in the discussion of Table 2. Bramlett is a traditional elementary school regarding school organization. It is located in a safe setting and has plenty of natural light in each classroom. The school’s learning signature is "community involvement". The community identifies closely with the school and assists in the construction and maintenance of the beautiful outdoor learning environments. In addition, community attendance at school functions is outstanding. Teachers and parents work closely in providing quality learning experiences for the students.

Another group of eight educators with advanced graduate training evaluated Celebration School, Celebration, Florida in February, 1999 with the DASE. Two weeks later, they repeated the assessment. The results are shown in Table 2. The over all test re-test reliability coefficient was .82, an acceptable standard. This group of students was more advanced in their study of school design and planning. They had a better perception of what to look for regarding the 51 items in the DASE.

Celebration is a non-graded k-12 school, where the students are organized in multi age and grade levels. The instructional neighborhood concept, housing about 125 students, is used in Celebration School, where there are flex zones, small group areas, large group areas, hearth areas, and teacher planning areas within one cluster. Technology was integrated as part of the curriculum and every student had a personal computer. Celebration’s learning signature was "technology in the school and community". The most disturbing finding was that the school did not have outdoor learning areas – landscaping was minimal and animal habitats were non-existent , except for a few small trees at the entrance way.

Internal consistency of the instrument was good, except for section V, which deals with the learning signature, animal life, and the school as a hub. Some members of the evaluation team argued over whether the school was a hub or whether the town was the hub. The apparent lack of interest in animal and plant life at the school also sparked some controversy among raters. Animal and plant life did not have a high priority in the technologically oriented school. There may have been some confusion regarding the potential for animal life on campus as opposed to whether a pattern actually existed. Evaluators were asked to focus on the elementary division at Celebration School.

Table 2. Tests of the scale's reliability* – Celebration School

* All Correlations were Significant, (n=8); 1p < .01

Given the data and experience with the raters, the evaluation of school design should be completed as a group process with a team of 3 – 10 experts. While an individual assessment can be valid, it could come under question because of the difficulty of thoroughly touring and viewing all spaces and accurately responding to the 51 items. Several items may require a discussion, even among experts to determine the degree that a design pattern is present.

How do I explain the discrepancy in test re-test reliability coefficients? The first group of evaluators were beginning their program in school administration, while the second group of evaluators were more experienced and had more training in school design and planning.

Weights for DASE Items

With an acceptable reliability coefficient established for the instrument, the next phase involved assigning weights to the 51 items. Architects and educational planners attending the round table discussion of the Design Assessment Scale at the 1999 CEFPI regional conference in Richmond, Virginia were asked to assign weights to each item. A total of 21 usable sets of responses were completed. Items were rated in terms of importance on a 10-point scale where 1 = "low" and 10 = "high". The results of the response by item are found in Appendix A. For example, the weight of the (Promenade) was determined to be 4.90.

Appendix B reveals a rank ordering of the items. Item number 50 (Climate Control) received the highest ranking (9.38), while Promenade received the lowest weight. In addition to climate control, items receiving very strong weights were Technology for Teachers (9.10), Technology for Students - Computers Placed Within the Learning Environment ( 9.19), Safe Playground Equipment (9.19) , Scale – Seats fit Children (9.33), and Public Areas (spaces fostering a sense of community) – Media Center (9.35).

There were some interesting results found in the rankings. The campus plan received a rather low rating (5.84) considering that one of the conferences main attractions was Thomas Jefferson’s campus plan at the University of Virginia. A featured speaker discussed the merits of the campus concept.

Conclusions

With validation, acceptable reliability, and the first set of weights assigned to the instrument, a major step has been completed. We may now focus on getting a larger sample to determine the weights. When the weights have been established, the instrument may be focused on existing schools and we can extrapolate which design patterns influence cognitive learning. This may be accomplished by comparing standardized measures of learning to the scores a school receives on the instrument. The DASE may then be applied to existing schools as a means to determine design needs. More importantly, the design patterns that significantly influence learning should be incorporated into the design phase of new schools.

Bibliography

Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., & Bain, H. P. (1998). Using class size to reduce the equity gap. Educational Leadership. 55(4), 40-43.

Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University press.

Bingler, S. (1995). Place as a form of knowledge. In A. Meek (Ed.), Designing Places for Learning (pp. 23-30). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brubaker, C. W. (1998). Planning and Designing Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

David, T. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (1987). The built environment and children’s development. In C. S. Weinstein and T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development (pp. 3-40). New York: Plenum Press.

Frankel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1999). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. (4th. Ed). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Ferguson, G. A. (1981). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education (5th. Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fielding, R. (1998, November). An interview with Cunningham Group's Bruce Jilk. [26 paragraphs]. Design Share [http://www.designshare.com/Research/Jilk98/JilkInterview.htm]

Freeman, C. (1995). Planning and play: Creating greener environments, Children’s Environments. 12(3), 381-388.

Hughes, P. C. (1980). The use of light and color in health. In A. C. Hastings, J. Fadiman, & J. S. Gordon (Eds.), Health for the Whole Person: The Complete Guide to Holistic Medicine (pp. 71-83.). Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.

Meek, A. & Landfried, S. (1995). Crow Island School: 54 Years Young. In A. Meek (Ed.), Designing Places for Learning (pp. 51-59). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Moore, G. T. (1987). The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care centers. In C. S. Weinstein and T. G. David (Eds), Spaces for Children: The built environment and child development. (pp. 41-72). New York: Plenum Press.

Moore, G. T., & Lackney, J. A. (1995). Design patterns for American schools: Responding to the reform movement. In A. Meek (Ed.), Designing Places for Learning (pp. 11-22). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Ott, J. (1973). Health and Light. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Prescott, E. (1987). Environment as an organizer in child-care settings. In C. S. Weinstein and T. G. David (Eds), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development (73-88). New York: Plenum Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Raywid, M. A. (1998). Small schools: A reform that works.

Educational Leadership. 55(4), 34-39.

Sanoff, H. (1994). School Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Taylor, A. P., & Valastos, G. (1975). School Zone: Learning Environments for Children. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Weinstein, C. S., & David, T. G. (1987). Spaces for Children. New York: Plenum Press.

Wohlwill, J. F., & van Vliet, W. (1985). Habitats for Children: The Impacts of Density. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Wurtman, R. J. (1975). The effects of light on the human body. Scientific American, 233(1), 68-77.

Data Summary of Responses by Item - Architects and Educational Planners -

South East Region of CEFPI – 1999

________________________________________________________________________

VAR00001 4.90 2.77 7.67 1.00 10.00 20

VAR00002 7.24 2.53 6.39 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00003 7.90 2.02 4.09 4.00 10.00 20

VAR00004 7.16 2.43 5.92 2.00 10.00 19

VAR00005 8.10 2.10 4.39 3.00 10.00 21

VAR00006 5.84 2.69 7.25 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00007 7.76 2.39 5.69 3.00 10.00 21

VAR00008 7.40 2.37 5.62 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00009 5.83 2.50 6.26 1.00 9.00 18

VAR00010 7.85 2.02 4.10 .90 10.00 21

VAR00011 8.25 1.33 1.78 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00012 8.05 1.43 2.05 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00013 7.90 1.48 2.19 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00014 8.43 1.43 2.06 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00015 8.71 1.27 1.61 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00016 6.37 2.39 5.69 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00017 6.57 2.38 5.66 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00018 7.86 1.71 2.93 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00019 8.10 1.45 2.09 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00020 8.38 1.24 1.55 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00021 8.05 1.72 2.95 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00022 6.26 3.25 10.54 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00023 9.33 .80 .63 8.00 10.00 21

VAR00024 7.62 1.99 3.95 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00025 7.86 2.17 4.73 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00026 6.95 2.01 4.05 2.00 10.00 20

VAR00027 8.43 1.50 2.26 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00028 8.00 1.95 3.80 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00029 7.14 2.67 7.13 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00030 8.75 1.37 1.88 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00031 8.30 1.49 2.22 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00032 7.33 2.27 5.13 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00033 8.14 1.59 2.53 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00034 6.75 1.83 3.36 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00035 9.19 .98 .96 7.00 10.00 21

VAR00036 7.80 2.04 4.17 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00037 6.67 2.24 5.03 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00038 9.10 1.34 1.79 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00039 7.11 2.40 5.77 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00040 6.11 2.14 4.58 2.00 10.00 18

VAR00041 9.35 .93 .87 7.00 10.00 20

VAR00042 7.70 2.27 5.17 1.00 10.00 20

VAR00043 8.10 2.43 5.88 1.00 10.00 20

VAR00044 8.38 1.50 2.25 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00045 7.62 1.83 3.35 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00046 8.90 1.30 1.69 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00047 8.05 2.16 4.65 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00048 8.45 1.39 1.94 6.00 10.00 20

VAR00049 6.80 1.85 3.43 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00050 9.38 1.12 1.25 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00051 7.19 1.78 3.16 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00052 7.05 1.91 3.65 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00053 6.48 2.42 5.86 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00054 8.38 2.22 4.95 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00055 8.45 1.76 3.10 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00056 7.10 2.72 7.39 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00057 7.71 1.93 3.71 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00058 8.90 1.18 1.39 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00059 8.33 1.93 3.73 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00060 8.74 1.45 2.09 6.00 10.00 19

VAR00061 8.60 1.96 3.83 2.00 10.00 20

VAR00062 7.43 1.63 2.66 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00063 7.00 1.64 2.70 4.00 9.00 21

VAR00064 7.53 1.74 3.04 4.00 10.00 19

VAR00065 8.95 1.16 1.35 7.00 10.00 21

VAR00066 7.71 1.85 3.41 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00067 8.86 1.56 2.43 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00068 9.19 1.81 3.26 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00069 8.50 1.82 3.32 4.00 10.00 20

VAR00070 8.52 1.40 1.96 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00071 7.62 1.63 2.65 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00072 6.95 1.70 2.89 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00073 7.15 2.03 4.13 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00074 7.10 1.64 2.69 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00075 8.10 1.41 1.99 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00076 7.48 1.81 3.26 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00077 7.48 1.72 2.96 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00078 8.43 1.50 2.26 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00079 7.76 1.81 3.29 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00080 6.90 1.95 3.79 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00081 7.40 2.16 4.67 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00082 6.19 1.86 3.46 3.00 9.00 21

VAR00083 8.43 1.43 2.06 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00084 8.76 1.30 1.69 6.00 10.00 17  

22 Sep 99 SPSS 6.1 for the Power Macintosh

South East Region of CEFPI – 1999

_______________________________________________________________________

Variable Mean Std Dev Variance Min Max N

VAR00001 4.90 2.77 7.67 1.00 10.00 20

VAR00009 5.83 2.50 6.26 1.00 9.00 18

VAR00006 5.84 2.69 7.25 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00040 6.11 2.14 4.58 2.00 10.00 18

VAR00082 6.19 1.86 3.46 3.00 9.00 21

VAR00022 6.26 3.25 10.54 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00016 6.37 2.39 5.69 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00053 6.48 2.42 5.86 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00017 6.57 2.38 5.66 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00037 6.67 2.24 5.03 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00034 6.75 1.83 3.36 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00049 6.80 1.85 3.43 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00080 6.90 1.95 3.79 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00072 6.95 1.70 2.89 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00026 6.95 2.01 4.05 2.00 10.00 20

VAR00063 7.00 1.64 2.70 4.00 9.00 21

VAR00052 7.05 1.91 3.65 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00074 7.10 1.64 2.69 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00056 7.10 2.72 7.39 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00039 7.11 2.40 5.77 1.00 10.00 19

VAR00029 7.14 2.67 7.13 1.00 10.00 21

VAR00073 7.15 2.03 4.13 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00004 7.16 2.43 5.92 2.00 10.00 19

VAR00051 7.19 1.78 3.16 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00002 7.24 2.53 6.39 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00032 7.33 2.27 5.13 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00008 7.40 2.37 5.62 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00081 7.40 2.16 4.67 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00062 7.43 1.63 2.66 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00077 7.48 1.72 2.96 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00076 7.48 1.81 3.26 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00064 7.53 1.74 3.04 4.00 10.00 19

VAR00071 7.62 1.63 2.65 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00024 7.62 1.99 3.95 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00045 7.62 1.83 3.35 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00042 7.70 2.27 5.17 1.00 10.00 20

VAR00057 7.71 1.93 3.71 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00066 7.71 1.85 3.41 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00007 7.76 2.39 5.69 3.00 10.00 21

VAR00079 7.76 1.81 3.29 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00036 7.80 2.04 4.17 3.00 10.00 20

VAR00010 7.85 2.02 4.10 .90 10.00 21

VAR00018 7.86 1.71 2.93 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00025 7.86 2.17 4.73 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00003 7.90 2.02 4.09 4.00 10.00 20

VAR00013 7.90 1.48 2.19 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00028 8.00 1.95 3.80 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00047 8.05 2.16 4.65 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00012 8.05 1.43 2.05 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00021 8.05 1.72 2.95 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00005 8.10 2.10 4.39 3.00 10.00 21

VAR00019 8.10 1.45 2.09 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00075 8.10 1.41 1.99 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00043 8.10 2.43 5.88 1.00 10.00 20

VAR00033 8.14 1.59 2.53 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00011 8.25 1.33 1.78 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00031 8.30 1.49 2.22 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00059 8.33 1.93 3.73 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00044 8.38 1.50 2.25 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00054 8.38 2.22 4.95 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00020 8.38 1.24 1.55 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00078 8.43 1.50 2.26 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00014 8.43 1.43 2.06 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00027 8.43 1.50 2.26 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00083 8.43 1.43 2.06 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00048 8.45 1.39 1.94 6.00 10.00 20

VAR00055 8.45 1.76 3.10 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00069 8.50 1.82 3.32 4.00 10.00 20

VAR00070 8.52 1.40 1.96 5.00 10.00 21

VAR00061 8.60 1.96 3.83 2.00 10.00 20

VAR00015 8.71 1.27 1.61 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00060 8.74 1.45 2.09 6.00 10.00 19

VAR00030 8.75 1.37 1.88 5.00 10.00 20

VAR00084 8.76 1.30 1.69 6.00 10.00 17

VAR00067 8.86 1.56 2.43 4.00 10.00 21

VAR00046 8.90 1.30 1.69 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00058 8.90 1.18 1.39 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00065 8.95 1.16 1.35 7.00 10.00 21

VAR00038 9.10 1.34 1.79 6.00 10.00 21

VAR00035 9.19 .98 .96 7.00 10.00 21

VAR00068 9.19 1.81 3.26 2.00 10.00 21

VAR00023 9.33 .80 .63 8.00 10.00 21

VAR00041 9.35 .93 .87 7.00 10.00 20

VAR00050 9.38 1.12 1.25 6.00 10.00 21

22 Sep 99 SPSS 6.1 for the Power Macintosh