Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:07 am
#1525413
The following is posted on the behalf of Dr Amy Irwin:
Dear All,
Thank-you very much to all those who have completed the questionnaire and who have offered positive constructive feedback. Please remember that this is the first, exploratory, study in what will hopefully be a new avenue of research. The majority of research in this area has focused on commercial aviation, and we are keen to extend the same courtesy to general aviation! Your feedback will be taken on board when considering the next study, but in the meantime I thought it might be useful to answer some of the points raised:
· When we say ‘pre-validation’ we mean that when assessing an underlying construct the individual items have to be used multiple times, with different samples, in order to ensure that when the items are analysed using factor analysis and tests of reliability, the items are all measuring the same thing (the underlying factor or construct). None of the items are assessed individually, in each case items are summed to assess an underlying factor – it’s part of the reason that some might seem repetitive or slightly incongruous – checks and balances require that some questions are asked twice to ensure we get the same response each time, and others are a little unusual to prevent acquiescence bias.
· Several of you mentioned the variability of GA pilots – that is part of the reason we asked for experience, usual hours flying, training etc. at the start. Answers will be separated into groups according to experience level, training etc. so we can assess if those factors influence the pattern of responses using a variety of analyses. You can therefore answer the risk questions on the basis of your own training and skill level, and your usual aircraft – we will use the information provided at the start to determine the level of risk aversion / tolerance. The sheer variability in these answers means that we may well be more specific, or separate pilots into more defined categories, going forward. But in this case what we really want is to get some kind of baseline on which to build further research.
· Finally, there was some concern over the standard info – debrief format. Essentially not all information is shared at the start in an effort to not influence your answers – the only missing information relates to the constructs studied and what the exact research question is (e.g. what our expectations are). Those are stated in the debrief at the end.
Please do continue to comment and provide suggestions, just please bear in mind that this research is in it’s infancy – and its only through people engaging with the research that we can move forward and begin to bring research within general aviation up to the levels of commercial aviation.
Kind regards,
Dr Amy Irwin