{"content":[{"text":"Membership Survey 2013 Evaluation","bbox":{"left":0.300642,"top":0.177052,"width":0.397589,"height":0.01938300000000001}},{"text":"“Membership survey needs to have an impact on all aspects of the work” \n NSUN grant report: March 2013- September 2013, p4.","bbox":{"left":0.151351,"top":0.215992,"width":0.648729,"height":0.033528}},{"text":"1.","bbox":{"left":0.151351,"top":0.269037,"width":0.016238000000000002,"height":0.016710000000000003}},{"text":"Membership Survey: issues and potential redesign","bbox":{"left":0.181609,"top":0.269037,"width":0.45253,"height":0.016710000000000003}},{"text":"The Membership Survey forms part of NSUN’s evaluation framework and serves \n multiple functions including:","bbox":{"left":0.151351,"top":0.302389,"width":0.696773,"height":0.033528999999999975}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.211863,"top":0.35238,"width":0.009277000000000007,"height":0.017461000000000004}},{"text":"Satisfying specific funders and showing that certain strategic \n objectives are met (i.e. evidencing effectiveness and impact on specific \n areas such as supporting networks and supporting involvement and \n influencing etc). \n Informing future projects and practice \n Identifying areas of strength and weakness and driving improvement. \n Evaluating effectiveness of different elements of NSUN’s work i.e. \n modes of communication (reviewing website, ebulletin etc). \n Evidencing growth and quality of engagement – reflected by increased \n response rate (particularly in previously less active geographic areas) \n and higher ratings of authenticity (in terms of user led-ness etc).","bbox":{"left":0.242117,"top":0.353166,"width":0.6068020000000001,"height":0.18720100000000006}},{"text":"• \n • \n •","bbox":{"left":0.211863,"top":0.420225,"width":0.009277000000000007,"height":0.052261999999999975}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.211863,"top":0.489234,"width":0.009277000000000007,"height":0.017461000000000004}},{"text":"Given the importance of the survey with regard to informing NSUN’s work we \n need to ensure that the data generated is reliable and valid. As NSUN moves \n towards more structured monitoring through the development of the new \n evaluation framework, this is a good opportunity to critically assess the \n membership survey and consider how it can be improved for 2014.","bbox":{"left":0.151351,"top":0.559884,"width":0.697297,"height":0.0834149999999999}},{"text":"Some issues have emerged with regard to design and delivery that include the \n following:","bbox":{"left":0.151351,"top":0.660262,"width":0.6968099999999999,"height":0.03324300000000002}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.181609,"top":0.710217,"width":0.009277000000000007,"height":0.01746099999999995}},{"text":"Several different versions of the 2013 survey were in operation at the same \n time. There is a need for standardisation. Online and paper copies of the \n survey should be exactly the same otherwise the data will be unreliable \n and difficult to analyse. \n Paper copies were uploaded onto survey monkey and this introduced \n additional issues. The numbering and ordering of questions on survey monkey \n did not correspond directly to the numbering on the paper copy, which was not \n ideal. \n On the paper survey (2013), many respondents had left blanks, and some had \n not completed the second side of the questionnaire. Survey monkey, however, \n does not allow you to skip certain questions. Therefore the only way to upload \n members’ data was to tick the N/A box for ‘multiple choice’ responses, which","bbox":{"left":0.211863,"top":0.709538,"width":0.6373599999999999,"height":0.20144099999999998}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.181609,"top":0.7778,"width":0.009277000000000007,"height":0.01746099999999995}},{"text":"•","bbox":{"left":0.181609,"top":0.84422,"width":0.009277000000000007,"height":0.01746099999999995}}],"images_bbox":[{"left":0.336829,"top":0.084093,"width":0.326324,"height":0.069543}],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[{"left":0.336829,"top":0.084093,"width":0.326324,"height":0.069543}]}