NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH R.I.C.

A1110S fiTSSE?

NBSIR 81-2258

A Methodology for Evaluating

Housing in Use:

A Case Study Approach

Stephen T. Margulis

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

June 1981

Sponsored by:

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

wQQaM^M/Vashington, DC 20234

100

.056

31-2253

1981

c.2

Office of Policy Development and

Research

U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20410

national bureau

OF standards

library

SEP 1 not i NBSIR 81-2258

A METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING

HOUSING IN USE:

A CASE STUDY APPROACH

Stephen T. Margulis

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

June 1981

Sponsored by:

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Office of Policy Development and

Research

U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20410

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

6 1981

I
t . i t t ' ' ' . i
ABSTRACT

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) has prepared a report on the methodology

of Project Feedback, the evaluation of Operation Breakthrough housing in use

(a post-occupancy housing evaluation). The report introduces housing evaluations and encourages their use by providing both housing questionnaires and a nontechnical, practical discussion of research methods in general and of survey

research in particular. To increase the sophistication of housing evaluation

research designs, the report includes a tested approach for selecting control

group respondents for housing evaluations. In addition, it summarizes results

of NBS's housing evaluations, principally to illustrate ways of categorizing

(coding) occupants’ answers, but also to introduce these studies and their

results. The case study approach Is meant to encourage readers to build on NBS’s experiences. This book is suitable for research and instructional

purposes.

KEY WORDS: Dwelling units (residential); housing; Operation Breakthrough;

Project Feedback; post-occupancy housing evaluation; questionnaires; research methods; survey research; user needs.

i
PREFACE

This report is about how to evaluate housing in use with the survey as the

principal research method. The case study used is Project Feedback, which was an evaluation of Operation Breakthrough housing in use. An evaluation of housing in use is frequently called a post-occupancy housing evaluation. Project

Feedback was conducted by the National Bureau of Standards for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In sharing our experiences with

you, we hope to encourage others to improve the quality of housing evaluations.

This report will help you design a questionnaire-based housing survey, but it

is not a handbook for housing research. It does, however, contain a fieldtested research design and field-tested questionnaires that you can adapt.

Chapter 1 introduces the case study. Project Feedback, and describes its

relationship to Operation Breakthrough, the HUD project whose housing is being

evaluated. In addition, the four components of research are explained and

illustrated. The chapters that follow discuss the components of research

within the context of Project Feedback. Chapter 2 describes our research

method, the questionnaire-based survey, and discusses in less detail our research technique, the interview. Chapter 3 explains and evaluates our research design, the comparison of experimental and control groups. For those

readers who want additional information on the topics presented in chapters 1,

2, and 3, there are suggested readings at the end of each of these chapters.

Chapter 4 focuses on the Core Questionnaire, the principal research instrument

used in Project Feedback and the instrument most likely to be useful to other

investigators. Because of the potential usefulness of this questionnaire, we have presented a revision of it in chapter 5. Besides incorporating technical

improvements, the revision includes changes making it suitable for more general application.

Chapters 6, 7, and 8 present the three other research instruments used in the case study:

1. The Exit Questionnaire—a tool used to evaluate housing impressions of

people who had moved or were moving from the housing under study.

2. The Site Visitor Questionnaire—a brief questionnaire for visitors to

housing models.

3. The Work Order Form—a form resembling a questionnaire, which we used

to record occupant requests for repairs to dwelling units and management

comments about the repairs.

As part of the chapter on each research instrument, tabular results are included to help you develop answers for important questionnaire items that do

not list likely answers. In addition, because of interest in Project Feedback,

a brief summary is included of the study results involving each questionnaire.
You will find this casebook particularly helpful if you are considering

conducting a housing evaluation but are not a social or behavioral scientist

and have never conducted a questionnaire-based housing survey. If you are a manager about to manage or design a housing evaluation, this report will help

you identify important research tasks and questions, and understand their

significance. If you are a college instructor, you can use this report as a teaching aid in a course on environmental research. Although the report is

primarily addressed to the preceding readers, some sections—especially the

discussion of research design—will be of interest to readers knowledgeable

about social science methodology. Other sections, such as the discussion of

Operation Breakthrough, will interest readers knowledgeable about housing and

housing sites.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals have contributed substantially to this report or to the

research project upon which it is based. For their contributions to this

report, I especially thank the following individuals and organizations:

• Dr. Edward Arens, Mr. Robert Kapsch, Dr. Francis T. Ventre, and

Dr. Robert Wehrli for encouraging and supporting the preparation and

completion of this report;

• Office of Policy Development and Research of the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development for the initial funding for this report;

• Mrs. Carol Solomon for improving the readability of the report;

• Miss Tracey Kistler for ably assisting with the physical preparation of

this report;

• Mr. Richard Ellis for revising the Core Questionnaire and contributing

greatly to chapter 2; and

• Colleagues whose helpful comments improved this report.

For their contributions to Project Feedback, I thank the following individuals

and groups:

• Dr. Robert Wehrli, NBS supervisor of Project Feedback;

• Dr. Erik Svenson, NBS project leader during the planning phase of Project

Feedback;

• Mrs. Susan Benedick, Mr. William Cochran, Mrs. Eleanor Parikh,

Dr. Edward Steinfeld, and Prof. Mary Jo Huth—members of the Project

Feedback research team;

• Mr. Robert Jones, technical monitor from the Department of Housing and

Urban Development;

• Mr. Richard Ellis and Mr. David Koons for preparing the research team for

the complexities of survey research;

• Harland Bartholomew and Associates, Dr. Ralph Swisher, Dr. Robert Zehner,

and Mr. John Archea for helping the author design and develop the Core

Questionnaire;

• Dr. Daniel Carson and his associates for developing and implementing the

model for selecting comparison groups and for contributing to chapter 3;

• Westat, Inc. for conducting the field work for the occupant surveys

involving the Core Questionnaire;

iv
• Dr. Daniel Carson, Mr. Mark Cooper, Dr. James Filliben, Ms. Mary Grigg,

Dr. Tao Ming, and Group Operations, Inc. for aiding with the reduction,

analysis, and interpretation of data.

Thanks, too, to the other NBS professional and support staff, the HUD field

personnel, and the site management of housing developments who helped make

Project Feedback a success.

Dr. Stephen T. Margulis

NBS Project Leader

Project Feedback—Research Phase

v
CONTENTS

Preface ii

Acknowledgments iv

List of Questionnaires and Related Material viii

List of Figures and Tables ix

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

The Case Study: An Overview 2 Post-Occupancy Housing Evaluation and the Components of Research ... 4 Suggested Readings 7

Chapter 2: An Introduction to Surveys and Questionnaires 9

Purpose 10

What is a Survey? 10

Advantages and Limitations of Surveys 11

The Components of a Survey 13

Planning 15

Questionnaire-based Data Collection 18

Sampling 23

Data Reduction 26

Data Processing and Its Planning 28

Data Interpretation and Report Preparation 30

Suggested Readings 31

Chapter 3: A Model for Selecting Comparison Housing Groups 35

Introduction 36

The Selection Model: Concepts 36

The Selection Model: Field Procedures 40

Success of the Selection Model 48

Suggested Readings 50

Chapter 4: The Core Questionnaire 51

Purpose 52

Description of the Questionnaire 52

Description of the Study 54

Suggestions About Content and Use 62

Core Questionnaire 63

Chapter 5: The Revised Core Questionnaire 112

Purpose 113

Description of the Questionnaire 113

Suggestions About Content and Use 115

Preparation of the Questionnaire Master Copy 116

Revised Core Questionnaire 118

Comments on the Revised Core Questionnaire Items 154

vi
Chapter 6: The Exit Questionnaire 161

Purpose 162

Description of the Questionnaire 162

Description of the Study 164

Suggestions About Content and Use 166

Exit Questionnaire 168

Chapter 7: The Site Visitor Questionnaire 174

Purpose 175

Description of the Questionnaire 175

Description of the Study 176

Suggestions About Content and Use 178

Site Visitor Questionnaire 180

Chapter 8: The Work Order Form 181

Purpose 182

Description of the Questionnaire 182

Description of the Study 182

Suggestions About Content and Use 187

Work Order Instructions 192

Work Order Form 195

References . 196

Appendix 1: Comparison Group Selection Variables and the Principles Used

to Select Them 199

Appendix 2: Administration, Editing, and Coding Procedures for the

Survey Interviews of Breakthrough and Comparison Group

Housing Occupants 205

vii
LIST OF QUESTIONNAIRES AND RELATED MATERIAL

Core Questionnaire (CQ) 63

Revised Core Questionnaire (rev. CQ) 118

Comments on Questionnaire Items 154

Exit Questionnaire (EQ) 168

Site Visitor Questionnaire 180

Work Order Instructions 192

Work Order Form 195

viii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1. The components of a survey 14

Table 1. Summary of criteria and their measures used for selecting

comparison housing groups 39

Table 2. Routine and supplementary sources of information about

potential comparison groups 42

Table 3. Gross site characteristics 43

Table 4. The eight matched pairs of OBT and conventional housing

groups 46

Table 5. A retrospective evaluation of the success of the comparison

group selection method 49

Table 6. CQ respondents' reasons for selecting their OBT site, ranked

by site and for all sites 57

Table 7. Features of the residential environment most frequently

mentioned by CQ respondents as "liked," ranked by site and

for all sites 59

Table 8. Features of the residential environment most frequently

mentioned by CQ respondents as "disliked," ranked by site and

for all sites 60

Table 9. Reasons for opinions of CQ respondents about what their site

will be like in 5 years, ranked by their opinions 61

Table 10. Index to the rev. CQ 114

Table 11. I tern- by-item comparison of the EQ with the CQ and the

rev. CQ 163

Table 12. EQ respondents' reasons for deciding to move from OBT dwelling

units and/or sites 165

Table 13. The work order code for dwelling unit space 184

Table 14. The work order code for housing problems 185

Table 15. The work order code for housing elements 186

Table 16. Major dwelling unit spaces, housing elements, and housing

problems in the work order study 188

Table 17. Work order housing problems by housing elements 189

ix
Table 18. A dwelling substitution for a comparison housing group

X
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Case Study: An Overview 2

Project Feedback 2 Operation Breakthrough: Innovations in Housing 3

Operation Breakthrough: Innovations in Housing Sites 4

Post-Occupancy Housing Evaluation and the Components of Research 4

Research Instruments „ 5 Research Techniques 3

Research Methods 5 Research Designs 5

Suggested Readings 7

1
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

Why do people select one home over another? How satisfied are people with

their home, their neighborhood, and the community as a whole? What factors

most affect a person’s decision to leave one home and find another? These

are some of the questions that housing evaluations are designed to answer,

questions that need answering if the decisionmakers in the housing field are

to make better informed decisions. Housing evaluations are vital because they

provide key people with sound technical data about the effects of earlier decisions. Thus, in the long run these studies can improve the quality of housing

and the quality of life for occupants.

THE CASE STUDY: AN OVERVIEW

One such housing evaluation is Project Feedback, conducted by the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS). The goal of Project Feedback was to evaluate the

performance of prototype, industrialized housing produced as part of Operation

Breakthrough (OBT). Sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in response to the Housing Act of 1968, OBT was initiated to

increase lagging housing production.

Project Feedback

Project Feedback was planned as a comprehensive post-occupancy evaluation of

physical, economic, and behavioral aspects of OBT housing. The original goal

was to validate the performance criteria that had generated the housing (see

pp. 3-4). But the final scope was much more narrow. In the final form, the

project studied consumer opinion, emphasizing user acceptance and user

satisfaction.

Nevertheless, this focus on occupant attitudes was closely related to the

original goal of validating the performance criteria prepared by NBS. Since

these criteria were based on user needs [Wright, 1971], the NBS researchers

argued as follows. If (1) the criteria adequately addressed user needs, if

(2) the OBT housing met the criteria on which it was based, and if (3) the

occupants could determine that their needs were being met, then the occupants

were likely to be satisfied with their housing.

In the first feedback study, visitors to model units on OBT sites evaluated

the model units they had visited. Visitors offer a consumer's, rather than an occupant's, perspective. A succcessful pilot study of visitor attitudes took

place in October 1972 at the Sacramento, California, OBT site. The full-scale

study ran from February through May 1973. It was not as successful as hoped:

only four of eight sites participated and relatively few questionnaires were completed (see chapter 7).

The second study focused on repairs to the dwellings. This study was all that

remained of the intended studies of the physical performance of OBT housing in

use. Information on repairs was collected through written work orders. During

the eight months from April through December 1973, more than 5,000 work orders were completed (see chapter 8).

2
The third study involved OBT occupants who had told management that they

intended to move or who had already moved. From December 1973 until May 1974,

60 eligible households that could be reached by telephone were called and

interviewed (see chapter 6).

The fourth and largest study focused on housing satisfaction and acceptance by

occupants. This study is one of the largest post-occupancy housing evaluations

and is the largest occupant evaluation of industrialized housing. In January

and February 1974 nearly 1,500 face-to-face interviews with OBT occupants were

completed. At the same time over 500 interviews were conducted with households

in matched conventional housing. Chapter 3 contains a description of the

method used to select conventional housing as a comparison (control) group and an evaluation of its use (see also chapters 4 and 5).

Operation Breakthrough: Innovations in Housing

Although this case study is not about OBT, a description of OBT housing and

housing sites is helpful in understanding the content of the questionnaires

and the methodology of Project Feedback. Operation Breakthrough had as its

aim a housing program demonstrating ways of meeting the Nation's housing

needs. It proposed (1) to develop self-sustaining mechanisms for large-scale

housing production through modernization and (2) to create increasingly lower

housing prices by reducing outside barriers to large-scale production [U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1973].

The key to increased production was industrialization: the use of prefabrication and assembly line construction to a greater extent than found in the con- ventional housing industry. Through a partnership between private industry and

HUD, 2,588 dwelling units were to be built.

The built units offered a range of housing types, principal building materials,

and basic structural concepts. The housing types included single family

detached, single family attached, and multifamily buildings ranging from low

rise to high rise. The principal building materials included concrete, metal,

wood, polyesters, and composites. And the basic structural concepts included

modular units, panel units, and component subassemblies. These structures

were, in some cases, combined with "stick built" conventional elements.

Just as some producers of OBT housing used conventional building methods, so too conventional builders used factory built components. However, to simplify

the presentation in this book, OBT housing is called "industrialized housing,"

and all conventional housing is called "conventional housing," regardless of

the use of other construction methods.

Because OBT housing was technologically innovative, it could not have been

evaluated using then available prescriptive building codes [Finger, 1971],

Not only were these codes limited in the housing issues they addressed, but

they also varied considerably by region. By contrast, the performance approach

could be used to evaluate innovative housing such as OBT housing. This

approach emphasizes how the elements of residential buildings perform (the

nature and level of performance) rather than how they are to be built, which is

3
the approach of prescriptive building codes. Moreover, the performance

specifications can be based on user needs. Thus, they can cover the range of

issues that housing should meet [Finger, 1971; Wright, 1971].

It was necessary to have the performance criteria for OBT housing cover a range

of user needs because many of the suggested OBT innovations had not been previously tested for either marketability or durability, and because the resultant housing had to be safe and had to satisfy the needs of occupants. The

performance specifications, prepared by NBS, were published as the "Guide Criteria for the Evaluation of Operation Breakthrough Housing Systems" [Pfrang,

1970]. In this case study they are called "Guide Criteria."

Operation Breakthrough: Innovations in Housing Sites

The OBT housing currently occupies nine prototype sites across the United

States in cities representing a variety of climatic and marketing conditions.

The cities are Indianapolis, Indiana; Jersey City, New Jersey; Kalamazoo,

Michigan; Macon, Georgia; Memphis, Tennessee; Sacramento, California; St.

Louis, Missouri; Seattle, Washington—an inner-city location; and King County,

Washington—a suburban Seattle location. All of these developments except

Jersey City, which was then under construction, were part of Project Feedback.

All the OBT housing developments were built as planned unit developments

(PUD's). This planning approach was selected by HUD to overcome past inefficiencies in site development. The PUD's are characterized by separation of

pedestrian and vehicular movement, aggregation of open space for communal use,

mixed housing types, housing clusters, concentration of parking in specific

locations, and responsiveness to the natural site.

To ensure a long-lasting, viable community, each development tried to offer

residents four elements. These were adequate management and services, necessary outdoor space and facilities, adequate maintenance, and personal and

physical security [Finger, 1971].

POST-OCCUPANCY HOUSING EVALUATION AND THE COMPONENTS OF RESEARCH

Project Feedback, as a research project, is an example of a post-occupancy

housing evaluation. This type of evaluation judges built, occupied housing.

"Evaluation" implies judging something against one or more criteria or standards. The "something" that is being evaluated often refers to an aspect of

occupant experience. However, the "something" can include the physical performance of housing systems, subsystems, and components. The criteria or

^ In this report the term "site" and "development" are used interchangeably

to refer to all the physical features of the residential environment except

the housing and to the social features, particularly the occupants and management. Traditionally, however, "site" refers to the land, and "development" refers to all the physical aspects of the completed housing project.

4
standards for the evaluation can be other housing, people's judgments, local

building codes and ordinances, the architect's goals for the housing, or some ideal or desired system.

The post-occupancy evaluation of OBT housing, focused on prototype, industrialized housing at eight sites across the continental United States. The research

involved on over 1,800 occupied units. The "something" being evaluated was occupant satisfaction with and acceptance of OBT housing. It was a reasonable

focus because prior research [Bernhardt, 1972] and expert opinion had reported

consumer dissatisfaction with industrialized housing. The criterion or standard for gaging occupant opinion about OBT housing was the satisfaction of

residents of conventional housing with their housing.

There are four research components in post-occupancy housing evaluations:

research instruments, research techniques, research methods, and research

designs.

Research Instruments

Research instruments are used by the researcher to record the necessary

observations. When research is directed at a testable question (the hypothesis), the observations are the basis for answering the question (testing

the hypothesis). Examples of research instruments include questionnaires

(records of what people say), cameras, stop watches, counters, and apparatus

used to measure the physical performance of housing components. In Project

Feedback the principal research instrument was the questionnaire.

Research Techniques

Research techniques establish the conditions of observation; techniques focus on how the observations are made in contrast to what is recorded, which is the

role of the research instrument. Examples of techniques include interviews,

participant observation (often the observation of what others say or do),

photography, and nondestructive testing of materials. In Project Feedback the

principal technique was the face-to-face interview. However, it was not the

only technique; also employed were questionnaires administered by telephone

and self-administered questionnaires.

Research Methods

Research methods determine the degree and type of control the researcher has over what or who is being observed. Examples of methods include the laboratory

experiment and the simulation, in which control over what or who is being

observed is relatively high, and field studies and surveys, in which there is

relatively less control over events or individuals. In Project Feedback the

method used was the survey.

Research Designs

Research designs establish the rules for grouping who or what is being

5
observed, and as a consequence, for grouping what is being recorded. Tbesa

rules determine how observations are related, hence how the results are

preted.. A good experiment establishes whether there is a relationship between

the events being studied, what that relationship is, and how the relationship

ca§ be reasonably explained.

The relationship that experiments frequently attempt to establish is whether

one variable, A, has had an effect on another variable, _B . Specifically, if

a researcher hypothesizes that A affects _B in some way, then the purpose of

the research design is to determine whether under specified conditions A^ does

in fact affect B_ in the predicted ways. The names given to variable A

include "antecedent variable," "independent variable," and "treatment

variable." Variable _B has been called the "effect", the "outcome", or a "dependent variable."

A typical research design for establishing the effect of variable A on variable _B is the design in which variable A is applied to one grouping of who

or what is being studied, such as people or housing, but not to another. The

treated group is called an "experimental group." The untreated group is called

a "control group." Having a control group allows the investigator to determine

whether variable A caused an effect on variable _B

, and if there has been an effect, its direction and magnitude.

Project Feedback, in its survey of occupant satisfaction and acceptance,

studied two types of housing: industrialized housing and conventional housing.

These two types were compared to determine the effects of industrialired con- struction (the A or independent variable) on occupants' satisfaction yith and

acceptance of their housing (the _B or dependent variable). The groups with

industrialized housing represented the presence of variable A. The untreated

or control groups were comprised of conventional housing.

The principles of research designs for laboratory experiments have been

increasingly applied to settings in which the conditions necessary for a laboratory-like experiment (often called a true experiment) are not met. The

study of OBT housing presented just such a setting. Unlike the laboratory

experiment in which variable _A is the only difference between experimental

and control groups, in Project Feedback differences in industrialized con- struction processes were not the only distinction between industrialized and

conventional housing. There were additional distinctions between the two

housing groups. These additional distinctions, in principle, can have effects

that are incorrectly attributed to industrialized construction processes, the

A variable under study. Consequently, investigators must consider how these

additional distinctions may affect the result and, in turn, what the proper

interpretation of the results is. In other words, does the A variable explain

the results, or do the other differences?

Housing evaluation studies, in general, do not allow the researcher to control

all of the differences between the groups that are being compared. This' is

because the methods often used for research in natural (nonlaboratory, uncontrived, intact) settings—such as field studies and surveys —do not offer the

investigator full control over who or what is being observed. One approach to

6
dealing with problems arising from field research methods, such as surveys, is

to improve the study's research design. This approach requires adapting

research design principles used for laboratory experiments to nonlaboratory

settings [Cook & Campbell, 1976].

To this end, in Project Feedback, differences which could affect the results were controlled by systematically matching OBT and conventional housing, their

occupants, and their sites. Physical, economic, and social factors were used

as matching variables. Eight pairs of experimental-control (OBT-conventional)

housing groups were created, each of which was relatively homogeneous on the

matching variables. Because the matching variables had to reflect the OBT

housing, occupants, and sites, the eight pairs collectively were heterogeneous

on the matching variables. For example, different matched pairs were either

predominantly elderly /retired persons, families with working heads of households, students in professional school, or inner-city residents. Some pairs

occupied townhouse units; others occupied garden apartments (multifamily low

rise units) or apartments in high rise housing.

The major reason for selecting this research design was to test or isolate

the effect of the industrialized construction, as represented by OBT, on attitudes toward the resulting housing. There were two other reasons. First,

this research design allowed the investigators, in principle, to separate the

effects on occupants' opinions of OBT features that were unique to it from OBT

features shared with conventional housing. Second, conventional housing provided a familiar frame of reference against which to judge prototype, industrialized housing.

It is important to note that compared with other post-occupancy housing

evaluations, the instruments, techniques, and methods of Project Feedback are

typical. The research design is not, but it should be. NBS investigators

hope that the professional researcher will build upon Project Feedback's

improved research design. Using sophisticated research designs can increase

the researcher's understanding of events and of phenomena.

SUGGESTED READINGS

Project Feedback

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Feedback, volume 1: design

and development of housing systems for Operation Breakthrough (HUD-RT-28).

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Provides a full

description of the objectives, organization, and history of Operation Breakthrough, along with detailed descriptions of the housing systems, their

construction methods, and materials.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Feedback, volume 2; a compendium of building concepts (HUD-PDR-28-1 ) . Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1974. Describes housing system innovations.

7
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Feedback , volume 4; phase

II prototype construction and development (HUD-PDR-118). Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. Describes the nine OBT sites and how

the Department of Housing and Urban Development selected them for their

housing demonstration project.

Research Instruments and Techniques

The following references provide additional examples of research instruments

and techniques.

Michelson, W. M. (Ed.). Behavioral research methods in environmental design. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975. This book is relatively

technical.

Zeisel, J. Inquiry by design: tools for environment-behavior research . Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1981. This book is accessible to the

informed nonprofessional.

Research Methods

The following references are listed in order of increasing difficulty for the

nonprofessional. These books all provide detailed descriptions of social

science research methods.

Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. S., & Cook, S. W. Research methods in social

relations (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1959.

Festinger, L., & Katz, D. (Eds.). Research methods in the behavioral sciences . New York: Dryden Press, 1953.

Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (Rev.

ed.) Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley , 1968.

Research Designs

The following books provide clear introductions to the difficult topic of

research designs for the laboratory experiment.

Cox, D. R. Planning of experiments . New York: Wiley, 1958.

Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

8
CHAPTER 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES

/

Purpose 10

What is a Survey? 10

Advantages and Limitations of Surveys 11

Advantages and Appropriate Uses of Surveys 11 Limitations of Surveys 12

The Components of a Survey 13

Planning 15

Drafting and Analyzing Objectives 16

Identifying Criteria for the Assessment of Survey Results 16

Budgetary Decisions 17

Protecting the Privacy of Respondents 17

Questionnaire-based Data Collection 18

The Questionnaire 19

Questionnaire Preparation 19

Pretesting 21

Interviewing 21

Data Collection 22

Sampling 23

Preliminary Sampling Plan 24

Survey Design and Sample Design 25

Choosing a Respondent from a Household 26

Data Reduction 26

Editing 26

Coding and Code Preparation 27

Data Entry 28

Data Processing and Its Planning 28

Planning 28

Statistical Analysis 30

Data Interpretation and Report Preparation 30

Suggested Readings 31

9
CHAPTER 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES

PURPOSE

This chapter introduces the survey as a method and the questionnaire as an instrument. It also explains terms and ideas that are used and illustrated in

later chapters, but it is not a "how-to" manual for doing surveys or developing

questionnaires. In fact, an apprenticeship is the best way to learn those

skills. If an apprenticeship is impractical, the beginner should seek experienced counsel. The graduate faculty of a local university's sociology or political science department should be able to provide a referral. Thus, the

limited goal of this chapter is to aid beginners in planning a survey or a questionnaire and to prepare them to discuss their ideas with experts.

WHAT IS A SURVEY?

Survey research is a familiar part of American life. Political polls, public

opinion polls, Government surveys (such as the decennial census), and commercial surveys are common examples. They are common because the survey is being

used by many Government agencies and businesses that are becoming increasingly

information-based in their decisions [Ware & Parsons, 1976]. Surveys are effective because individuals are likely to accept the opportunity to state

their opinions, ideas, and aspirations, particularly if they feel that effective action or improved decisions will result [Weiss & Hatry, 1971], Thus,

survey results can be used to form or to evaluate policies and decisions.

Surveys take various forms. It is easier to describe the components of a survey than to develop a good definition because a definition broad enough to

include all of the variations of this "infinitely flexible" method would be

too general to be of value [Sheatsley, 1974],

To describe surveys, this chapter focuses on the social survey because the

major Project Feedback studies are based on social surveys. A social survey

involves the systematic and standardized collection of information using

instruments such as questionnaires and techniques such as face-to-face interviews. Social survey techniques involve direct contact between the researcher

and the individuals being interviewed, who are called respondents or interviewees. Typically, those selected to be interviewed form an aggregation

called a sample. The sample is a representative group drawn from a much larger

group in whom researchers are interested. The larger group is called a population [Marans, 1975; Sheatsley, 1974]. Although this chapter emphasizes the

social survey, as illustrated in chapters 4 and 6, it also includes material

relevant to the other Project Feedback studies reported in chapters 7 and 8.

Social surveys have four basic characteristics [Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch,

& Cook, 1959]

:

1. The surveys presuppose initial knowledge of the problem under study (e.g.

,

about housing, about attitudes, and about their relationships).

10
2. The researchers must clearly define what they plan to study and measure

and must find technically adequate means in the form of instruments and

techniques for making these measurements.

3. The researchers must be able to specify who is measured (the group under

study). This introduces sampling: rules for choosing a small group,

called a probability sample, from a larger population so that results for

the sample can be generalized to the population, within chosen statistical

limits.

4. There must be careful planning in order to get complete, accurate

information from the sample (the "who") about the topics under study

(the "what"). Because surveys generally involve a lot of work, planning

involves a careful balancing of technical requirements and available

resources.

The face-to-face interview using a questionnaire is not a necessary feature of

surveys although it clearly is a common one. For example, questionnaires may

be mailed or handed to respondents and then self-administered (see chapter 7), or techniques such as direct observation, physical measurement, or analysis of

existing records may be employed. All of these techniques have been employed

in housing studies.

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF SURVEYS

Not all inquiries are suited to questionnaire-based surveys. Even if an inquiry is suitable, there may be reasons for rejecting the survey as the

research method. What, then, are the appropriate uses and advantages of

surveys, and what are the limitations and disadvantages of questionnairebased surveys? The following answer draws on Davis (1975) and Marans (1975).

Advantages and Appropriate Uses of Surveys

1. Surveys can be used for

a. Description—the U.S. decennial census describes selected

characteristics of the U.S. population;

b. Prediction—for example, of sales or voting behavior;

c. Estimation—for example. Hall and Slovic (1976) tell how to

estimate the incidence of lead paint in housing; and

d. Tests of differences between groups and the measurement

of associations among variables (see chapters 3 and 4,

respectively)

.

2. Surveys and questionnaires are excellent for complex systems: systems

characterized by large numbers of interrelated factors. The residential

11
environment is a complex system in which such factors as the site, management, neighbors, and housing affect occupants’ impressions of their

dwellings.

3. A questionnaire-based survey can provide information about who, how, when,

where, and why as long as the topics are concrete, are salient to the

respondent, and do not require the respondent to have an unusual amount of

information or skill to answer the questions. Moreover, the information

provided by housing surveys about features of the residential environment

that can be changed can be used to guide actual changes of these features.

4. Surveys are ideal for measuring opinions on a given topic at different

points in time.

5. In a survey the selection of a sample should be based on an explicit,

systematic procedure. Furthermore, all selected respondents must have

their full say. That is, the interviewer must ask each respondent all

the questions intended for him or her. It is important that comparable

respondents’ answers must receive equal weight in the statistical analysis

of results. Finally, if there are doubts about the results, researchers

can repeat the study to check the results.

Limitations of Surveys

The survey, like any research method, has its limits. The researcher should

recognize these limits.

1. Surveys are of limited use in directly observing, measuring or analyzing

events or phenomena as they are happening.

2. Surveys become less useful when the questions become too complex for the

respondent or if answers require high degrees of precision. That is, to

the extent that the investigator taxes the memory or observational skills

of respondents, the information obtained becomes less credible.

3. Surveys are not useful if there is a strong probability that attitudes or expectations toward a particular issue are not fully formed by the

respondent

.

4. Surveys are of limited use for obtaining information about behaviors that

involve a sequence of finite activities (e.g., the activities of a housewife as she prepares a meal). They also have limited use in studying

events that operate outside of people's awareness, or that are not usually

put into words.

5. Surveys may be of limited use when studying illegal or illegitimate

activities (such as personal acts of vandalism), in part, because of

respondents' concerns about confidentiality and about the personal

impression created by their answers.

12
6. Surveys are not useful if the researcher cannot specify or locate

respondents. For example, the researcher may be unable to locate for

reinterviewing a family that has moved and left no forwarding address.

7. Surveys are expensive. Sometimes they are too expensive because (a) the

problem under investigation was not sufficiently narrowed; (b) the questionnaire was not limited to the smallest number of really important

items; (c) the sample was too large, given the intended use of the

results [Davis, 1975, p. 41]; or (d) the researcher did not select the

least expensive survey type from among adequate types of surveys.

8. Researchers should not use the interview if information can be obtained

less expensively and as accurately elsewhere. This rule is especially

applicable to factual information and to information that should not vary

within a group under study (e.g., information about actual amenities and

services available at a specific housing development).

THE COMPONENTS OF A SURVEY

There are many descriptions of the components of the social survey. These

components are also called stages, tasks, or activities. On close analysis,

these descriptions are variations on a theme. The variant chosen for this case study is shown in figure 1. Because it is a detailed classification, the

components have been grouped to aid the reader. Furthermore, figure 1 is only an approximation. It makes components appear discrete that merge and overlap

in practice; it imposes a fixed order on tasks when, in fact, the order can

vary; it depicts tasks as only moving forward when, at times, some "earlier"

and "later" tasks influence each other. The theme then of which figure 1 is a variation is that a social survey requires the researcher to perform each task

in figure 1, in one way or another. Other kinds of surveys, using other

techniques and instruments, could require a modification of figure 1.

This chapter draws on personal experience and published sources. ^ Topics that

readers with survey research experience need to know are emphasized. Additional sources of information are described in the section on suggested

readings.

For each major component, basic features and constituent tasks are introduced.

The principal constituent tasks are discussed. Advice and warnings are

included. Bracketed numbers refer to major components and constituent tasks

in figure 1.

Cornog (1981), Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook (1959), and the U.S.

Bureau of the Census (1965) were more influential and helpful than is

indicated by their frequency of citation in the text.

13
14

Figure

1.

The

components

of

a

survey.
PLANNING

The first stage of a survey is overall planning [1]. This lays the groundwork

for all subsequent tasks. The two principal constituent tasks of stage one

are original planning [1.1], which is largely conceptual, and preliminary

operational plans [1.2], which translate the original plans into tasks that

will get the work done. The importance of this stage must not be

underestimated. It must be done thoroughly and carefully.

As part of the original planning the researcher will have to complete the

following tasks:

1. Draft and analyze objectives;

2. Determine what information has to be collected. The researcher should

review available information to determine whether it would meet the

objectives of the survey. If it does, the survey is unnecessary.

3. Set the scope of the survey, which includes specifying what can be done

with the given resources and estimating the size of the sample needed for

reliable statistical results, given the intended use of the results.

4. Decide upon the research technique (see pp. 21-22 on types of interviewing) and the survey design (see p. 25).

5. Consider and obtain criteria against which to assess the plausibility

of the survey results.

6. Establish a timetable for later tasks.

7. Make initial decisions about budgetary matters, including the allocations

for various survey functions (e.g., pay scales, travel allowances).

Original planning begins to be transformed into action through the formulation

of the preliminary operational plans . As part of operational planning the

researcher will have to complete the following tasks:

1. Select the survey director and staff (assistants, clerical help,

processing staff).

2. Obtain adequate office space, storage space, and equipment.

3. Arrange for the materials and personnel needed for the field work [2.1-

2.8], for sampling [3. 1-3. 4], for handling returning data [4. 1-4. 7], and

for administering, supervising, and coordinating all of the tasks. To

assign jobs, the project head should match task requirements with the

staff members' skills. Sharing instructions helps encourage teamwork

and helps workers understand and correctly perform their tasks. This is

vital for unless each task is correctly performed, the survey will fail.

15
Several of the elements of original planning have been selected for additional

comment because they are important or because they may be unfamiliar to many

beginners.

Drafting and Analyzing Objectives

Planning begins with the question that brought about the survey and that the

survey intends to answer. This question is called the objective of the survey. Sound research requires full understanding and precise formulation of

the objective. Therefore, it is necessary to refine the objective by systematically reducing it to specific, testable concepts and their relations.

The analysis of a primary objective, such as how occupants feel about their

housing, can lead to secondary objectives (e.g., Have attitudes toward housing

changed over time? Do attitudes toward management or toward the site affect

attitudes toward housing?). Furthermore, objectives must be translated into

concepts. The researcher must consider the nature of these concepts (e.g., Is

management responsible for setting and enforcing rules? For maintenance and

repair? For providing services?). He or she must also consider the relationships among concepts. For example, the concept of "physical security," which

affects how people feel about their housing, relates obvious security factors,

such as physical security systems and presence of police patrols or guards, to

other security factors that have additional nonsecurity-related implications.

The other factors include lighting on site and near buildings (safety implications), landscaping (aesthetic and recreational implications), orientation and

location of buildings (implications for noise and climatic conditions in buildings), rules for screening occupants (implications for maintenance of the site

and buildings), and the nature of the community around the development (implications for access to community services and transportation). Thus, a complete

statement and analysis of objectives should generate a range of specific

topics, not merely a single question to study. In short, it should specify

all of the information the researchers need to obtain.

Identifying Criteria for the Assessment of Survey Results

The concern here is with information, developed as part of the survey or available from other sources, that can help establish the plausibility of the

results. For example, there may be objective measures (e.g., written records,

physical measurements) against which the researchers can compare occupants'

attitudes and statements. This example is discussed, as validation, on p. 23

and in a thorough, excellent but technical article by Campbell and Fiske

(1959).

In addition, there may be comparable research with which the researcher can compare all or part of the results. To the extent that different measures

and different studies agree, the researcher's confidence in his or her results

will increase.

16
Budgetary Decisions

Social surveys are expensive. The cost can be over $100,000 for a high quality

social survey covering all the components in figure 1 and involving 1,500 adult

Americans (which is the size of a National sample) in 1-hour, face-to-face

interviews. And the cost is rising.

The price depends, for example, on which research technique is employed.

Weiss and Hatry (1971) have made cost comparisons of three research techniques

applicable to questionnaire-based surveys: personal (face-to-face) interviews,

telephone interviews, and mail surveys requiring self-administration of questionnaires by respondents (see p. 22). Personal interviewing tends to be the

most expensive technique and mail surveys the least expensive. The price of

quality-—of knowing what to do and of doing it properly—is hard to estimate.

But the value of quality is clear. According to James A. Davis, Director of

the National Opinion Research Center, a major American survey research organization, "If you are going to buy a survey, buy a good one since a lousy one will still be expensive" [Davis, 1975, p. 44], And it could be of little real

value, he might have added.

Because surveys are expensive, researchers must balance financial resources against tasks requiring great effort and stringent controls to ensure precise,

unbiased results. This is why planning is so important. For example,

researchers must decide how much precision is really needed in the results

(see p. 25). Davis (1975) offers an example in which a niggling increase in

statistical precision, obtained by doubling the number of respondents from 500

to 1,000, could unnecessarily increase costs by $10,000. Unless one can justify the added statistical precision, it is not worth the price.

Conversely, Davis (1975) and others feel that too little money (hence time and

effort) has gone into questionnaire development. The result can be research

instruments that are not fully ready for use (see p. 21 on pretesting). In

short, money must be allocated so that the value of the results is greater

than the cost of the study.

Protecting the Privacy of Respondents

Social surveys can threaten the privacy of respondents. Therefore protecting

their privacy must be an integral part of the survey planning. Individuals

who are asked to state their frank opinions open themselves to threats such as embarrassment and retaliation. The threats are even greater if the questionnaire includes inquiries on sensitive topics such as questionable, illegal,

or intimate activities. For these reasons researchers are obligated to protect

their respondents' personal privacy at each stage of the survey. The problems

of protecting personal privacy in surveys and other types of social research,

and recommendations for their solution, are discussed by Kelman (1977). The

following suggestions are drawn from that source.

1. During the construction of the questionnaire [2.1, 2.6], researchers

should carefully consider whether sensitive information is essential to

the study. If not, they should exclude sensitive items. Investigators

17
should also consider the need for less sensitive personal information,

such as income, education, and age. Items requesting such information

are common in housing questionnaires .

2. When first establishing contact with potential respondents [2.8],

interviewers should tell the respondents the purpose of the survey and

who is sponsoring and conducting it. In addition, interviewers should

identify themselves. A letter of introduction from the sponsor may be

helpful. As important, the respondents should be provided with complete

and truthful information about how their answers will be used, who will

have access to them, and in what form and under what circumstances answers will be available (see point 4). This information allows people to determine the personal risks the survey poses and, therefore, whether or not

to participate. This procedure is called informed consent.

3. During the interview [2.8], respondents should feel free to refuse to

answer any question that goes beyond what they are willing to share with

the interviewer. The interviewer can note this refusal. In short, a willingness to participate is not an agreement to answer all questions

during an interview.

4. If access to the completed questionnaire, during data reduction and

processing [4] or subsequent storage, would threaten the privacy of the

respondent, then it may be necessary to remove personally identifying

information from the questionnaires and to use code numbers instead to

identify them. As important, information that could identify specific

respondents and link them to their answers should not appear in reports

[5] or during presentations of the results unless the respondents have

knowingly and fully agreed to this.

QUESTIONNAIRE-BASED DATA COLLECTION

Based on initial planning [1 in figure 1], decisions about "who" are translated

into actual respondents through a sampling plan [3]. Decisions about "what" are translated into questionnaire items [2.1], The data collection phase [2]

brings together the questionnaire and the respondent in order to collect

information addressing the survey’s objectives.

The cluster of tasks designated [2.1] through [2.8] focuses on questionnaire

development and use. Collectively, the purpose of these tasks is to obtain

sound answers to the guiding questions (objectives) by asking the correct

questions and minimizing biases and errors in the questionnaire and its

administration that could undermine the credibility of respondents’ answers.

o To protect the confidentiality of answers and to make sensitive and

personal items more acceptable to respondents, researchers should use special procedures for stating and asking these questions, and for recording

their answers. For some examples, see Fidler and Kleinknecht (1977) and

"Comments on the Revised Core Questionnaire Items,” question 23, on p. 157.

18
The Questionnaire

The questionnaire, a research instrument, is a form devised for collecting

information from respondents, the sources of information. Questionnaires

create a specialized type of social interaction, one initiated for a specific

purpose and focused on specific topics, with the result that all extraneous

topics are eliminated [Juster, 1975]. There are many kinds of questionnaires

ranging from simple examples such as a ballot, to complex examples such as the

revised Core Questionnaire in chapter 5.

Questionnaire Preparation

To produce a questionnaire, researchers develop an initial draft [2.1],

pretest it [2.3], and based on the pretests, revise it [2.6], At a general

level, a questionnaire must be consistent with (a) the objectives of the

survey, (b) the chosen research technique (e.g., face-to-face interviews,

telephone interviews, respondent self-administration), and (c) the plans for

converting completed questionnaires into statistical summaries. This conversion includes data reduction [4.2] and data processing [4.6], For example,

will respondents choose from among prescribed response alternatives or will

the respondents' own words be recorded as the answer and later coded as part

of data reduction? Will data processing require the use of computers to analyze respondents' answers? If so, is the format of the questionnaire consistent

with the requirements of the selected computer programs for statistical

analysis?

There are three aspects of a questionnaire: the questions, provisions for

answers, and the script.

With regard to the first aspect, some—but not all—questions must be prepared

from scratch. (See p. 32 for a general source of information on questionnaire

preparation.) However, for many questions researchers can rely on wellstandardized approaches, including

1. Items currently used by survey researchers to obtain basic personal data

(e.g., the respondent's age, education, and occupation) or physical characteristics (e.g., health, sensory capacities, disabilities); and

2. Established psychological tests, based on principles of scale construction, that can be used to measure basic traits, attitudes, or aspirations

of respondents. (See pp. 32 and 33 for sources of information.)

Researchers should also consider specific items from other questionnaires if

they precisely meet the study's informational needs. An advantage of using

existing items and tests is that direct comparisons can be made of the results

of different studies using these items and tests.

What provisions can be made for the second aspect of a questionnaire,

respondents' answers? In general, there are three levels of coding complexity

from which to choose. The first level is precoding or fully closed coding of answers. With precoding, the answer is recorded by circling numbers

19
designating particular, preestablished responses. The second level involves

closed coding of an initial response but an open-ended response to a followup

question. An open-ended item requires the interviewer to take down a respondent's reply verbatim. The third level of complexity is the fully open-ended

question. In the Core Questionnaire (pp. 63-111), items 79-84 are examples of

the first level of coding complexity; items 74-78 are all part of a complex

example of the second level; and items 51, 145, and 167 each are examples of

the third level.

The entire point of providing predesignated answers is to make maximally

efficient use of resources and the respondent's time. Thus, if responses can

be anticipated, they should be precoded. When, then, should a researcher

include open-ended questionnaire items? An open-ended item increases the

number of steps between asking the question and statistically analyzing the

answer, consequently increasing both the cost of the research and the possibility of an error. Therefore, researchers should not prepare open-ended items

unless these items are significant and the researchers are uncertain, even after pretesting, what answers it will produce. Numerical codes can be prepared for [4.1] and applied to [4.2] the respondents' verbatim answers later

in the study.

Respondents do not necessarily answer all the questions in a questionnaire.

Obviously a question about school-aged children living at home would not be

answered if the respondent had no school-aged children. It is common to code

inapplicable items as "not applicable" (N/A). If a prior answer indicates that an item is inapplicable, the interviewer should skip it. An item might be

applicable yet a respondent might not be able to answer it. For example, a respondent might not be able to name the manager of his or her apartment com- plex or the amount paid the previous month for fuel. A common code for items

that should be but are not answered is "don't know" (DK).

The third aspect of a questionnaire is the script. The script is all the

written material addressed to the respondent, including questions, instructions, and comments. The script of a questionnaire prepared for personal or telephone interviewing should be followed explicitly throughout the interview.

Its consistent use helps minimize variations from one interviewer to the next,

variations which have been demonstrated to influence the answers of respondents. This bias should be avoided. Survey researchers are still learning to

write good scripts, especially probes [Institute for Social Research, 1977],

A probe is an instruction, inserted in a questionnaire, that tells the interviewers to ask a question such as "Could you tell me more about that?" or "Where was it that you had this problem?" Good probes will get the respondent

to consider every aspect of a question and give a complete answer without at

the same time influencing the answer. In general, it is better to have interviewers follow an awkwardly worded script than to have them depart from the

script without guidance or mutual agreement. However, this script is not

meant to replace conversational conventions and social courtesies, such as personal introductions at the start of interviews, and goodbye's and

thank-you's at the close of interviews.

20
In addition, the script intended for the respondent and the questionnaire

instructions for the interviewer should be complete. This reduces complications, improves the quality of the work, and reduces costs of conducting

studies

.

Pretesting

After an initial draft is prepared, the questionnaire should be carefully

examined by the questionnaire's author, by colleagues familiar with the sur- vey's objectives (including those with a different approach to questionnaire

construction than the author), and by subject matter specialists for topics

in the questionnaire. Based on the comments received, the draft is revised

accordingly. When the draft is satisfactory, it is ready for pretesting

[2.3], Pretesting, which precedes actual data collection, involves trained

interviewers administering the draft questionnaire face-to-face to individuals

similar to the proposed respondents. The purpose is to assess how well the

questionnaire works [Selltiz et al., 1959]. Pretests focus principally on adequacy of items, provisions for answers, the script, and their organization

and flow. Other focuses are ease of administration, interviewer performance,

and suitability of the questionnaire for the type of survey (e.g., for face-toface vs. telephone interviews). Pretesting for suitability of a questionnaire

for telephone use or for self-administration generally follows face-to-face

pretests of items and answers [Selltiz et al., 1959].

Sequential pretesting (pretest-revision-pretest until the desired product is

reached) is the best practice although it is expensive [Davis, 1975]. When a survey's budget and work schedule are limited, both the number of interviews

per pretest and the number of pretest-revision-pretest sequences are often

kept low. This may be the major reason why questionnaire items often are

not "right" (i.e., the researcher does not really know what each and every

item means to the respondents). As a consequence, there can be problems with

interpretations of answers to these items [4.7] [Davis, 1975],

Following the final pretest, the questionnaire is put into final form [2.6].

The final version is carefully reviewed to make sure wording, item orders,

spelling, script, data reduction instructions, and other details are in proper

order. The questionnaire now is ready for printing. Concurrently, instructions for training supervisors and interviewers for data collection are prepared. This instructional material should reinforce the questionnaire's

instructions to the interviewer, fully explain the purpose of the study, and

specify interviewer performance.

Interviewing

Questionnaires are either administered face-to-face or by telephone, or are given to respondents for self-administration. The choice of technique depends

on a number of factors, including the length and complexity of the questionnaire, your resources and personnel, and the size of the sample. The following

guidelines for choosing among techniques (types of surveys) are expanded from

a summary by Cornog (1981).

21
9

1. The face-to-face interview , the most expensive kind, gets the most and

best information, and is especially suitable with complex topics or topics

where the respondent cannot be regarded as an expert. If investigators

are surveying a small community, it is the best technique to use.

2. The telephone interview is the fastest way to collect data and gets

almost as much information as the face-to-face interview, but it is not

well suited for subtle items or precoded items with many response alternatives. ^ Telephone interviews, like face-to-face interviews, tend to have

high response rates (i.e., interviews are completed with respondents in a large proportion of the sample). This type of interview is less costly

than the face-to-face interview. It is suited for small communities and

large metropolitan areas, and is especially suitable if security and con- venience for respondents or interviewers are desirable. Of course, it is

necessary for the proposed respondent to have a telephone.

3. The mail survey with a self-administered questionnaire is the least

expensive approach to data collection. The mail survey is useful when

there are very large numbers of respondents or when respondents are welleducated or are known to be interested in the topic under study. Getting

mail survey questionnaires completed and returned is a major problem. On

the other hand, self-administered questionnaires, by using each respondent

as his/her own interviewer, avoid interviewer effects.

A questionnaire designed for one technique may not be suited for another

technique unless it is modified. For example, interviewer's instructions would

be rewritten as the respondent's instructions for a self-administered questionnaire. If a questionnaire is modified, additional pretesting is in order.

If the size of the sample or the timetable for data collection requires investigators to use more than one interviewer, procedures are needed to avoid

interviewer effects. Interviewer effects are operating when the accuracy or completeness of respondents' answers are influenced by differences in or inadequacies of interviewer performance. Procedures to reduce interviewer effects

take two forms: rigorous training and close supervision of interviewers.

Supervision of early interviews should be especially close so that problems

are caught early and remedial action can be taken (e.g., retraining or firing

the interviewer).

Data Collection

Data collection [2.8] refers to the actual field work with respondents and the

support functions that oversee and monitor the interviewing, including quality

control and verification [2.7]. According to Cornog (1981), the following

items are considerations in data collection for a questionnaire-based social

survey involving face-to-face interviews.

^ This paragraph also draws on Tuchfarber and Klecka

for Social Research (1978).

(1967) and Institute

22
1 Prepare the community by notifying community leaders and the media,

issue identity cards to interviewers, and send introductory letters to

respondents. If face-to-face rather than telephone interviews are planned

but the safety and security of interviewers or respondents is a concern,

inform the police about the survey.

2. Develop guidelines for determining how many interviewers you might need.

Then recruit, hire, and train field supervisors and interviewers. Be

prepared to replace incompetent interviewers.

The main office oversees the field staff. It produces the documents and forms;

keeps the logs and records; assigns work; makes sure schedules are maintained;

and distributes, collects, and controls the flow of forms and questionnaires.

Given the mass of paper (questionnaires, forms, etc.) that surveys create, it

is essential to have careful planning and control over who has what, and who is or should be doing what. This advice applies not only to data collection but

also to data reduction [4.2].

The field supervisor, an important member of the field staff, makes sure that

interviewers' assignments are carried out properly, completely, and on schedule. The supervisor also checks interviewer performance by reviewing (editing)

completed questionnaires, by being present at interviews, and by verifying

interviews. In some cases, field supervisors recruit, hire, and help train

interviewers.

Verification [2.7] refers to checking with respondents to make sure an interview in fact took place, that it was completed, and that the answers given

were the ones that were recorded. To put it bluntly, verification is a check

on interviewer honesty and diligence.

Akin to verification, which checks on the interviewers, is validation, which

checks on the respondent. Validation or validity checks are independent measures used to check on the accuracy of responses. They are best suited for

factual answers capable of independent confirmation. Discrepancies between

respondent's answers and validity check information indicate either that items are too demanding, too technical, or unclear, or that respondents are misrepresenting events or have a poor memory for the events in question. Sources

of independent confirmation include written records (e.g., management or government archives), direct observation (e.g., of site features, amenities,

services), and direct measurement (e.g., of the physical performance of housing

subsystems). It can be argued that unless there is a good reason to ask

respondents for factual information, it might be better to obtain this information using independent measures alone, especially if these independent sources

are sufficiently accurate for the researcher's needs and the cost of the

independent measures is acceptable.

SAMPLING

Who will be the respondents and provide the information? This question must

be answered for each survey. In one situation it may be simplest to administer

a questionnaire to every household in a development. In this situation,

23
sampling is not an issue. In another case, there may be no point in talking to

2,000 people if talking to 500 of them would accomplish the objective. In this

case, the 500 people are a sample from the population of 2,000. Drawing a proper sample is a technical matter. If a survey will involve a simple example

of sampling, practical guides such as Cornog (1981) and Hall and Slovic (1976)

may be sufficient. However, most surveys do not involve the simplest cases. Often highly technical advice is required [e.g., Kish, 1965]. In these cases,

sampling should be left to professionals.

Because sampling is technical, the objective of this section is limited to

introducing some of the concepts that apply to sampling.

Preliminary Sampling Plan

The preliminary sampling plan [3.1 in figure 1] performs the following

functions.

1. It defines the population (the totality of units to which the survey

results apply) [Marans, 1975]. The units can be individuals, households,

dwelling units, buildings, city blocks, and so on.

2. The plan determines whether it is feasible to study the entire population.

If the answer is "no," which is likely unless a population is quite small,

the researchers will have to sample (choose an appropriate fraction from

the population to represent the population). Choosing a representative

sample assumes that an objective of the survey is to make inferences

about the population based on the sample.

3. It also establishes how precisely the results from the sample should

correspond to what would have been obtained from the population. Put

differently, statistical precision refers to how closely a population

value can be estimated, based on results from a probability sample. If

researchers can estimate it closely (e.g., within ± 1 percent), there is

greater statistical precision than if they estimate it less closely (e.g.,

± 10 percent). The level of statistical precision is based on the uses

to which the results will be put and other factors. Marans (1975,

pp. 132-133) discusses and depicts the relationship between precision,

as measured by the sampling error, and sample size.

4. The plan considers the sample designs [3.2] and sample sizes that would

result in the desired level of statistical precision.

5. It establishes how to create an actual list of all the units in the population [3.3]. This is a precondition for selecting particular units from

the population for the sample. There are a number of ways of developing

lists. Cornog (1981) and Hall and Slovic (1976) describe practical

approaches. For example, researchers can work from published directories

or from the Bureau of the Census files. If necessary they may have to

visit the areas to be studied and go from house to house to record apartment numbers if dwelling units or their occupants are to be sampled.

24
6. Finally, the preliminary sampling plan specifies the rules and procedures

for actually selecting the sample of units from the listing [3. A].

Survey Design and Sample Design

The survey design specifies rules and procedures that sampling and data

collection will follow [Marans, 1975], For example, researchers may choose to

interview respondents on one occasion or on different occasions over a period

of time. They may emphasize the study of groups which contrast on a variable

of interest in the research.

After the survey design is determined, researchers must select respondents.

This element of the sampling plan is called the sample design [3.2]. The

sample design includes rules for assigning probabilities (greater than zero)

of being selected as a unit in the sample to all units of the population.

Using these probabilities, researchers can create a probability sample, a sample in which the units are representative of the population from which they

were drawn. The sample design also includes procedures for determining the

statistical precision associated with a particular design and sample size.

Marans (1975) offers examples of survey designs and sample designs. Given a selected sample size, the sample design is applied to the list to give the

actual sample.

There are two determinants of the accuracy of survey results. One determinant,

a basis for statistical precision and a part of the sample design, is the

sampling error. A sampling error is a random error associated with probability

sampling. The other determinant of accuracy, called a nonsampling error, is

independent of sampling. Its effects, unlike those of a sampling error, cannot

be estimated in advance. Nonsampling error results from activities that interfere with, bias or contaminate the research. These include an incomplete or inaccurate listing of the population, inadequacies of performance, errors by

personnel, questionnaire ambiguities, and mechanical errors during data reduction and data processing. The aim of concerns such as proper sampling and

diligent supervision is to reduce sampling and nonsampling errors to levels

that make the survey results sufficiently accurate for those who plan to use them [Weiss & Hatry, 1971],

Sampling must be responsive to practical considerations. It is less expensive

to interview a sample of households rather than a population of households.

If the population is sufficiently small, however, investigators might interview

all the households if excluding households would result in unease among occu- pants that could adversely affect data collection. For certain objectives,

nonprobability sampling—selecting a sample that is not representative of the

larger population—may be acceptable [Marans, 1975], For example, researchers could rely on complaints as a measure of the importance of a housing problem [Canter, 1977], However, only those people who "select themselves" to

lodge a complaint are telling about their housing. Results from a nonprobability sample such as this are not objectionable if they are appropriately

interpreted and reported.

25
Choosing a Respondent from a Household

In a post-occupancy housing study, the dwelling could be the sampling unit.

In this case, the entire household occupying the unit is the target for the

interview. It is possible to interview all household members, but that is

not typical. Rather, interviewers probably will select one household member

who will speak for him/herself and for the other household members. Who should

that household member be?

Traditionally the head of the household was interviewed. Now, however, it is

increasingly common for respondents to designate no one as the head of household. The interviewer can randomly select, by coin tossing, among possible

respondents in such households. Then no distortion in the overall results are expected. Of course, there may be reasons for choosing one class of household

occupants over others as respondents. For example, if the principal topics are children's activities or household furnishability , and there is reason to

believe that the adult female member of the household would know more about

these things, then using adult females as respondents would satisfy the survey

objectives.

DATA REDUCTION

The survey components that convert completed questionnaires into statistical

summaries are data reduction [4.2 in figure 1] and data processing [4.6] and

their supporting tasks [4.1, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5]. Data reduction refers to

operations applied to questionnaires to ensure they are accurate, complete,

and in a form suitable for data processing. The principal operations are editing, coding, and keypunching. Data processing refers to the tabulation

and statistical analysis of data (see p. 28).

Data reduction and data processing are such specialized activities that

researchers should consider hiring an organization dedicated to these activities, especially if they have planned or conducted a large-scale survey. Only

such an organization is likely to have the requisite personnel and equipment to

handle the data.

Editing

Editing, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1966), is based on the

assumption that it is nearly impossible to obtain and record complete, accurate, internally consistent information during an interview. The edit is a procedure for making incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent questionnaire

entries as representative as possible of what the respondent would have said.

The best, most direct editing procedure is to interview the respondent again on the items with unsatisfactory answers. This is also the most expensive procedure. More common and less expensive are indirect approaches in which editors

create programs to correct unsatisfactory questionnaire entries. These programs are based on a thorough understanding of answers and of respondents

[U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1966], Such understanding comes from a study of

the objectives of the editing procedure, the questionnaire, the survey's

26
objectives and concepts, the interviewers’ instructions, and the subject

under consideration. The programs can be rigorous and precise, and can be

applied by hand or computer to incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent entries.

Of course, researchers save time and money, but lose information, if they code

problematic entries as "not answered" rather than attempting to correct them.

Coding and Code Preparation

As an interview proceeds, answers are recorded on the questionnaire. Precoded

items require circling numbers for particular predesignated responses. Openended items require transcribing a respondent's reply, as an excerpt or in

full, on lines provided on the questionnaire. These answers can be left intact

and later read and used, for example, to suggest new hypotheses worth statistical investigation during analysis planning [4.4], These answers may be coded

inspected and grouped into categories which, in turn, may be labeled with

identifying numbers for data processing [4.1], Preparing codes for open-ended

items usually takes place after interviews are completed. Typically, a sample

of completed questionnaires is used to assist in devising suitable categories,

a procedure that allows a survey researcher to flexibly design categories of answers for any questions whose expected distribution of responses was not

known in advance. An excellent example of code development is the classification of occupations. There are so many meaningful possibilities that

during interviewing this information is usually recorded verbatim. These

responses, such as "manager" or "teacher," can be numerically encoded later

using very detailed descriptive systems such as the occupational coding

categories of the Bureau of the Census.^

Generally, if the survey objectives are understood, then the needed questions

and answers, hence the coding categories, should be clear.

The most difficult aspect of codes to explain is the concept of usable

variation. For any phenomenon, such as income or satisfaction with a home,

the interviewer poses a question and the respondent answers. In precoding or coding answers, relatively gross distinctions, such as high versus low income,

or satisfaction versus dissatisfaction with a home, may be perfectly consistent

with survey objectives. However, researchers may feel uncomfortable with simple choices like these. So to deal with their discomfort, they opt for more response alternatives. True, it may be just as easy to obtain more exacting

answers as it is to obtain simple choices from respondents. Unfortunately,

distinctions made by respondents can be as numerous as the number of individual

respondents. There usually will be little practical value in processing, or even coding, all possible distinctions. Fruitful data processing and data

interpretation are likely to fail at this point because there would not be

enough data to permit exploring very many distinctions. If there are too many

These coding categories, supplemented by an occupational prestige code, are explained and referenced in National Data Program for the Social

Sciences , prepared by National Opinion Research Center (1972).

27
distinctions for the number of respondents, the number of distinctions can be

reduced by combining them into a small number of coding categories. This

increases the usable variation.

Another way to reduce distinctions and items is to recode. Recoding means combining answers to a number of different questions into a single item, called

a recode, and assigning identifying code numbers to the recoded answers. In

principle, investigators could combine different questions on maintenance and

repair problems or different measures of satisfaction with features of the

residential environment. The resulting recodes can reduce the number of items

to be statistically processed [4.6] and reduce costs. A meaningful, informative recode will also aid data interpretation [4.7].

Data Entry

There are many ways to get questionnaire data ready for computer data processing. These include keypunching, which is the transcription (punching) of data on 80-column cards; key-to-disk systems, which use computer-assisted visual

display terminals to guide, key-in, check, correct, and then transfer data to

a storage disk; and optical character recognition systems, which directly read

and enter data onto a storage disk. Key-to-disk entry has replaced keypunching

in popularity. Regardless of approach, researchers must learn in advance the

special requirements of a system so that questionnaires will be in suitable

form for the data entry process.

DATA PROCESSING AND ITS PLANNING

Planning

Given the survey objectives and the sampling plan, the researchers must plan

their final report [4.3 in figure 1]. What do the researchers want to say

about the data they have collected? What will their final report cover?

What will be emphasized? What evidence will be needed to make a point and

how should this evidence be presented? While all of the above are aspects of

planning the final report, the presentation of evidence is especially important. For example, evidence should include comparisons of answers of different

respondent groups in the sample. This valuable information, common in survey

data processing, would be lost if researchers relied on the collective opinion

of their entire sample. Collective opinions can be misleading if they distort

or disguise the contribution of the different respondent groups that make up

the sample.

Another aspect of planning the final report is the initial construction of

tables that will appear in the final report. Researchers should describe what

each table will include, create shells or mockups of the tables, and prepare

headings for the tables. Thus, the researchers will have all of the table

28
except the statistical output at this point. Having these tables fully produced by computer can save the time and expense of typing, proofreading, and

when errors are found, retyping tables.

All of these considerations will focus the statistical analysis on what is most

useful in the study. For example, because the typical housing questionnaire

provides the raw material for hundreds of analyses of items and topics, budgetary constraints usually limit data processing to the information required in

the final report.

Data processing [4.6] refers to the tabulation and statistical analysis of

data. Data processing requires analysis planning [4.4], which means deciding

on the proper statistical procedures, given the sampling design, for measuring,

weighting, and testing the data.

After the report outline and analysis plans are established, two questions

remain: (1) What is required to transform the plans for the final report into

statistical output? and (2) What steps and procedures are required to do this

efficiently? Tabulation specification [4.5] answers these questions. It takes

into account the available equipment for statistical analysis and the available

budget. The tabulation specification should generate the tables you have specified. This should include the shells, headings, and statistical output.

The use of the computer for data processing is strongly recommended. In all

but the smallest survey, it is much cheaper and much more powerful, reliable,

and manageable to use electronic data processing equipment than to do statistical analyses by hand. Because survey data have rather peculiar data processing

requirements (e.g., large numbers of variables for each case and lack of routine, standardized report formats), researchers should use existing specialpurpose software such as the SPSS/Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

[Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975],

Any special requirements of the computer programs for statistical analysis

should be incorporated in the questionnaire and in the instructions for data

reduction, including data entry. An example of a special requirement is

whether the software distinguishes between a zero and a blank (e.g., SPSS does

not). A zero is an answer; "none" could be coded zero. A blank means no answer was given. For example, a renter could have been instructed to skip a question that applied only to homeowners.

Another special requirement is whether the software accepts alphabetic codes

and, if it does, whether it requires special symbols to designate alphabetic

information. SPSS accepts alphabetic codes but only if specific symbols are used (see p. 116).

In planning the analyses, researchers should bear in mind that survey results

rarely provide final and complete answers to the questions that directed the

survey [1.1]. However, the results can substantially refine the thinking of

the intended readers and provide them with information about the principal

priorities and concerns of the population studied.

29
Statistical Analysis

Surveys generally rest on statistical summaries of relationships among items,

and differences among responses of different groups of respondents to these

items. The means to this end is data processing [4.6], computational procedures for determining statistical values. Several classes of procedures are part of survey data processing.

1. Tabulation refers to counting the number of cases within coding categories of variables. Tabulations for single variables are often called

marginals. Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 in chapter 4 illustrate two-way tabulations (i.e., variables taken two at a time). These are also called

cross-tabulations, as are variables taken three, four ... at a time.

2. Descriptive statistics are used for describing what is . For example,

there are descriptive statistics for describing (a) what is typical in a group, (b) how widely individuals in a group vary, (c) how individuals are distributed on a variable, (d) what the relationships are between one variable and others, and (e) what differences exist among groups on one or more variables.

3. Inferential statistics commonly are used to make generalizations from the

sample to the population. Inferential statistics rest on probability

theories of event likelihood. In part, the generalizations (inferences)

are determined by specific conditions, such as having drawn a probability

sampling, and decisions over which the researchers have a say. When

researchers specify statistical precision, they have decided their tolerable limits for making certain estimates. Inferential statistics tend

to be a basic feature of survey data processing.

Clearly, a very broad range of data processing procedures may be used with

survey data. Although survey reports commonly are filled with percentages and

other census-like tabulations, these are not very meaningful in themselves.

Therefore, tabulations are supplemented with or replaced by the use of the

other classes of statistical analysis procedures. Although many statistical

techniques have proven their usefulness in survey data analysis, there is no standard approach. Good data processing tends to involve the joint use of

different statistical procedures in order to confirm results. For any large

survey, those responsible for the planning, processing, analyzing, and

reporting of survey data should be expert in the statistical analysis of survey

data.

DATA INTERPRETATION AND REPORT PREPARATION

What does the statistical output mean? How can this statistical material be

translated into words that are useful and meaningful to the intended readers?

Answering the first question is part of data interpretation [4.7 in figure 1];

the main thrust of report preparation [5.1] is to provide the answer to the

second question.

30
Data interpretation focuses on interpreting and integrating statistical output.

Data interpretation should include reading completed questionnaires from beginning to end. This gives the interpreter/writer the opportunity to obtain for

each questionnaire a comprehensive picture of a single case. Moreover,

respondents' comments can illustrate and clarify concepts, illuminate complex

relationships, and suggest ideas that are not apparent in tables. The inclusion of respondents' comments in the final report can enliven the text, clarify

difficult material, and as a consequence make the report more accessible to its

nontechnical readers as well as more entertaining.

Writing a technical report requires writers who can present ideas with great

skill to technical and to nontechnical audiences. Such writers have wellorganized ideas and make points skillfully, clearly, logically, precisely, and

sensibly. The greatest obstacle a report writer faces is the too frequent

"crash program" approach to survey research, with its tight schedules and

budgets that leave too little time for reflection and for revision of the

text. The crash program approach has been singled out by Davis (1975) as a major factor contributing to the technical problems of contemporary survey

research.

Since the final report is the sponsor's (i.e., client's) record of a project,

the sponsor should read previous reports by the candidates for this job before

hiring or accepting an assigned writer. Curiously, this is one decision with

which clients seldom involve themselves (Davis, 1975).

SUGGESTED READINGS

Survey Research—General Guides

Cornog, J. R. Development and administration of the community survey. In

L. Llewellyn, C. Goodman, & G. Hare (Eds.), Social impact assessment: a source for highway planning (Vol. 4). Washington, D.C. : Federal Highway

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1981. A readable,

practical volume on survey research.

Ferber, R. (Ed.). Handbook of marketing research . New York: McGraw-Hill,

1974. Contains numerous chapters on survey research.

Population Council. A manual for surveys of fertility and family planning:

knowledge, attitudes, and practice . New York: The Population Council, 1970.

Considered by some to be among the better single-volume guides to survey

research.

Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M. , Deutsch, M. , & Cook, S. W. Research methods in

social relations (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1959.

Several chapter give sound, readable, practical advice on survey research.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Atlantida: a case study in household sample

surveys (14 vols.) (Series ISPO-1). Washington, D.C. : Bureau of the Census,

1965. A 14-volume series giving a comprehensive technical introduction to

household sample survey programs.

31
Survey Research—Its Value

Davis, J. Are surveys any good, and if so, for what? In H. W. Sinaiko & L. A. Broedling (Eds.), Perspectives on attitude assessment: surveys and

their alternatives . Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1975.

Addresses the question of whether to do a survey. Presents practical advice.

Juster, F. T. Validity procedures at the Survey Research Center . In

M. J. Schlinger (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 2). Chicago:

The Association for Consumer Research, 1975. Advocates properly conducted

survey research.

Wheeler, M. Political polling: the German Shepherd factor. The Washington

Monthly , April 1976, 42-50. Exposes the weaknesses of survey researqh as now practiced.

Survey Research—Housing

Hall, W. G., & Slovic, L. T. Survey manual for estimating the incidence of

lead paint in housing (NBS Technical Note 921). Washington, D.C.: National

Bureau of Standards, 1976. (Available from U.S. Government Printing Office,

No. SN003-003-01660-8. ) An example of a detailed, practical guide to a particular type of housing study, one whose objective is to estimate the

incidence of lead paint in housing.

Questionnaire Preparation—General

Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement . New York:

Basic Books, 1966. Discusses writing questionnaire items and measuring

opinions. Provides principles of scale construction that can be used to

measure basic traits, attitudes, or aspirations of respondents.

Questionnaire Preparation—Basic Personal Data

The following sources describe well-standardized approaches to obtaining

information on such topics as the respondent's age, education, and occupation.

National Opinion Research Center. National data program for the social

sciences: codebook for the spring 1972 general social survey . Chicago:

National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, July 1972.

Richard, R. Subjective social indicators . Chicago: National Opinion Research

Center, University of Chicago, 1969 . (Available from National Technical

Information Service, No. PB 187 944).

U.S. Office of Management and the Budget. Household survey manual 1969 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

32
Questionnaire Preparation—Physical Characteristics of Respondents

National Center for Health Statistics. Health survey procedures: concepts,

questionnaire development, and definitions in the Health Interview Survey

(Public Health Service Publication No. 100, Series 1, No. 2). Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. Provides well-standardized

approaches to getting information on such topics as health, sensory

capacities, and disabilities.

Questionnaire Preparation—Established Tests

The following sources present established psychological and sociological tests.

Bonjean, C. J., Hill, R. J., & McLemore, S. D. Sociological measurement: an inventory of scales and indices . San Francisco: Chandler, 1967.

Shaw, M. E. & Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement of attitudes . New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Survey Techniques

Dillman, D. A. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method . New

York: Wiley-Interscience, 1978. A detailed single-volume work specifically

on mail and telephone surveys.

Weiss, C. H., & Hatry, H. P. An introduction to sample surveys for government

managers . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1971. An excellent

introduction to surveys that includes a comparison of the costs of three survey techniques. The reader must convert 1971 dollars into current dollars.

Tuchfarber, A. J., & Klecka, W. R. Random digit dialing: lowering the cost of

victimization surveys . Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1976. Assesses

the advantages and disadvantages of surveys employing personal and telephone

interviewing. Also discusses random dialing as an approach to sample design

for telephone-based surveys.

Interviewing

Cannell, C. F., Oskenberg, L., & Converse, J. Experiments in interviewing

techniques: field experiments in health reporting 1971-1977 . Ann Arbor,

Mich.: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1980.

Describes how to minimize interviewer differences and inadequacies, and

how to maximize respondent involvement in the interview.

Converse, J. M. & Schuman, H. Conversations at random: survey research as interviewers see it . New York: Wiley, 1974. Discusses survey research

interviewing from the perspective of both new and experienced interviewers.

National Opinion Research Center. A brush-up on interviewing techniques . Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, 1969.

A worthwhile manual.

33
Survey Research Center. Interviewer’s manual (Rev. ed.). Ann Arbor, Mich.:

Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1976. Another

worthwhile manual.

Sampling

Kish, L. Survey sampling . New York: Wiley, 1965. An outstanding, though

highly technical, work.

Survey Analysis

Kendall, P. Problems of survey analysis. In R. K. Merton & P. Lazarsfeld

(Eds.), Continuities in social research: studies in the scope and methods

of "The American Soldier ." New York: Free Press, 1954. Provides a basic

exposition of the logic of survey analysis.

Data Reduction and Data Processing

Sonquist, J. A. & Dunkelberg, W. C. Survey and opinion research: procedures

for processing and analysis . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Presents the technical details of data reduction and data processing.

Additional sources are cited in the text of this chapter.

34
CHAPTER 3: A MODEL FOR SELECTING COMPARISON HOUSING GROUPS

Introduction 36

The Selection Model: Concepts 36

Initial Selection Criteria 37

Selection Criteria 38

Split Comparison Groups 40

The Selection Model: Field Procedures 40

Ordering of Tasks 40

Visits to Potential Comparison Group Housing Developments 41

Characteristics of the Potential Comparison Group Housing

Developments 44

Site Management Cooperation 45

The Number of Comparison Groups 47

Success of the Selection Model 48

Suggested Readings 50

35
CHAPTER 3: A MODEL FOR SELECTING COMPARISON HOUSING GROUPS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the use of control groups in research designs of

post-occupancy housing evaluations. Accurate and meaningful interpretations

of research results depend on the use of appropriate research designs. But the

time and energy required to obtain adequate control groups appears to have discouraged their use in research designs of housing evaluations. Clearly, there

is a need to have a strategy for efficiently and effectively selecting control

groups for these evaluations. By addressing that need, this chapter hopes to

encourage and increase the use of research designs with control groups, when

appropriate.

The proposed model for selecting respondents for control groups is in a workable but preliminary form. It was first employed in a Project Feedback

study described in chapter 4. This study is one of the first post-occupancy

housing evaluations to have a research design with independent control groups.

Even in this preliminary form, the proposed model offers a practical and feasible basis for selecting respondents for control groups for housing studies.

Of course, researchers should critically consider its applicability to a specific housing evaluation before using the model.

There is good reason for using research designs that include control groups.

Control groups should help establish the plausibility of researchers' statements about the effect of the treatment variable on the outcome variable. Thus

in Project Feedback the control groups were selected to establish the plausibility of statements concerning the effects of industrialized construction on occupants' acceptance of Operation Breakthrough (OBT) housing. Control groups

consisting of conventional dwellings also increased the chances of disentangling the positive and negative housing features unique to OBT housing from

those shared by OBT and conventional housing.

The decision to use conventional housing as control groups in Project Feedback

raised a number of issues. For example, OBT and conventional housing should

differ on only those features that collectively define OBT housing as industrialized. As discussed in chapter 1, this ideal embodied in the laboratory

experiment is often not reached in studies in natural settings. In such

settings, however, researchers can apply the logic of laboratory experimentation by using quasi-experimental research designs [Campbell, 1969; Caporaso

& Ross, 1973, Cook & Campbell, 1976]. The reasons for using the quasi-experimental research design approach is to minimize the threats to researchers'

interpretations of their results. These threats are raised by differences

between groups associated with factors other than the treatment variable(s).

THE SELECTION MODEL: CONCEPTS

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) decision to include conventional housing

within their research design raised the question: Which OBT housing and con- ventional housing should be compared? This simple question posed two problems.

36
First, m 1972 when NBS conceived the idea for the research design, only one

p ost occupancy, quasi-experimental evaluation was found. This was the notable study by Lansing, Marans, and Zehner (1970). But this study focused on new towns rather than on housing. Second, the matching of conventional and indus- trialized housing could not include all of the factors which could distinguish conventional and OBT housing systems. The factors would have to be limited to a valuable few that were practical and feasible to use. This is another way of saying that the conventional housing groups would not be pure control groups. Rather the conventional housing would be impure control groups [Rossi, 1972

p. JbJ, which are called "comparison groups" (CG's).

The model for the selection of comparison housing was developed in 1973 for ln roject Fee dback. The model was based on three assumptions. First independent control groups of housing could be selected from the population of conventional housing groups by matching these groups with OBT housing. Second, matching could be based on physical, social, and economic variables

in°the field

^h°USing j ud§ments * Th^d, actual selection could be done

These ass^ptions raise certain problems. If the number of important physical social, and economic variables increases, the cost of matching groups greatly

* creases. Furthermore, even if a limited number of variables is used cases Mmp'Tr

Where 3 8

°S time

d matCh Cannot be found in the field without spending much and energy in the search. These problems were the reasons for developing strategy for the efficient and effective selection of control groups.

The selection strategy assumed that three general classes of variables affect occupants assessments of their housing. The first class consists of the

wall

the physical aspects of the dwelling (internal elements), such as ceiling and texture, fixtures, size of unit, and dwelling layout. The second class consists of physical, social, and economic aspects of the site and surround- ing community (external elements), such as local economic and political con- asnects‘of th

^hird class consists of the physical, social, and economic aspects of the region that includes the site and surrounding community (regional elements). Climate, ecology, and housing market preferences are examples of regional elements. e

Fo/ea ItZT

SeleCti°a > a11 three -lass of elements had to be included.

nr .

• ele

"Je nt, researchers would select only those variables that were

p acticai and feasible for field selection procedures and that were likely to uence occupants attitudes about their housing. Thus, a limited number of

cruerl.

8 TM

VarlaWeS USed

^as initial s^ection criteria or as selection criteria.

Initial Selection Criteria

th^e^M f°T consldered as possible CG's were first evaluated using

fx „ It,a selection criteria. These offered gross control over internal, external, and regional elements. To control internal elements, researchers required all comparison housing to be of conventional construction, preferably

37
conventional housing in conformance with the Federal Housing Administration's

Minimum Property Standards (MPS). All the selected CG's met the MPS requirement. There were three reasons for wanting such housing:

1. It ensured a housing construction standard for conventional units that

would eliminate very poor quality housing, some costly conventional

housing, and special types like domes and mobile homes;

2. It took advantage of performance specifications for OBT housing that

required, at a minimum, achieved levels of performance equivalent to

levels implied or intended by the MPS [Wright, 1971];

3. It emphasized the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's)

involvement with the American housing production system since both OBT

and the MPS are HUD enterprises.

To provide gross control over regional and external elements, researchers

decided that the conventional housing had to be located in the cities and

suburbs with OBT developments. In addition, because all OBT developments were planned unit developments (PUD's), researchers gave priority to conventional

housing developments classified by local ordinances as PUD's and having some

of the same features (e.g., amenities and services) as OBT developments. This

helped provide gross control over physical aspects of the housing site, an external element.

This simplified approach was necessary because of the number of potentially

relevant variables involved, the inadequacy of systems for classifying these

variables, and the multiple linkages between any given variable and proposed

attitudinal measures.

Selection Criteria

Each conventional housing group that met the initial criteria was then

compared with its OBT housing development on nine selection criteria. These

criteria, summarized in table 1, include physical, social, and economic variables representing internal and external elements. Onsite amertities are an external/physical variable. Age of dwelling, size of dwelling, and housing

type and mix of types onsite are internal/physical variables. Monthly rental

cost, price range of sold units, and renter/owner status are external/economic

variables. Racial mix and stage in the occupant's life cycle are external/

social variables.

Each selection criterion met the demands of seven rules that had been developed

to assess the adequacy of potential selection criteria (see appendix 1):

1. Each criterion must be known to influence housing judgments.

2. It must be practical and feasible for field use.

JO
Table 1. Summary of criteria and their measures used

for selecting comparison housing groups.*

Class Criterion Measure

Physical/

internal

Age of units Age in years. [Aimed for units less than

6-years old and preferably 2-years old.]

Physical/

internal

Housing types

and mix of

housing types

Determined the number of each type: SFD, SFA,

MFLR (2-3 floors), MFHR (4 or more floors). 3

Physical/

internal

Size of unit Number of bedrooms (BR). [Determined how many

efficiency, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-BR units for each

housing type on site.]

Physical/

external

Onsite

amenities

Economic/

external

Type of

tenancy

Determined which were present: large open

spaces, community building/room, recreational

facilities (see table 3, "amenities" for

examples)

.

Determined whether and how many units were:

rentals, sole ownership, cooperative ownership.

Economic/

external

Price range Determined the range of: monthly housing costs

for rental and cooperative units; present

market price range for sole ownership. Determined which subsidy and supplementation

programs were applicable and to what extent.

Social/

external

Stage in the

occupant '

s

life cycle

Determined the percent or number of households

in which heads/households were elderly (62

years or older), students (undergraduate,

graduate or professional school). Remainder

("other”) were usually families with children

and/or household with a working head.

Social/

external

Racial mix Determined the exact percent or number (when

possible) of white and black households/

occupants.

k

* Adapted from Carson Consultants, 1973, p. 8.

a SFD = single family detached, SFA = single family attached, MFLR = multifamily low rise housing, MFHR = multifamily high rise housing.

b Other minorities were counted but were very few in number
3. It must be easy to measure.

4. It must be based on accurate information.

5. Researchers should select the easier of two equivalent measures of a criterion.

6. Researchers should use criteria with multiple sources of information for

validation.

7. Sources of information about a criterion and ways of reaching these

sources should be obvious and logical.

Nevertheless, unmatched factors will remain after matching. In the comparison

of OBT and CG housing, a number of these unmatched factors were measured so they could be statistically compared (see pp. 48-49). The measured unmatched

factors should not increase bias. Unmeasured unmatched factors that occur randomly also should not increase bias. However, those factors which are unmeasured and which, unknown to the researcher, do not occur randomly do

increase bias. The researcher, therefore, must stay alert to these sources

of potential bias because they can foster plausible alternative explanations

of results.

Split Comparison Groups

Because all OBT developments were PUD’s, the research team sought comparison

housing developments classified by local ordinances as PUD's and which had some

of the site features that characterized OBT developments. If no single PUD

with conventional housing in an OBT city shared all the relevant physical,

social, and economic characteristics with the local OBT development, then

multiple CG's were sought. These groups collectively represented all or most

of the characteristics of the OBT development. Each of these multiple CG’s was called a split comparison group because each CG matched the OBT development only on a subset of the physical, social, and economic variables that

characterized the OBT development. This approach was based on two untested

assumptions. One assumption was that correlations among the selection criteria would be low, an assumption that a more recent study says is likely to

be false [Lawton & Cohen, 1974, p. 204], The other assumption was that categories of a given selection criterion would be uncorrelated with one another

(see p. 44). Compared with the preferred option of using a single, adequate

CG, this approach necessarily trades the opportunity to gain an adequate

match on a number of factors through aggregation against a consequent loss of

precision in matching.

THE SELECTION MODEL: FIELD PROCEDURES

Ordering of Tasks

Field experience indicated that the selection process should consist of two

phases: familiarization with OBT housing and development of a list of potential comparison housing. Familiarization should include first, reviewing HUD

40
and NBS material about OBT and its housing, and second, visiting the OBT development in a target city. The next phase, list development, should include the

following tasks in the order given: (1) visiting the city’s planning department, (2) consulting other supplementary sources of information in the city,

and (3) getting a Sunday paper and a pocket map of the city to locate potential

CG developments. Since consulting sources is necessarily a sequential routine,

the researcher can develop a self-correcting network of informants and information. Moreover, earlier contacts may suggest additional sources of information. These two phases are followed by visits to the potential CG’s.

Table 2 describes the routine and supplementary sources used in each OBT city.

Unlike in Project Feedback, HUD and NBS will not be likely sources of useful

information in most housing evaluations. Instead the architect, site planner,

site developer, and housing producer should be consulted.

The following recommendations for interviewing informants about potential CG’s

are based on the experiences of NBS field workers. Researchers who interview

informants about potential CG’s should ask specific, standardized questions.

Broad questions, such as "Tell me about the new housing developments in the

city," are not recommended. Questions should draw on the selection criteria

and on the initial selection criteria. They should establish whether a close

match is available. If initial answers are negative, which was typically the case in Project Feedback, investigators can systematically relax requirements

for comparison housing until it is possible to obtain affirmative answers. These interviews should produce a list of potential CG's. Priorities for site

visits can be based on frequency of mention of sites and on pertinent comments

by informants.

This approach to information collection does not necessarily produce an exhaustive listing of candidate developments. However, the probability of

excluding an appropriate candidate should be small under the following

conditions:

1. Informants come from widely different backgrounds and are familiar with

the local housing market,

2. Researchers cross-check information, and

3. Explicit variables and criteria guide both the field work and the

interviews.

Visits to Potential Comparison Group Housing Developments

The field workers visited each potential CG housing development once or twice.

During the first visit, the field worker evaluated external elements and selection criteria using a list similar to that in table 3. There was an emphasis

on rough, descriptive measures which could be checked off "yes" or "no." More

precise measures, if required, could be obtained during a second visit. Photographs were taken. Not only did photographs help point out problems that might

41
Table 2. Routine and supplementary sources of information about potential comparison groups.

Routine Sources in Each OBT City

OBT site personnel: Varied in amount of information given. Frequently gave descriptive statistical

information about the OBT development. Sometimes gave brochures and a ride around the development.

City and county planning officials and statisticians: Varied in the recency and completeness of planning

information. Usually provided summaries of housing trends, local census data, and maps. Sometimes gave printed information on recently built apartment complexes and PUD's.

Selected realtors and developers: Can provide specific information about rentals, sales, sizes of units, and

types of housing. Realtors from large firms usually are the most knowledgeable.

Sunday classified housing advertisements: Provide quick, reasonably complete picture of available housing.

Advertisements for new housing describe site location, types of housing, prices, subsidies (if any),

special groups sought, number of units, size of units, and onsite amenities.

Other city and county officials (building inspectors, assessors, housing and community development

personnel).

Local HUD officials.

Site management personnel at potential comparison sites.

Specific housing developments.

Supplementary Sources in Each OBT City

Chambers of Commerce: Typically have advertisements. May have maps, brochures, city growth statistics, and

job opportunities.

Local industrial and research organizations: May have summaries of studies of housing and growth rates.

Published material, brochures, and reports: Major sources are census tract information and block statistics

from the most recent census. 3 This information, including annual updates, may be available from the city planning department.

City and county administrators.

State or city special group personnel (housing administrators for the elderly, student housing officials,

etc. ).

3 Block statistics contain data for individual city blocks on selected housing and demographic items, such as number and type of housing units; house size, age, and value; and racial composition of occupants. This

information enables comparison of blocks within a selected radius of an OBT site. Tract statistics may be

too large for direct use but could be used for comparisons between block and tract statistics.

42
Table 3. Gross site characteristics.*

PUD Characteristics of OBT Sites

Flexible layout /siting

Number of bedrooms by housing type

Single family detached

Single family attached

Multifamily low rise

Multifamily high rise

Cluster housing/open space

Onsite parking

Amenities

Community building or community

room Playing fields

Tot lots and playgrounds

Swimming pool

Other Characteristics

Age of structures

Price range by type of tenancy

Rental

Sales

Cooperative

Types and extent of housing

subsidies

Special provisions for

Elderly

Students

Percent minority (approximate)

Black

Oriental

Chicano

Other

Access (in minutes)

Center city

Shopping

Schools

Surrounding community

Inner city /older surroundings

Settled area with sound housing

Developing area/newer housing

Area of site (acres)

Number of buildings on site

Number of dwelling units

Dwelling units per acre (density)

Census Information

Median family income (city)

Tract number

Median family income

Number of dwelling units

Apartments3

Single family3

Median sales price

Median rental price

Percent black

* Adapted from Carson Consultants, (1973, pp. 13-14).

3 When appropriate, "rented" was substituted for "apartments" and "owned"

for "single family."

43
not otherwise be apparent in statistical or written summaries, but they also

gave members of the research team who had not visited a particular site a feel

for the site.

During site visits information was obtained from direct observation,

discussions with management and site personnel, and brochures and statistical

summaries. This information, supplemented by information from other sources,

provided the basis for evaluating the CG. The evaluation and integration of

the information, and the decision about the adequacy of the match between the

CG and OBT developments, rested on personal judgment rather than on formal

decision models.

During a site visit information was obtained on the variables in table 3 in

the following order: (1) PUD characteristics, amenities onsite, and the match

between the OBT and the potential CG site on these factors, and then (2) the

remaining variables. The order for obtaining information on the remaining

variables was based on the field worker's evaluation of the importance of each

matching variable to the characterization of the city's OBT development. Thus,

in Indianapolis with its heavy concentration of college students at the OBT

development, this social variable was the first of the remaining criteria to

be considered at a potential CG site.

An important guideline in using selection criteria was that a specific

criterion could be relaxed if a potential CG was proving to be a good match.

There were two ways to do this: (1) eliminating one or more levels of a criterion (e.g., eliminating four bedrooms units on the OBT site from matching

because there were none on the potential comparison site) and (2) permitting a mismatch (e.g., accepting a non-PUD site as a split CG).

If the levels of a criterion are regarded as independent, eliminating levels

does not affect the plausibility of an interpretation. But if critical levels

of the site under study are eliminated, this procedure may affect the generality of results. As a result, nonoverlapping distributions on a selection criterion for the potential CG and the OBT housing developments were a reason for

rejecting the potential CG. For example, researchers would reject a potential

CG with efficiency and one-bedroom apartments if the OBT housing had only twoand three-bedroom apartments.

Permitting a mismatch on a selection criterion could also create problems

because all the selection criteria were known to influence housing judgments.

Thus, if two groups were mismatched, the resulting difference between the

groups could provide a basis for different responses by respondents in each

group to questions related to the selection criterion.

Characteristics of the Potential Comparison Group Housing Developments

In the OBT cities, few non-OBT PUD's were comparable to the OBT sites in

variety of housing types, amount of dwelling unit space, site amenities, and

site layouts. Specifically, OBT housing provided a mix of housing types, often

three or four housing types, compared with the typical mix of single family

attached and multifamily low rise housing on non-OBT PUD's. The OBT sites

44
also featured larger units, both in number of bedrooms and in total square

footage; a full range of recreational facilities uncommon in nonluxury PUD's;

and site planning emphasizing housing clusters and extensive open space which

were uncommon in nonluxury PUD's* Some, but not all, OBT PUD's preserved and

enhanced natural features, an even less common practice at non-OBT PUD's.

Those non-OBT PUD's that did have all the characteristics of OBT developments

had prices in the luxury range—-often twice the cost of comparable OBT housing.

Because price is so closely associated with such vital factors as racial mix,

residents' education, income, lifestyle, and site location, this selection

variable could not be relaxed.

An alternative to the luxury conventional housing development was the development with subsidized conventional housing. The term "subsidy" is used generically and includes both subsidies and supplements to occupants from all levels

of government. Often these middle-income developments lacked the range of site

amenities, the variety of housing types, and the dwelling unit space that were typical of OBT developments. In addition, some had serious management problems, including maintenance deficiencies, lack of adequate management funds,

high vacancy rates, or undesirable tenants such as criminals or drug addicts.

Nevertheless, researchers eventually chose three CG's with subsidized housing:

groups 4, 5, and 6 in table 4. The OBT groups with which groups 4, 5 and 6

were being compared also had subsidized households. In fact, some OBT developments, including the Sacramento and St. Louis developments, had both subsidized and market-rate units. Consequently, these developments presented a broad income range. These OBT developments combined a technological experiment

involving industrialized, prototype housing with a social experiment involving

a mix of occupant groups.

A third type of conventional housing development, the one from which most of

the comparison housing was selected, was the market-rate PUD aimed at middleto moderate-income tenants. Typically, this housing was not up to OBT development standards. There was a marked stereotyping of style, homogeneity of

housing types (typically only one), limited sizes of dwelling units (with few

larger units, such as four bedroom units), few site amenities (often only a swimming pool and a limited-use clubhouse), and a narrow range of prices.

Moreover, these PUD's tended to have residents representing a narrower range

of incomes and stages in the occupant's life cycle than comparable OBT sites.

However, these PUD's did seem to represent the available PUD's in both urban

and suburban areas. Five market-rate CG's—groups 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 in

table 4—were part of the study.

When there was no single, suitable PUD as a CG, researchers considered split

comparison groups. The CG's for the St. Louis OBT development (groups 6 and

7) and for the Sacramento OBT development (groups 3, 4, and 5) were split

comparison groups (see table 4).

Site Management Cooperation

A precondition for the selection of an otherwise suitable CG was securing

management approval to conduct face-to-face interviews with occupants.

45
Table 4. The eight matched pairs of OBT and conventional housing groups

Pair3

T

| Comparison

Groups

1 T

OBT Site/Subsite

and Housing Typec

1

1

Type of

Occupant^

1

1 | Group 1

1 T

! OBT Kalamazoo MFHR

1 T

Elderly

1 2

1

I Group 2

1

1

I OBT Memphis SFA

1

1

I Student

1 3

I

I Group 3

1

1

I OBT Sacramento SFA

I

l

| General population

i 4

1

I Group 4

1

l

I OBT Sacramento MFLR

1

l Elderly

1 5

1 Group 5

1

1

I OBT Sacramento MFHR

I

1

| Elderly

| 6

1

1 Group 6

|

1

I OBT St. Louis SFA-MFLR

1

1

I General, student

l

7

1

1 Group 7

I

1

I OBT St. Louis MFHR

t

!

| General, student

1 8

1

I Group 8

1

1

1 OBT Seattle

1

1 Inner city

1

a Matched groups are called "Pairs."

b Comparison groups are coded to preserve their anonymity.

c If a specific comparison group is matched with one or two, but

not all, housing types on an OBT site, the matched housing type

is indicated. SFA = single family attached, MFLR = multifamily low rise, MFHR = multifamily high rise housing.

d "Student" included undergraduates and students in graduate or professional school. "General" usually designated families

with children and/or with working heads of households.

46
Managers of subsidized developments tended to be more receptive to housing

evaluation interviews than managers of market-rate or luxury developments,

and managers of market-rate developments who were familiar and sympathetic with

OBT tended to be more receptive than those who were not. Because of management

refusal of onsite interviewing, investigators had to drop two preferred CG's.

In both cases, less-preferred alternatives which were adequate matches were

selected. These are CG's 1 and 2 in table 4.

The Number of Comparison Groups

No limit was placed on the number of OBT developments for which there could be

CG's. The field workers evaluated possible CG's for all eight OBT developments. In the end, suitable CG's were found only for the OBT developments in

Kalamazoo, Memphis, Sacramento, St. Louis and Seattle. Eight CG's, including

five split comparison groups, were selected for these five OBT developments.

The eight pairs of groups appear in table 4.

In terms of total sample sizes, there were 551 conventional housing units and

698 OBT units in the eight matched groups. The 551 CG units began as probability samples from the populations of eligible conventional housing units at the

selected CG sites. Those units for which no interviews could be obtained were replaced by other units. Appendix 2, pp. 207-209, describes this substitution

process, a subject of conflicting opinion as a sampling technique. The substitutions allowed the investigators to meet their requirements of a minimum number of completed CG interviews per site. From the eligible OBT groups,

occupants of 698 units completed usable questionnaires. All 698 questionnaires

were used in the comparison of OBT and CG occupants' opinions.

There were several reasons for wanting multiple OBT-CG pairs in the research

design. First, the researchers planned to measure occupants' attitudes toward

their housing once, and that one time was while the occupants were living in

the housing under investigation. If the investigators had limited themselves

to only one pair, one experimental group and one CG, they could have created

serious difficulties in making proper causal interpretations of their results

[Cook & Campbell, 1976, p. 249], In other words, they might not have been able

to establish whether the treatment variable was the most plausible explanation

of the results. A second reason is the researchers wanted the full range of

physical, social, and economic variation of the OBT housing developments to be

included in the comparison of opinions. That is, they not only wanted the

groups in a pair to be relatively similar on the selection criteria but they

also wanted the pairs, collectively, to represent a variety of social, economic, and physical characteristics. Both of these aims were realized.

Given multiple pairs of matched experimental groups and CG's, the research team

could assess whether specific OBT-CG differences in occupant attitudes arose

only in certain occupant groups or held across different occupant groups (e.g.,

students, families with children, and elderly). These tests were important

because social and economic characteristics of people have been shown to affect

their attitudes, including attitudes toward the built environment [Michelson,

1974; Weinberg, 1970], The research team could also assess whether specific

housing judgments reflected occupant group characteristics or the treatment

47
variable or both. Putting this into a larger perspective, a research design

with multiple pairs of experimental groups and CG's allowed comparisons within

pairs, across all pairs (OBT vs. CG, overall), and—most importantly—between

specific pairs with shared or different social, economic, and physical characteristics. This approach aids proper causal interpretation of results [cf.

Cook & Campbell, 1976, pp. 265-268, 271-274].

SUCCESS OF THE SELECTION MODEL

Two procedures were part of the matching of OBT and CG sites. They were (1)

the application of criteria in a field setting prior to interviews with respondents, and (2) a retrospective analysis of field and interview data relevant

to the match between groups following the completion of interviewing. In the

retrospective analyses, physical variable data were usually based on information collected during site selection field work, and social and economic variable data were usually based on interview results. The retrospective analysis

used 19 variables: the selection criteria, the PUD criterion, and 9 additional

variables. The additional variables consisted of onsite services, family

income, occupation and education of the head of the household, size and type

of family, duration of tenancy, and sex and age of the respondent. The 19

variables are listed in table 5.

A simplified process was used to evaluate the success of matching. The largest

difference for the categories or levels of each variable for each pair was determined. All differences were measured as percentages. In lieu of statistical tests of these differences, four size-of-dif f erence categories, each with

an assigned value, were applied to these differences.

Size of Difference

under 5 percent

5-10 percent

10-20 percent

over 20 percent

Labels Value

excellent 4

good 3

fair 2 poor 1

For each pair and each variable, researchers calculated the average value of

the largest observed difference. For example, in Kalamazoo (Pair 1) 91.1 percent was the largest difference between OBT and CG housing costs, which were

in the $99 and under range. Thus, this was a poor match. But in Memphis

(Pair 2) 3.6 percent was the largest difference between OBT and CG housing

costs, which were in the $100-$199 range. Thus, this was an excellent match.

The criterion of success was an average value equivalent to the "good" label.

All eight pairs met this criterion. Only two of the factors (monthly costs,

and number and type of amenities) showed less than good matching (see table 5).

Researchers also conducted an earlier retrospective evaluation, upon which the

preceding one was modeled. In its method and outcome the earlier one was more

conservative. Nevertheless, the conclusions from both retrospective evaluations substantially agree. Both lead to the conclusion that the selection

method was successfully implemented in the Project Feedback study of OBT

housing occupants. Success notwithstanding, every model has its limitations.

48
Table 5. A retrospective evaluation of the success of the

comparison group selection method.*

Operation Breakthrough and Comparison Group Pairs3 *'3

r Matching

1

| KAL MEM SAC SAC SAC STL STL

1 SEA | OVERALL

Variables | 1

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I

1

Physical

T~

1

1

1 **PUD status 1 E E E E F E F E I E **Amenities 1 G G F F P F G G j F Services 1 E E G G E E F E I E **Type of unit | P E E E E F E E | G **Size of unit 1 E F E E E E G G I E **Age of unit I E

1 G E E E P P G |1

G

Economic

T~

1

1

1 **Tenancy type 1 G E G G E E E E I E **Sales price | - E

- - - - | E **Monthly housing 1 P E E F F E P P 1 F costs i 1 Family income 1 F

1

G E E E E P P 1

1

G

Social

1

1

1

1 Occupation of head 1 P E P E E E F G I G Education of head 1 E F F E G E G E | G **Race I E E E E E E E F j E Family size I E F P P E G G G j G Family type j E E E F E E G G I E **Stage in family | E G G F E G G F | G life cycle 1

1

1

1

Other

1

1

1

1 Tenancy duration 1 E E P E F P G E I G

Sex of respondent 1 E F F G E E G E j G

Age of respondent j G

1 G G E E G G G |1 G

OVERALL BY SITE

1

1 G

1 G G G G G G

1 G I

1

* Adapted from a table prepared by Dr. Daniel Carson.

** Indicate variables considered during the field search for comparison housing.

a Matching: E = Excellent, G = Good, F = Fair, and P = Poor.

b City abbreviations:

KAL = Kalamazoo STL = St. Louis

MEM = Memphis SEA = Seattle

SAC = Sacramento

49
The technical limitations of the proposed model are discussed in Carson,

Margulis, Carson, and Wehrli (1980). Additional issues raised by matching as

a research design procedure are discussed by Anderson, Auquier, Hauck, Oakes,

Vandaele, and Weisberg (1980).

SUGGESTED READINGS

A word of caution to those readers without research experience: research

designs that treat surveys as experiments pose difficult technical problems.

Such readers should seek expert counsel. However, the following readings can help readers in discussions with experts.

Research Designs

Anderson, S., Auquier, A., Hauck, W. W. , Oakes, D., Vandaele, W., & Weisberg, H. I. Statistical methods for comparative studies: techniques for

bias reduction. New York: John Wiley, 1980. A sophisticated but clearly

written discussion of statistical aspects of research design for quasiexperiments. Chapter 6 addresses matching procedures.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. The design and conduct of quasi-experiments

and true experiments in field settings. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook

of industrial and organizational research . New York: Rand-McNally , 1976.

A strongly recommended but very technical presentation.

Weiss, C. H. Evaluation research: methods for assessing program effectiveness . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. A readable introduction

to the design of evaluation research is found on pp. 60-91.

50
CHAPTER 4: THE CORE QUESTIONNAIRE

Purpose 52

Description of the Questionnaire 52

Content 52

Format 54

The Research Instrument 54

Description of the Study 54

Research Considerations 54

Use 55

Results: Opinions of OBT Occupants 56

Results: Comparison of Opinions of OBT and Conventional Housing

Occupants 62

Suggestions About Content and Use 62

Core Questionnaire 63

51
CHAPTER 4: THE CORE QUESTIONNAIRE

PURPOSE

The Core Questionnaire (CQ) was the principal source of information in Project

Feedback, a post-occupancy evaluation of Operation Breakthrough (OBT) housing.

As its name suggests, the 218-item, 47-page questionnaire was the core of the

interviewing effort.

Two objectives shaped the development of the CQ. The first objective was to

obtain useful information for modifying the performance specifications that

were the basis for the design, construction, and physical evaluation of OBT

housing. The financial necessity of very limited data processing led to the

abandonment of this objective. The second objective was to inform the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about user acceptance of OBT

housing. The data processing focused on this objective.

DESCRIPTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Content

The CQ items are divided among three primary areas: (1) the building, (2) the

site, and (3) demographic and control items. A general summary of the topics

covered in each primary area, including related CQ items, follows. The CQ item

numbers appear in parentheses.

The Building Component focused on the dwelling unit and, in multifamily

units, the building itself. It covered the following topics:

1. Description of the dwelling unit (128-134, 215) and building (2),

2. Health and safety (39-44, 47-50, 126-127),

3. Room size (135),

4. Lighting (136-137, 156-161, 166),

5. Furnishability (138),

6. Storage space (134K, 139),

7. Temperature and humidity (140-142),

8. Room layout and arrangement (148-151),

9. Remodeling and conversion of rooms (143-147),

10. Maintenance, decoration, and repairs (152-155, 178-182),

11. Noise (167-169),

12. Privacy (170-171),

13. Security (79-82),

14. Innovations (189-191), and

15. Housing-related financial matters (174-177).

The Site Component focused on the housing development, including amenities,

management, other occupants, and the community surrounding the development.

It covered the following topics:

52
1. Recreation (20-29),

2. Services (30-36),

3. Parking (37-38),

4. Safety and health (45-46, 49-50),

5. Security (69-78, 83-84),

6. Social relations and neighbors (51-68),

7. Exterior lighting (162-166),

8. The site's location (in the surrounding community) (85-93),

9. Management (183-188),

10. Maintenance (17-19),

11. Appearance (15-16), and

12. The future of the site (202-203).

There were additional items on the residential environment as a whole. These

covered reasons for moving to the site (14), relocation plans (199-200), most

liked and most disliked aspects of the residential environment (192-193), and

overall satisfaction with the dwelling and with the site (194-195).

The Control and Demographic Component dealt with the following topics:

1. The interview itself (3, 204, 205, 209-216, 218),

2. Respondent/household demography (5-7, 96-115, 201, 206),

3. Respondent /household member health (116-125, 207-208),

4. Total household membership (4),

5. Hours spent in the dwelling unit (94-95),

6. Residential mobility (172),

7. Types of tenancy (12-13),

8. Length of occupancy (10-11), and

9. Miscellaneous topics (1, 8, 9, 173, 196, 197, 217).

The CQ drew on a number of sources to establish specific topics that

would address the performance approach to OBT housing and user acceptance

of the housing:

1. The "Guide Criteria", discussed in chapter 1, including an analysis of

waivers of performance specifications that were granted to housing system

producers;

2. An analysis of innovations in OBT housing;

3. Results of tests on OBT housing, including prototype laboratory testing,

prototype field testing, and onsite observation by knowledgeable engineers, architects, and behavioral scientists;

4. Reviews of provisions of the Minimum Property Standards (MPS) (the MPS is

discussed in chapter 3);

5. Reviews of behavioral, architectural, and architectural-psychological

studies of housing, sites, and communities;

6. Comments by the technical staff at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

and at HUD; and

7. Visits by members of the research team or their representatives (e.g.,

contractors) to the sites in order to become familiar with the housing,

the sites, and the occupants. These visits included in-depth discussions

with occupants.

53
Format

Three levels of coding complexity are discussed in chapter 2. All three levels are found in the CQ.

The Research Instrument

A copy of the CQ ends this chapter. The original had several aids: pages 2-3

and 27-28 were facing; the back cover (p. Ill) had the site boundaries for

Q. 8; for certain items, cards with questions (Q. 5-7, 134A-N) or response

categories (e.g., Q. 30-36, 83-93) were handed to respondents (cf. p. 158,

comment on Q. 34). The CQ's own pagination is at the upper right and the

chapter pagination at the lower margin of each page.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

Research Considerations

The NBS researchers asked themselves what research design was best suited to

study occupant acceptance of OBT housing in use. Since OBT housing is industrialized and innovative, researchers considered it important to compare occupants' assessments of OBT housing with those of conventional housing.

Introducing comparison groups (CG) of conventional dwellings would increase

the probability of properly understanding the effect of industrialized con- struction on occupant acceptance of housing. In addition, using conventional

housing gave the researchers and the reader a familiar framework for

understanding OBT housing.

The decision to compare OBT housing with conventional housing in a field

setting raised a number of problems. These problems and their solutions are presented in detail in chapter 3. In brief, the ideal comparison is one in

which OBT and conventional housing groups differ only in those features that

collectively define the OBT housing as "industrialized." However, in field

studies there are likely to be additional differences between housing groups

with which to contend. These differences can also foster plausible explanations of differences in opinions of OBT and CG housing occupants. To minimize

the plausibility of the alternative explanations, researchers should apply the

logic of the laboratory experiment to their field study as best they can, and

then critically examine results with regard to any plausible, alternative

explanation.

The question of which conventional housing to select for comparison masked two

difficult problems, discussed in chapter 3: (1) absence of similar housing

studies to guide researchers and (2) the inability of conventional housing to

constitute a pure control group. Nevertheless, eight CG's were selected in

five OBT cities. This sample of 551 conventional housing units, their occupants, and sites was matched with eight groups of OBT housing, consisting of

698 units, their occupants, and sites. The study of OBT occupants' attitudes,

however, was not limited to interviews with the 698 households that were compared with conventional housing households. Rather, researchers decided to

attempt to conduct interviews in all OBT units that were occupied at the time

54
interviewing began on January 1974. There were occupied OBT dwelling units on eight of nine OBT sites. The exception, the Jersey City, N.J. site, was still

under construction. These eight sites represented 2,082 planned units of which

1,853 were occupied as of January 1974. Interviews with OBT and CG occupants

were conducted during the same time period (January and February 1974).

There were two reasons for including all occupied OBT dwellings in the survey.

First, researchers considered sampling plans that would have meant interviewing

all but a few households in a particular building or in a particular area of a site. However, an experienced survey director had warned that the exclusion

of a few potential respondents had been known to create suspicions among occupants. At a relatively low additional cost in time and dollars, all occupied

dwellings could be approached and this problem avoided. Second, if followup

studies were to be done, having information on all eligible occupied units

would make it easier to solve certain problems associated with such followups.

Although interviewers went to all occupied OBT dwelling units and all selected

CG units, there were obvious reasons for not expecting all households to be

interviewed: refusals, language problems, an ill respondent, etc. In addition, resources limited the number of times a household could be approached

for an interview. The planners allowed four in-person attempts (one initial

visit and three callbacks) before a household was classified as a noninterview

(a failure to be interviewed). Prior research suggested, and Project Feedback

confirmed, that four attempts would result in interviews with 80 percent of

the approached households. Of 1,853 OBT households approached, 1,481 interviews were obtained. The 698 OBT households that were compared with the con- ventional housing groups were part of the 1,481 interviewed OBT households.

For each comparison housing group to reach or approximate a predetermined

number of completed interviews, a replacement was added to that group for

each noninterview. Replacements were selected from among the remaining,

eligible but previously unselected units in that specific CG. A detailed

description of the survey methods, including the substitution rules used by

the field supervisor, appears in appendix 2.

Use

The CQ was administered in face-to-face interviews, approximately 75 minutes

in duration, with 1,481 occupants of OBT housing and 551 conventional (comparison) housing occupants. Interviewing took place over a 5-1/2 week period

during January and February 1974. The effort required 57 interviewers. At

each site approximately 10 percent of all interviews were verified to make

sure the interview had in fact taken place and that the answers on the interview reflected accurately the respondent's answers. During verification field

supervisors found no instances of interview falsification or of an interviewer's inaccurate recording of answers.

It was necessary for interviewers to choose an eligible respondent within

households. The CQ had some items which the researchers surmised might be

answered better by male respondents (e.g., household finances, repairs), and

other items which would be answered better by female respondents (e.g., maintenance of the dwelling, children's friends). Nevertheless, the researchers also

55
felt that, given the division of labor in most American (nuclear) families, the

housewife/mother/wife would probably have spent more time in the dwelling unit

unit and on site than her spouse and, as a result, would be closer to much of

the information being sought. In a household of unrelated individuals (e.g.,

college students sharing an apartment), whoever had occupied the dwelling for

the longest period of time probably would be closer to much of the information

being sought. Based on these assumptions, the researchers established the

following rules for the selection of respondents from within the eligible

dwelling unit:

1. Only one person per household was to be interviewed.

2. The respondent must be at least 18 years old and a permanent member of the

household.

3. For family households the first choice would be the wife or female head of

the household.

4.

For nonfamily households the first choice would be the person who had

lived in the dwelling the longest.

Additional details appear in appendix 2.

Results: Opinions of OBT Occupants

Results of seven key areas will be highlighted. Four tables are included in

this section to illustrate the distribution of responses to several key questions that appear without coding categories in the CQ and in its revision in

chapter 5.1

1. Why did households choose OBT developments (CQ item 14)? The most

important reasons were the relative cost of the dwelling unit (i.e., what

is received for what is spent), dwelling unit size, and the location of

the site relative to work and to universities attended by students who

were OBT residents (see table 6). At the suburban sites in Macon and

King County /Seattle, landscape and scenery were important considerations.

2. When asked what they most liked (CQ item 192) and most disliked (CQ item

193) about the then-current residential environment, respondents said they

liked the onsite recreational facilities, the seclusion of their homes,

1 The coding categories in tables 6-9 were developed from respondents' answers. Some problems arose, however, because too many coding categories

had been developed and this limited usable variation. The recodes were only partially successful because some of the recodes were too broad. For

these reasons, none of these coding categories have been included in the

revised Core Questionnaire, in chapter 5. Nevertheless, the categories in

tables 6-9 can provide guidance for code development in future studies for

CQ items 14, 192, 193, and 203.

56
Table 6. CQ respondents' reasons for selecting their

OBT site, ranked by site and for all sites.

Housing Sites3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 KING

1

1

1

1 ALL

Reasons | IND

1

1

1 KAL 11 MACON 11 MEM 1

1 STL 1

1 SAC 1 c1 TY 11 SEA 1

1 SITES

Dwelling unit n

i T1

1

1

1

1

1

1 T1

1

1

1

1

1

1 Dwelling size i 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 2.5 1 3

1 ( 7%) b 1 1 1 1 ( 9%) 1 ( 8%) 1 ( 6%) 1 ( 9%) 1 ( 6%)

1

1 T T

1 T1 T T T1 T

1 T

Appliances 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 6 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 (

1 6%) 11

( 6%) 1

1

Building and site

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 Landscape /scenery 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 —1 1 1 (13%) 1 1 1 1 (10%) 1 1

1

1 T

1 T T1 T1 T1 T T T

Recreational 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 facilities 1 1 1 ( 6%) 1 1 1 1 1 ( 5%) 1

1

1

1 T1 T1 T T T1 T T1 T

Building design 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 and appearance 1

1

1

1

( 5%) 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Site location0 1

1

1

1 T1

1

1

1

1

1

1 11

1

1

1

1 Work 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1

1 ( 5%)

1

1

1

1

I

1

1 (11%) 1 (I 9%) 11 ( 7%) 1

|

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 T

1 T

1 T T1 T T

1 T

1 T

School 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 (1«)

I

1

1

1 1

1 (43%) 1 (12%)1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 ( 9%)

1

1

1 T1 T1 T

1 T

1 T1 T T T

Transportation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1

I

1

I

11 ( 6%) 1

1

1

1

1 T1 T1 T

1 T

1 T1 T1 T1 T

General comments 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 (

1 7%) 11

1

1

1

1

1

1

Economic and social~T“

1

1

1 T1 T1 11 T1

1

1

1

1

1

1 Cost of housing1^

1 l 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 (27%)

1

1

I (20%) 1 (12%) 11 (18%) 1 (1 9%) 11 (15%) 1 (21%)1

1

1 (12%) \1 (16%)

1 T T

1 T T T1 T1 T T

Cost of utilities^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 7%) 1

I

1

1

1 T1 T

1 T1 T

1 T1 T1 T1 T

Resident groupse

1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 (10%)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

!

1

Miscellaneous

1

1 T

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 Dwelling was 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 6 available 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 6%) 1 1 ( 6%)

1

1

'

1 T1 T1 T T T T1 T T

Place was 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 —recommended 1 1 1 ( 7%) 1 1 1 1 ( 5%) 1 1

1

1 T

1 T

1 T1 T T1 T T1 T

Other answers 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

( 7%) 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

( 9%)

a City abbreviations:

IND = Indianapolis MEM = Memphis SAC = Sacramento SEA = Seattle

KAL » Kalamazoo STL = St. Louis KING C'TY = King County

b In parentheses are the percentages of all responses at a site (or for all sites combined)

for a given coding category ("reason").

c Site location is in reference to the location of place of employment ("work"), university/

college ("school"), and transporation facilities. General comments lack such foci.

^ This refers to the evaluation of costs (e.g. , "It's expensive").

e Includes references to types of resident groups, nature of the social mix, etc.

57
dwelling unit size, and the characteristics ("caliber") of the residents

(see table 7). The initial attractions, mentioned above in item 1,

reappeared as most liked features. When asked what was disliked most,

respondents most frequently said nothing was disliked (see the last row

of table 8). However, when dislikes were mentioned, comments often

focused on the building systems: quality of construction, appliances,

and mechanical systems (e.g., heating, air conditioning equipment).

3. The dwelling (CQ item 194), physical aspects of the site (item 195), and

the management (item 188) each generated relatively high levels of

overall satisfaction at each OBT development. However, occupants tended

to express satisfaction less often with management than with their housing

or with physical aspects of their site.

4. There was a systematic relationship between respondents' age and overall

satisfaction: elderly occupants tended to be "very well satisfied" with

their dwellings, the site, and the site management. This tendency toward

greater satisfaction among elderly respondents has been noted in other

housing studies (Pastalan, personal communication).

5. Plans to relocate (CQ items 199 and 200) were especially strong at

developments with large numbers of students. The primary reasons for

moving out were independent of opinions about the residential environment.

Rather, personal reasons (e.g., a job transfer, completing one's education, or getting married) were common at all eight developments. Planning

not to relocate was especially strong at the suburban King County development. Here householders were also homeowners. However, renting was the

most common form of tenancy for OBT occupants as a whole.

6. When asked how their development would be in 5 years (CQ items 202, 203),

respondents' answers were about evenly split among the three response

alternatives: the sites would become worse, stay the same, or become

better. The reasons supporting opinions about the future tended to be

interrelated and focused on management, the other residents, and the

quality of construction of the buildings (see table 9). The nature of

the interrelations of reasons were colored by the occupants' opinions

about their developments' future. For example, those who felt their

sites would become worse tended to criticize the quality of construction,

the management's maintenance program, and the attitudes and actions of

other residents with regard to housing and site maintenance. Overall

satisfaction was strongly associated with respondents' opinions about a site's future. "Very well satisfied" respondents tended to be optimistic;

dissatisfied respondents tended to be pessimistic.

7. A majority of respondents recognized that the housing at their

developments was industrialized housing and knew that the Federal Government had financially supported its design and constructions (CQ items 196,

197, 198.)

58
Table 7. Features of the residential environment most frequently mentioned

by CQ respondents as "liked," ranked by site and for all sites.

Housing Sites3

Features IND KAL MACON MEM STL SAC KING C'TY SEA ALL

SITES

Dwelling unit Dwelling size 3

( 9%) b

5

( 5%)

4

( 6%)

2

( 11%)

5

( 5%) T T T T

Dwelling layout 1

( 12 %) T T T T T T

Appliances 2

( 11%)

Building and site Landscape/scenery 1 (24%)

1 (18%)

3

( 7%) T T T T

Recreational

facilities

4

( 8%)

2

( 9%)

2

( 9%)

3

( 6%)

1

( 9%)

3

( 7%)

1

( 8%) T T

Seclusion and privacy^

3

( 6 %)

3

( 8%)

3

( 6 %)

1 (18%)5

( 5%)

4

( 6%) T T T T

4

( 5%) Site layout

Site location1^ Work 2 (14%)

2

( 8%) T T T T T T

School 5

( 7%)

1 (27%)1

( 10%) T T

4

( 6%)

T T

General comments 2

( 10%)

4

( 9%)

Management

Security 3

( 7%)

Economic and social

Cost of housinge 1 (12%)

5

( 6 %) T T T T

5

( 6%) Resident groups^

T T

4

( 7%)

T T T T

2 I I I 2

( 8%) | | | ( 7%) Characteristics

of residents^

6

( 6 %)

1

( 10%)

4

( 6%)

3 City abbreviations:

IND - Indianapolis STL “ St. Louis SEA = Seattle

KAL * Kalamazoo SAC = Sacramento MEM ~ Memphis KING C'TY = King County

b In parentheses are the percentages of all responses at a site (or for all sites combined)

for a given coding category ("feature").

c Includes references to quiet/noise, population density on site, presence or absence of privacy.

d Site location is in reference to the location of place of employment ("work"), university/

college ("school"), and transportation facilities. General comments lack such foci.

e Refers to evaluations of costs (e.g., "It's expensive").

^ Refers to types of resident groups, nature of social mix, etc.

8 Includes references to friendliness, caring, aloofness, etc.

59
Table 8. Features of the residential environment most frequently mentioned by

CQ respondents as "disliked," ranked by site and for all sites.

Housing Sites3

Features KAL MACON STL SAC KING

C'TY

| ALL

SEA | SITES

Dwelling unit Dwelling appearance

inside /outside

3

( 7%)b

Appliances 2

( 9%)

Mechanical

systems

2

( 7%)

Use of own yards

( 7%) |

Insulation and

leaks0

7

( 7%)

Building and site Parking 2

( 10%)

3

( 7%)

1

( 12%)

2

( 6%)

Pets 2

( 7%)

Quality of building

construction

3

( 8%)

2

( 9%)

Management

Management

characteristics^

6

( 7%)

Maintenance by management

1

( 12%)

3

( 8%)

3

( 5%)

Maintenance of grounds6

( 5%) T

6 I

( 5%) | —I

Security 3

( 5%)

2

( 5%)

Servicese 5

( 8%)

4

( 5%)

1 (15%)

Economic and social Children and youth 2

( 5%)

3

( 7%)

Residents' sense of responsibility

2

( 6 %)

"Nothing" (as the response)

4

( 8 %)

1 (16%)2

( 10%)

4

( 6 %)

1 (17%)

1

( 20%)

1 (17%)

1 I 1 (14%) | (14%)

City abbreviations:

IND = Indianapolis

KAL = Kalamazoo MEM = Memphis

STL = St. Louis

SAC = Sacramento

KING C'TY = King County

SEA = Seattle

b In parentheses are the percentages of all responses at a site (or for all sites combined)

for a given coding category ("feature").

° Covers insulation, ease/difficulty of heating, leaks, drafts, etc.

d Includes references to friendliness, cooperativeness, competency, etc.

e Refers to services provided and adequacy of services.

60
Table 9. Reasons for opinions of CQ respondents about what their

site will be like in 5 years, ranked by their opinion.

I What Will Site be Like in 5 Years?

Reasons

1

1

1 Better

1

I Same

1

1

1

1 Worse

Building and site

1

1

1 T~

1

1

1

1

I Landscape/scenery

1

1

1

I

3

( 5%) a

1

1

I

1

1

1

I

Quality of building construction

1 T

~

1

1

1

i '1

1 6

1 ( 5%)

1

1 T

"

1

1

1

1 (22%)

Management

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

i Management characteristics^

i

1

1

2 (8%)

1

1 3

1 (10%)

i

1

1

I

5

( 6%)

Maintenance by management

i T

"

1

1

1

5 (6%)

1

1

1 2

1 (12%)

1

i T

“

1

1

1

2 (14%)

Economic and social

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

1

i Type of homeowners

moving in or outc

1

1

1

|

1

I 5

1 ( 6%)

1

1

1

1

6

( 6%)

Permanence of residents*^

T"

1

1

1

i 'i

i

i

1

i T"

1

1

1

4

( 8%)

Caliber of people on site

i T~

1

1

6 (5%)

i *i

1 6

1 ( 5%)

i 'T"

1

1

Resident interest in upkeep

i T

"

1

1

1

1 (9%)

1

1

1 4

1 ( 7%)

1

i T"

1

1

1

3 (12%)

Other Reasons

~r

i

i

1

1

1

~T~

1

i No changes/lack of changes

i

i

i

i

1

I 1

1 (17%)

1

i

1

1

1

a In parentheses are the percentages of all responses ("reasons") from

all respondents holding a particular opinion about what their site

would be like in 5 years. For each opinion reasons are ranked.

b Includes references to friendliness, cooperativeness, competency,

communicativeness, etc.

c Includes references to ethnic/racial groups, income, social class.

^ Includes references to transiency, tenure (renting vs. owning),

leases, etc.

61
Results: Comparison of Opinions of OBT and Conventional Housing Occupants

The comparison of opinions of these two groups focused on 11 CQ items. Slight

but consistent trends favored OBT housing over conventional housing. For example, OBT housing was a more potent source of attraction to the residential

environment, was mentioned more often as an example of what was most liked

about the residential environment, and was mentioned less often as a reason

for plans to move out. Not all differences favored OBT housing. Conventional

housing was favored with respect to the quality of housing construction. Overall, the results indicated that OBT housing and the matched conventional housing were about equally well received by their respective occupants [Margulis,

1975].

By contrast to these results, "past studies of consumer opinion about

industrialized housing have painted a rather gloomy picture: consumers do not

accept it; this is the context within which the [results] should be evaluated"

[Margulis, 1975, p. 26], These past studies also suggest that knowledge of

industrialized housing may be associated with its acceptance by consumers

[Bernhardt, 1972], Project Feedback appears to support this suggestion. The

OBT occupants were knowledgable about industralized housing through their

direct experiences with it. And these occupants were at least as satisifed

with their housing as occupants of conventional housing were. It would appear

that knowledge about industrialized housing is a key to its acceptance.

SUGGESTIONS ABOUT CONTENT AND USE

The key research instrument in the post-occupancy evaluation of OBT housing was

the CQ. To increase the usefulness of this questionnaire to other researchers,

NBS has prepared a revision of the CQ. It appears as chapter 5 and represents

NBS suggestions about content and use.

62
Core Questionnaire

r

feedback OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH

PHASE II FEEDBACK

NATIONAL SURVEY OF OCCUPANTS IN BREAKTHROUGH

AND CONVENTIONAL HOUSING

SPONSORING

AGENCY: OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

RESEARCH

ORGANIZATION: CENTER FOR BUILDING TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, D.C.

FIELD ^ADMINISTRATION:

WESTAT, INC. 11600 NEBEL 1

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND J

TELEPHONE

:

APPOINTMENT

RECORD: DATE TIME

ADDRESS: STREET NO.

STREET NAME

APT. NO. CITY

NAME OF DEVELOPMENT

:

INTERVIEWER

VjJAME: /

63
1

FILL IN THE ADDRESS BELOW, BEFORE APPROACHING

THE HOUSEHOLD:

1 Street No.

Street Name

Apt. No.

City

mmaiD

cm

TO

5

2

CIRCLE BUILDING TYPE:

I Multi-family High Rise (multiple dwelling,

four stories or more in height).

2 Multi-family Low Rise (multiple dwelling, not exceeding three stories in height).

3 Single Family Attached (single family dwelling, one or more stories in height, with walls on one or more sides being common or party walls

with the adjacent dwelling).

4 Single Family Detached (single family dwelling, one or more stories in height, which is com- pletely surrounded by open space).

introduction:

Hello:

My name is .

I'd like to speak with (Mr. /Mrs. /Miss) .

Is (he/she) in?

proceed ONLY if an ADULT RESIDENT of the household PRESENTS (HIM/HER) SELF:

I represent , a survey research group. We are conducting a nation-wide survey for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. We need the opinions of

residents, like yourself, about your home and about the

community you are living in. We hope your answers will help

to improve future housing. Since your household falls in our sample for (CITY), I would like to ask you a few questions.

The things you tell me will be strictly confidential. No names will ever appear in reports and what we discuss will

not be revealed to the people who manage this place. Of course, no one is required to participate, but we need your

help! I think you will find this survey interesting. Thank

you.

IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES TO BE INTERVIEWED,

ENTER THE PRESENT TIME:

Time is now .m./p .m. Q^CD

64

3

5-7

BEGIN INTERVIEW:

Before we begin the interview, I'd like to ask you, how many

persons altogether live here, related to you or not?

Total persons

READ ALL QUESTIONS FROM CARD "A":

RECORD ALL ANSWERS BELOW:

A B C D E

Relation to the

Head of Household Sex Age

Highest

Degree

Current College

Y N DK

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

CODING CATEGORIES FOR "RELATION TO THE HEAD OF

HOUSEHOLD

ALONE WITH HEAD NO HEAD

ALONE i i i i i i i # i 0 0 01

head/respondent" , . . .

.

0 1 08888888 02

u j- a n HcAJJ 1 0 I t B a 8 D 8 1 D 1 B 1 8 1 8 8 • 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 03

respondent" . . 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 10

SPOUSE BBBIBI8BB88IBB 8 8 i i i i i i i i 04 i i i i

i

11

CHI LD i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 8 8 88888888 OS 888888 12

relative" 8 8 1 1 1 i 06 1 1 1 1 1

1

13

non-relative" 8 8 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 07 8 8 8 8 8 8 14

NON-RELATIVE WITHOUT" 8 8 • 08 1 1 1 1 15

TEMPORARY" ........... (if not a permanent HH

MEMBER USE CODE 20 )

CCED i03

I03l Z

ccccdcc)

cdccccd

CCCCCED

ccedccd dcccd anuD

CCEDCCD

CCCD

[35

66
4

r

8 Do you call this place NAME

[ ]? USE THE DEVELOPMENT

2 Yes

1 No

When I refer to [ ], I mean the area between:

SEE BACK COVER

9 Are we talking about the same thing when we use the name

[ ]?

2 Yes

1 No

IF "NO"/ RECORD THE RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS:

Okay, I'll note that but when I ask about [ ] I'll mean the area between: SEE BACK COVER

10 When did you move into this (house/apartment)?

19 Year

Month

CD CD

if ONE MONTH or LESS to item 10, ask 11:

67
5

r

11 How many weeks ago was that?

Weeks

12 Do you own or rent your home?

1 Own

2 Rent

3 Other (SPECIFY).

8 Don ' t know

13 Is your (house/apartment) part of a cooperative or a condominium?

1 Cooperative

2 Condominium

3 Neither

8 Don ' t know

14 What is there about [ ] that led you to choose this

as a place to live?

15 Now that you're living here, what do you think of the way

[ ] looks overall? Do you like the appearance very

much, like it somewhat, dislike it somewhat, or dislike the

appearance very much?

4 Like very much

3 Like somewhat

2 Dislike somewhat

1 Dislike very much

J

68

BBB BBB
6

A

16 And what do you think about the appearance of the outside of

your (house/building)? Overall, do you like its appearance

very much, like it somewhat, dislike it somewhat, or dislike

the appearance very much?

4 Like- very much

3 Like somewhat

2 Dislike somewhat

1 Dislike very much

In general, what do you think about the way the people who

live here maintain and keep up [ ] ? Do you think

it's excellent, good, average, below average, or poor?

5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Average

2 Below average

1 Poor

And what do you think about the way the people who manage

this place maintain and keep up [ ]? Do you

think it's excellent, good, average, below average, or poor?

5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Average

2 Below average

1 Poor

if "BELOW AVERAGE"/ or "POOR" to item 17 or

ITEM 18, ASK:

What is the problem? CD CD

CD12 « CDM V

CD CD

TO TO

CD) CD

CD4* 44 QQ
7

~\

20 When the weather is right, how often do you spend time anywhere out of doors? Is it very often, often, sometimes,

seldom, or never:

5 Very often

4 Often

3 Sometimes

2 Seldom (GO TO 22)

1 Never (GO TO 22)

21

IF "VERY OFTEN", "OFTEN", or "SOMETIMES" to

item 20, ask:

Do you spend most of this time in [ ] or away from

[ _] or is the time split between the two?

1 Mostly on site (more on site than off)

2 Half on site, half off site

3 Mostly off site (more off site than on site)

22

IF "SOMETIMES", SELDOM", or "NEVER" to item 20,

ask:

Is there any particular reason that you aren't out of doors

more?

23 How often do you spend time inside your (house/apartment) or

on your porch or balcony, watching what's going on or just

taking in the view? Is it very often, often, sometimes,

seldom, or never?

5 Very often

4 Often

3 Sometimes

2 Seldom

1 Never

V

cm

70
8

24

25

"'V

What recreational areas or facilities are provided as part

of [ ] - things like a community room, playground,

or swimming pool?

RECORD ANSWERS IN COLUMN "A":

AFTER LISTING EACH ANSWER IN

Are there any others?

COLUMN "A"/ ask:

A B

Recreational facility Reg Occas Never N/A

3 2 1 9 CD 3 2 1 9 cd 3 2 1 9 cud

3 2 1 9 mn 3 2 1 9 CD 3 2 1 9 CCD

3 2 1 9 cud

3 2 1 9 CDdD

3 2 1 9 TO

Do (you/you or members of this household) use

(NAME EACH LISTED RECREATIONAL FACILITY/ IN TURN) regularly,

occasionally, or never?

RECORD ANSWERS IN COLUMN "B":

71
9

26

27

28

29

IF MORE THAN ONE OCCUPANT/ ASK:

Is there anyone in this household for whom there are no suitable recreational facilities in [ ]?

2 Yes

1 No (GO TO 28)

if "YES" to item 26/ ask:

Who has the problem and what would be suitable for that

person?

1 Age_ Sex M

2 Age Sex M F

3 Age Sex M

IF HOUSEHOLD HAS CHILDREN UNDER 12/ ASK 28 & 29

How do you feel about the out of doors places ri ght near

your home for your children under 12 to play in? Would you

say these places are excellent, good, average, below

average, or poor?

Exce I lent

Good

Ave rage

Below average

Poor

Why do you say that?

0

TOTOU

TOTO

Y

y

\ TOTO

TOTOQ

VtrVtrVw 1TTTTTD

CDJD

CCQ TO

TO TO

72
10

Next, I would like to ask you about the services on card I that are provided in [ ]

.

READ ALL APPLICABLE QUESTIONS FOR EACH SERVICE

BEFORE REPEATING EACH QUESTION FOR THE NEXT

SERVICE listed:

Let's take these one at a time. First (is/are)

(REPEAT THE SERVICE LISTED) provided in [ J

If "YES" to A ask B, C , and D

If "NO" or "DON'T KNOW" to A go to D

Do you make use of this service?

RECORD ANSWERS IN COLUMN "B", AND THEN ASK:

(Is/Are) the service(s) satisfactory?

RECORD ANSWERS IN COLUMN "C":

(Is/Are) (REPEAT THE SERVICE LISTED) needed here?

RECORD ANSWERS IN COLUMN "D":

Service

30 Garbage & trash

removal from your

building

31 Snow & ice removal from public

streets & walks

32 Recreation supervision, including

a life guard

33 Services to the

elderly

34 Bookmobile

35 Day care

36 Community

laundry room

Y N

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

2 18

Y N

2 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

Y N

2 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

Y N

2 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

aitiiT

ZED 20 XI 22 Z* oxo

0X0

CUED ZD

0X0

73
11

37 Do (you/any of you) ever have any parking problems in

[ ]? \

2 Yes

1 No (GO TO 39)

38

IF "YES" TO ITEM 37/ ask:

What is the: problem? TO QO

39 Now, about fire protection: Is there a smoke detector alarm

anywhere in this (house/building)?

2 Yes

1 No (go TO 43)

8 Don't know ( GO TO 43)

40

if "YES" to item 39, ask:

Have you ever heard the smoke detector alarm go off?

2 Yes

I No (GO TO 43)

8 Don ' t know . . (go to 43)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 40, ASK 41 AND 42:

41 How often?

Number of times

42

AND THEN ASK:

Did the alarm go off because of a fire, was it a false alarm,

or what?

1 Fire

2 Fa I se A I arm

3 Fire and false alarm

4 Other (SPECIFY) : 8 Don't know

43 Do you know of (any/any other) fires in this (house/building)

since you've lived here?

V

2

1

Yes

No J

74
12

r44

45

46

47

48

Are there any alarm systems, other than the smoke detector

alarm, like fire alarms or burglary alarms, in this

(house/building)? What are they?

1 None

2 Fire Alarm

3 Burglary

4 Other (SPECIFY)

Now we'd like you to think about places here that could

cause an accident for (you/any of you). Is there any place

in [ ], outside, like walkways, steps, play areas,

but not in buildings, that you consider hazardous?

Yes

No (go TO 47)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 45, ask:

Would you please tell me where it is and why you think it is unsafe?

Where Why Unsafe

Now, is there anything inside your home (iF Mil TJ-FAMT! Y, ADD! or This building) which you think is unsafe or could

cause (you/any of you) to have an accident?

2 Yes

1 No (GO TO 49)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 47, ask:

Please tell me what it is and why you consider it unsafe?

What Why Unsafe

0

dcdd

3?

CD

TO

CD

TO

CD

TO

Q

CD

TO

DD

TOD

TO

CD

TO

CD

TO

CD

TO

CD

OD

CD

TO

CD

TO

75
13

">V

49 Since living in [_ ] have (you/any of you) had an

50

accident, either inside or outside?

2 Yes

1 No (GO TO 51)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 49, ASK:

Please tell m€^ about the one or two most recent accidents.

1 Who

What

Where

2 Who_

What

Where

51 Now let's talk about the people who live here. Where in

[ ] do you most often spend time talking with other

people? You can name any place inside or outside, but please

don't include your own home.

Q

CD

CD CD

CD DO

CD

CD DO

00 CO

CDCD CD

CD

CO CO

v j

76

r-k»
14

Do you have personal friends here in [ 1?

2 Yes

1 No . • (GO TO 63)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 52/ and:

if SINGLE FAMILY/ ask: Igs no

Do any personal friends live next door? 2 I

Do any live in the other five or six buildings 2 I nearest to yours?

Do any live in other sections of [ ]? 2 I (go to 61)

o

IF "YES" TO ITEM 52/ and:

if MULTI-FAMILY/ ask:

Do any personal friends live next door? 2

Do any live elsewhere on this floor? 2

Do any live on other floors? 2

Do any live in the five or six buildings 2 nearest to yours? Q

Do any live in other sections of [ ]? 2

if "YES" to item 52/ ask:

Overall, were these your friends before you came here or

after?

1 Before . . . . . (go to 63)

2 After

3 Other (SPECIFY) (GO TO 63)

if "AFTER" to item 61/ ask:

Where did you meet?

y

77
15

r

FOR RESPONDENTS WITH CHILDREN

UNDER, ASK 63 AND 64:

17 YEARS OLD or

"\

63 Have vour children made friends in moved here?

since you

2 Yes

I No

64

AND THEN ASK:

Overall, do you think the kids in [ ] are a bad

influence, more bad than good, more good than bad, or a good i nf I uence on your ch i I dren?

1 A bad i nf I uence

2 More bad than good

3 More good than bad

4 A good i nf I uence

HAND CARD "I" TO RESPONDENT:

Below are some words and phrases which we would like you to

use to describe the people living in (IF MULTI~FAMILY,

ADD: your bui I ding or) buildings you can see from the entrance to this one - that is, the five or six buildings

nearest to yours around here.

For example, if you think your neighbors a-re noisy,' call out

the number right next to the word "noisy." If you think

they're quiet, call out the number next to the work "quiet."

If you think they're somewhere in between, call out the

number you think belongs.

ASK EACH ITEM IN THE ORDER IT APPEARS ON

CARD "I":

What number would you give your neighbors on

REPEAT BOTH DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH ITEM,

65 Noisy i 2 3 4 5 Quiet

66 Friendly 5 4 3 2 1 Unfriendly

67 Standoffish 5 4 3 2 1 Pushy

68 People I People I don't fit

in with

1 2 3 4 5 do fit in with

V

78

OODD
16

69

70

71

Is there any individual or family or group, either inside or outside of [ ], that you feel threatened by? I don'

t

want you to identify them, but just tell me if you feel

threatened by anyone around here.

2 Yes

1 No (go TO 74)

9 Refusal; No answer (qq TO 7^f)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 69, ASK 70 THRU 73:

Do any of the people who threaten you - again, I don't want

you to identify them

Do they live in the area near here, in the five or six

buildings nearest to this one?

0

Yes

NoDon't know

Do they live elsewhere in [_

2 Yes

I No

8 Don ' t know

J? 0

72 Do they live in the areas surrounding [ ] - that

is, about a ten minute walk or a half mile away?

2 Yes

I No

8 Don't know

73 Do they come from an area more than a half mile away from

[ ]?

2 Yes

I No

8 Don't know

J

79
17

74 Have (you/any of you) actually had threats to yourselves or

to your property since moving to [ ]? You can include such things as car theft, burglary, property vandalism.. threats of assault, and the like.

2 Yes

1 No (GO TO 79)

75

IF "YES" TO ITEM 74, ASK 75 THRU 78:

Would you mind telling me what happened and where it happened? it isn't necessary to name any names, only to

tell me what happened and where.

CDM V. TO

OT

76

IF "YES" TO ITEM 7ft, ask:

Was the incident reported to the police?

2 Yes

I No

8 Don't know

77

AND THEN ASK:

Was the incident reported to [ ]'s management?

2 Yes

I No

8 Don't know

78

IF "YES" TO ITEM 74, ASK:

What steps could be taken - by home builders, police,

management, or residents - in a place like [ ] to prevent such incidents from happening?

go

o TO

g gg

g gg

80
18

r

-\

Now I'd like you to think about the locks, doors, and windows

that came with this (apartment/house) and their adequacy for

preventing someone from breaking in.

Don’t

Yes No Know

79

80

81

82

Are the locks on the entry doors adequate? 2 18

Are these doors themselves adequate? 21 8

Are the window locks adequate? 21 8

Are the windows themselves adequate? 21 8

(A

83

84

HAND RESPONDENT CARD "II":

Now I'd like to know which one statement on this card best

describes your feelings about security when you are in

[ ] - your feelings of personal safety and protection of property from criminal acts. Please read aloud

both the number and the statement that best describes your

feelings

.

1 I never worry about security. I feel safe

walking around this place any time of the day

or night.

2 I generally don't worry about security but I'm

cautious. I take some precautions to protect

myself and my property.

3 I worry about myself and my property quite a bit, so I take a number of extra precautions

to protect myself and my property.

4 I don't feel safe here at all.

And which statement on the card best describes your feelings

about security in the areas immediately outside of or sur- rounding [ ] - that is , about a half mile or a ten minute walk from here? Again, I'd like you to read both

the number and statement that best describes your feelings.

1 I never worry about security. I feel safe

walking around this place any time of the day

or night.

2 I generally don't worry about security but I'm

cautious. I take some precautions to protect

myself and my property.

3 I worry about myself and my property quite a bit, so I take a number of extra precautions

to protect myself and my property.

4 I don't feel safe here at all.

cm 0i

03

81

I
19

HAND CARD "III" TO RESPONDENT:

To change topics - now l’d like to get your thoughts about

how convenient the location of [ ] is to where you

work and shop and so forth.

ASK BOTH QUESTIONS FOR AN ITEM AND RECORD THE

ANSWERS IN COLUMNS *'A" AND "B" BEFORE GOING ON

TO THE NEXT ITEM:

Is it convenient for you personally to get to (REPEAT THE ITEM LISTED) ~ ^en you go there?

RECORD ANSWER IN COLUMN "A":

IF "YES" OR "NO" IN COLUMN "A" ask:

What kind of transportation do you typically use to get to

? (repeat the item listed)

RECORD ANSWER IN COLUMN "B":

A B

Y N

NA

C W B PT Other

85 Where you work 2 1 9 1 2 3 4

86 Grocery shopping 2 1 9 1 2 3 4

87 School 2 1 9 1 2 3 4

88 The movies 2 1 9 1 2 3 4

89 Your doctor 2 1 9 1 2 3 4

90 Your church or 2 1 9 1 2 3 4 synagogue

91 The friends or 2 1 9 1 2 3 4 relatives you

visit most often

IN column B:

C = PRIVATE CAR

W = WALKING

B = BICYCLING

PT = PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

0 0

0 0

82
r

AGAIN REFER TO CARD "III":

20

I 92 For which item on the card is it most important to be

conveniently located?

1 Where you work

2 Grocery shopping

3 School

4 The movies

5 Your doctor

6 Your church or synagogue

7 The friends or relatives that you visit most often

0

93

REFER AGAIN TO CARD "III":

Which is the next most important item to you, with regard to convenient location?

1 Where you work

2 Grocery shopping

3 School

4 The movies

5 Your doctor

6 Your church or synagogue

7 The friends or relatives that you visit most

often

94 For whatever reasons - personal or related to work - during

which hours do you typically sleep on weekdays ?

From a.m. p.m.

To a.m. p.m.

How much time do you spend inside your (house /apartment) on

a typical weekday? Don't include the time you sleep.

Hours

CTED

era

OT

v

83
21

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

i;

Before we go on to the next part of the interview, I'd like to ask you a few personal questions. First, about what you do:

READ ALL ITEMS TO ALL RESPONDENTS:

Are you presently employed full time?

Are you currently receiving retirement benefits

from a former employer or from the government?

Are you now looking for a new full-time job?

Do you have a part-time job?

Are you currently going to school?

Are you responsible for keeping house here?

Yes

2

No

1

IF "YES" TO ITEM 96 OR 98, ASK 102 THRU 105:

What kind of work do you do? That is, what is your job

cal led?

SPECIFY:

IF RESPONSE TO ITEM 102 IS NOT SPECIFIC/ ASK:

What do you actually do in that job? Tell me, what are some

of the main duties?

IF "YES" TO ITEM 96 OR 98/ ASK:

What kind of place do you work for?

SPECIFY:

IF RESPONSE TO ITEM 104 IS NOT SPECIFIC/ ASK:

What do they (make/do)?

cog

TO

84

<

OD
22

IF THERE IS A HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OTHER THAN

RESPONDENT/ ASK 106-111; OR GO TO 116:

I'd like +o know what the head of this household does.

READ ALL ITEMS TO THE RESPONDENT:

106

107

108

109

110

111

Is (he/she) presently employed full time?

Is (he/she) currently receiving retirement

benefits from a former employer or from the

government?

Is (he/she) looking for a new full-time job?

Does (he/she) have a part-time job?

Is (he/she) currently going to school?

Is (he/she) responsible for keeping house here

Yes No

2 I

2 I

2 I

2 I

2 I

2 I

112

IF "YES" TO ITEM 106 OR 108/ ASK 112 THRU 115:

What kind of work does (he/she) do?

job ca I I ed?

That is, what is (his/her) QDD

SPECIFY:

IF RESPONSE TO ITEM 112 IS NOT SPECIFIC/ ASK:

113 What does (he/she) actually do in that job? Tell me, what are some of the main duties?

if "YES" to item 106 or 108/ ask:

114 What kind of place does (he/she) work for?

SPECIFY:

IF RESPONSE TO ITEM 114 IS NOT SPECIFIC/

ASK 115:

85

Q

O
23

r

115

116

117

118

119

\

What do they (make/do)?

Do you have difficulty getting around inside or outside your

home or have difficulty doing daily chores because of a permanent disability or physical handicap?

2 Yes

1 No

Does anyone else living here have such difficulties because

of a permanent disability or physical handicap?

2 Yes

1 No

IF "YES" TO ITEM 117/ ASK Hg AND 119:

How old is that person?

Age in years

AND THEN ASK:

Is that a (man or woman/boy or girl)?

1 Male

2 Female

J

86
24

FOR EACH DISABLED OCCUPANT/ ASK 120 THROUGH 125,

if RESPONDENT is disabled/ start with (him/her).

COMPLETE ITEMS 120 THROUGH 125 FOR THE FIRST

DISABLED PERSON BEFORE REPEATING EACH ITEM FOR

THE SECOND PERSON:

How often (do you/does ( he/she)) need to stay in the house

because of the disability? Is it never, sometimes, or most

of the time.

1) 3 Never 2) 3 Never

2 Somet i mes 2 Somet i mes

1 Most of the time 1 Most of the time

How often (do you/does (he/she)) need the help of another

person in getting around inside or outside of your home? Is it never, sometimes, or most of the time?

1) 3 Never 2) 3 Never

2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

1 Most of the time I Most of the time

How often (do you/does (he/she)) need the help of some

special aid , such as a cane or wheelchair, in getting around

inside or outside your home? Is it never, sometimes, or

most of the time?

1) 3 Never 2) 3 Never

2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

I Most of the time I Most of the time

Can (you/(he/see) ) see well enough with either eye to see ordinary newsprint with glasses?

1) 2 Yes 2) 2 Yes

I No I No

Can (you/(he/she) ) see well enough to step down stairs or off

a curb?

1) 2 Yes 2) 2 Yes

I No I No

Can (you/he/she)) see moving objects such as cars moving or

peop I e wa I king?

1) 2 Yes 2) 2 Yes

I No I No
25

r

126

127

128

129

130

131

"\

Now, about your home, is there anything about the interior of

this (house/apartment) - the way it’s laid out or built - that

makes it difficult for (you/any of you) to move around or to use any part of your home?

2 Yes

1 No (GO TO 128)

it "YES" to item 126, ask:

What is the problem? TO Q

TO 0

CUD

Is this a split level or multi-level (house/apartment)

?

2 Yes

1 No

How many (floors/levels) do you have?

1 One

2 Two

3 Three

4 Four

5 Other (SPECIFY).

if SINGLE FAMILY, ask 130 and 131:

Did you include a basement?

2 Yes

I No

THEN ASK:

Did you include an attic?

2 Yes

I No

V

88
26

132 Are there any steps or stairs In this (house/apartment) other

than those connecting floors or levels? P

Yes

No

if MULTI-FAMILY ask:

133 What (floor/floors) Is this apartment on In this building?

The floor and

the

floor and the

floor.

PP

CDlO » PP

89
CARD B

27

I'd like to know which rooms were included in your home by its (builder /developer)

.

For the moment, I'm interested in what each room is now being used for, but rather

what it was called when you (bought/rented) this placed. I'll go through these with

you one by one.

ASK THE FOLLOWING AND RECORD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE :

(L) How many full baths (sink, toilet and tub or shower') do

you have? (iF MORE THAN ONE CIRCLE

" 2" IN "D",)

(M) How many half baths (only sink and toilet) do you have?

(N) How many separate bedrooms do vou have?

(IF MORE THAN ONE CIRCLE

" 2" IN COL. "F".)

ASK THE FOLLOWING:

(A) Does your (house/apt.) have a living room ? (B) Does your (house/apt.) have a kitchen ?

IF MORE THAN ONE FULL BATHROOM, ASK:

(C) Is the bathroom that you use most frequently for bathing and

personal hygiene a master bathroom? That is, is it accessible

only through the master bedroom?

(E) Is your bedroom - the one that you regularly sleep in - a master bedroom? That is, is it the largest bedroom in the

(house/apartment)

?

(G) Do you have a separate dining room?

(H) Do you have a separate family or recreation room?

(I) Do you have a separate den or study?

(J) Do you have a separate balcony or porch? If so, which?

(K) Do you have a private storage bin or shed provided for your

own use, outside this (house /apartment)

?

I'd like to ask you about these rooms and places in your home. We'll take them

one at a time. What I want is your opinion:

135 through 136 (ASK ONE COLUMN AT A TIME FOR I NCI UDFD ROOMS ONLY)

135 Is your (ROOM NAME) large enough?

136 Does (the/your) (ROOM NAME) have sufficient built-in

lighting?

137 Does (the/your) get sufficient natural light?

138 Is it easy to arrange furniture in (the/your) ?

139 Is there enough built-in storage space in (the/your) ?

By "built-in" I mean that it came with the (house /apartment) - it wasn't

added by any of you.

140 Last winter, during the cold weather, could you get (the/your)

as warm as you wanted it throughout the room?

141 Last summer, during the hot weather, could you get (the/your)

as cool as you wanted it throughout the room?

142 Did you have any trouble with the humidity in (the/your)

that is, did it every seem either too humid or too dry?

143 Have you made any major or expensive changes to (the/your)

such as removing a wall, or adding a closet, a window, or a fixture.

Please don't include new furniture or appliances.

90
28

READ ALL QUESTIONS FROM CARD "B";

RECORD ALL ANSWERS BELOW:

A B C D E F G H I J K

Own Oth Own Oth

Liv Kit Bth Bth Bed Bed Din Fam Den Bal Sto

134 Included Y 2 2 Mas 2 Mas 2 2 2 2 Bal 2 N l' 1 1 1 1 1 1 Por 1

135 Size Y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

136 Built-in Y 2 2 2 Lighting

N 1 1 1

137 Natural NA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Lighting

y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

138 Furnishing Y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

139 Storage NA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1

140 Heating NA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

141 Cooling NA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

142 Humidity H 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 2. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

143 Remodeling Y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

(l) full baths Q

(m) half BATHS O

(n) BEDROOMS

ENTER THE NUMBEK OF BEDROOMS AT TOP OF THE

NEXT PAGE.

cnjjjj

ores m

caxo

OT

CTDZD dmshied

curs cnD

SICES

mm_mm com

HDD

crsg

dene

ddC

0=TO

to

j

91
29

92
30

146

147

148

149

Earlier I asked you about major or expensive changes in some

of the rooms in your (house/apartment). Now, I'd like you to think about the biggest single physical change you've made

since moving here, other than new furniture or appliances*

such as changes we may have discussed before C I F SINGLE

FAMILY/ ASK! or changes that you have made to the outside

of your home).

I'd like to know why this particular change was made? Was it to correct something that was wrong or to add something you

wanted to have?

1 To correct something wrong

2 To add something you wanted to have

3 Both to correct and to add

4 Other (SPECIFY)

5

' No changes made

IF ANY CHANGE IS REPORTED IN ITEM 146/ ASK:

What was this change and where is it?

Q

One final question about your bathroom - the one that you use most frequently for bathing and personal hygiene. What do you

think of the layout and arrangement of the fixtures provided,

like the sink, mirror, medicine cabinet, toilet, and tub or shower stall? Do you think it's excellent, good, average,

below average, or poor?

Excellent

Good

Average

Below average

Poor

What is there about this bathroom that makes you feel this way?

f — 1 r OXUXn

]<* . Yl W

QQQ

TOO

QOT

93
31

c\150 Given how (you use/this household uses) the kitchen: do you^

think the layout of the kitchen, of the cabinets and countertops, and the arrangement of the appliances, the sink, and

the rest, is excellent, good, average, below average, or poor?

5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Average

2 Below average

1 Poor

151 What is there about the kitchen that makes you feel this way? COCO

coco

COCO

« 5, 41O

152 Compared with your experiences before moving here, do you

think the routine cleaning of walls, floors, and windows,

of sinks, toilets, and bathtubs or shower stalls is easier

than it was before, as easy as it was before, as difficult

as it was before, or more difficult than it was before?

4 Easier than it was before

3 As easy as it was before

2 As difficult as it was before

1 More difficult than it was before

153 Why do you say this? TO

CO

CO

cma

94

H

N
32

154 When repairing or decorating your home, did the construction

material - for example, what the walls are made of - present

any problems or require new techniques for handling these

jobs?

2 Yes

1 No

8 Don 1 1 know

9 No repairs or decorations

IF "YES" TO ITEM 154/ ASK:

155 Could you please explain?

Q

TT" S- aiiTT IT"

J

95
33

r

if MULT I -FAMILY, ask 156 thru 161:

Earlier, I asked about the lighting inside your home. Now

I'd like you to think about the lighting in the public areas

of this building. Do you th i nk the I i ght i ng is suf f i c i ent throughout the:

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

Yes No

Entryway or lobby? 2

Ha I I ways? - 2

Elevators? 2

Sta i rways? 2

Community room? 2

Laundry room? 2

ASK ALL RESPONDENTS 162 THRU 165:

Do you think there is adequate lighting in [ Yes

along the pathways, sidewalks and streets? 2

in the area around building entrances? 2

in outdoor recreation areas? 2

in outdoor public parking areas? 2

D.K . N.

A

8 9

8 9

8 9

8 9

8 9

8 9

No D.K

1 8

1 8

1 8

1 8

if "NO" to ANY item 156 through 165, ask:

If this is causing any problems, would you please describe

them?

24

g

ego ggg

ggg ggg

ggg gg

J

96
34

167 We haven't spoken about noise and whether it's a problem for

(you/any of you) here. Is there anything inside this (house/

apartment) that is making noise that bothers (you/any of you)?

0 0 0

168 Next, I'd like to know about bothersome noises that originate

outside this (house/apartment) - those that come in through

the walls or floors or ceiling or doors or windows when your

doors and windows are closed. Where do these noises come from

and who or what seems to be making the noise?

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.

01 From other dwelling units inside the building:

sounds of people or pets.

02 From other dwelling units inside the building:

sounds of mechanical systems, plumbing, appliances, floors, doors, windows or other fixtures.

03 From elevators, trash chutes, and laundry rooms.

04 From hallways or stairways inside the building .

05 Other sounds inside the building.

06 From people or pets in another building.

07 From people or pets out of doors.

08 From traffic on or off the site (automobiles,

trucks, motorcycles, busses, trains, planes).

09 Other sounds outside the building.

10 No noise.

00

00

00

00

00

if ONE or MORE noises are cited in item 167 or

168/ ask 169:

97
I n

169 Why are you bothered by the noises you told me about?

35

IF FIORE THAN ONE OCCUPANT/ ASK 170 AND 171:

170 Can you find a place in this ( house/apartment) to be alone

and to be let alone when you need to be? Would you say that

you can find such a place all of the time, most of the time,

sometimes, or never?

4 A I I of the time

3 Most of the time

2 Sometimes

I Never

171 When you need to be off by yourself, and you really want to be let alone, where do you go?

DESCRIBE:

TO

QOO

Em

am

172 To change topics again, how many times have you moved in the

past 5 years?

Number of moves

173 Is this (f amily/household) the first to occupy this (house/

apartment)

?

2 Yes

1 No

8 Don ' t know

J

98
IF HOME IS OWNED/ ASK:

What was the purchase price of this home?

$

8 Don't know

Last month, how much did it cost (you/this household) to live

here? That is, how much was spent on:

3OTD

RECORD TO THE NEAREST $5.00:

j

1 rent or mortgage payments, including property

I I and assessment taxes?

| 1 all utilities, other than the telephone?

| J (check box if included with the rent)

.

| | maintenance fees and other fees, but excluding

| 1 rent and mortgage payments?

cur

COT
37

r -\

178 If you need repair work inside your home, who is responsible

for doing it or having it done?

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY,

1 Management; manager

2 Homeowner's Association (go TO 183)

3 Builder; developer

4 Occupant ...... (go to 183)

5 Other (SPECIFY) (GO TO 183)

179

if "builder/developer" or "management" to item

178/ ask 179:

About how many times In the last month have you made a request

for repairs of your home?

Number of times (iF "Q, " GO TO 183)

if ONE or MORE/ ask:

180 Has any of this work been completed?

2 Yes

i no (go to 183)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 180/ ASK 181 AND 182:

181 Overall, how satisfied are you with the repair work? Are you very well satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?

4 Very well satisfied

3 Somewhat satisfied

2 Somewhat dissatisfied

I Very dissatisfied

182

AND THEN ASK:

Why do you feel this way? TO

J

100
38

183 Who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of

[ ] itself and for making and enforcing rules

here?

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY:

Management; Manager

Homeowner's Association

Other (SPECIFY)

No one Don't know/ No answer

J

101

!
39

r

184 Do you think there are any unfair regulations here at

t ]?

Yes

No (GO TO 186)

Don't know (GO TO 186)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 184, ask:

185 Tel I me about the one that bothers you most and how it has

affected you. COT

COT

COT

186 Is anything permitted here that you don't approve of?

Yes

No (go to 188)

Don't know (GO TO 188)

187

IF "YES" TO ITEM 186, ASK:

Which of these bothers you the most and how has it affected

you? OTOT

coot

CUED 4* « *1 52

188 Think about the way in which ___ (responsible group)

manages [ ]. Overall, are you very well satisfied,

somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?

1 Very well satisfied

2 Somewhat satisfied

3 Somewhat dissatisfied

4 Very dissatisfied

V. J

102
40

189

190

192

Have you noticed anything innovative, different, or new about

the way the inside or the outside of your home was built or about the materials used in building your home?

Yes

No (GO TO 192)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 189, ASK 190 AND 191:

Of the things you've noticed, which one or two do you think

are the most innovative, different, or new? Would you please

describe them?

FOR EACH EXAMPLE GIVEN IN ITEM 190, ASK:

191 Do you find that is an improvement? Q 0

Yes No

Examp 1 e 1 : 2 1 rmn 03

Examp 1 e 2 : 2 1 001 z

Now that you've been living here, what are the two or three

things you like most about [ ]?

0X0

oox

0000

0X0

oox

J

103
'll r

193

194

195

196

197

And what are the two or three things you dislike most about

[ ]? moX© XI XX 0X0

When you think about your experiences here, overall, are you

satisfied or dissatisfied with your (house/apartment) as a place to live? Would you say that you're very well satisfied,

somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisf ied?

4 Very well satisfied

3 Somewhat satisfied

2 Somewhat dissatisfied

1 Very dissatisfied

Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the housing

site, that is with the grounds, the community facilities,

play areas, parking, and the like. As a place to live, are you very well satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat

dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with [ ]?

4 Very well satisfied

3 Somewhat satisfied

2 Somewhat dissatisfied

1 Very dissatisfied

Was the design and construction of [ ] financially

supported by the Federal Government?

2 Yes

1 No TO 198)

8 Don ' t know . . . • •• (go TO 198)

IF "YES" TO ITEM 196/ ask:

Could you tell me which Federal Agency this was?

SPECIFY:

104
42

n

198 Is most or all of the housing in

^ [ ] industrialized

housing? That is, was it manufactured using assembly line

techniques in a factory located some distance away from here?

2 Yes

1 No

199 How likely are you to move from this place in the next two or three years? Are you certain to move, probably will move, or

do you plan to stay here?

1 Certain to move

2 Probably will move

3 Plan to stay here (go TO 201)

4 Can't say; undecided (GO TO 201)

200

if "CERTAIN TO MOVE" or "PROBABLY WILL MOVE" to

item 199, ASK:

Why are you thinking of moving? IDW CDyw

201

HAND RESPONDENT CARD "IV":

What was the total family income during the past 12 months?

This includes wages and salaries, net income from a business

or farm, pensions, dividents, interest, rent, and any other

money income received by members of this (family /household)

.

Could you please tell me in which of the groups the total

family income falls? Just the number on the left of the card

is enough.

01 Under. $2,000

02 Under $4,000

03 Under $6,000

04 Under $8,000

05 Under $10,000

06 Under $12,000

07 Under $15,000

08 Under $20,000

09 $20,000 or over

98 Don't know

99 No answer - refuses to answer J

105
43

202 Finally, what do you think [ ] will be like in five

years? Hill it be a better place to live than it is now, about the same, or not as good?

3 Better

2 Afcout the same

1 Not as good

203 Why do you say that? What do you think could be done to make

it better?

Why?

How better?

I want to thank you very much for answering these questions

for us- Your cooperation has been most helpful.

CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

204

END OF INTERVIEW.

ENTER THE PRESENT TIME:

Time is now a.m./p.m. QCCD

205

enter TODAY'S date:

Today's da+e:

ALL REMAINING ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE

INTERVIEWER:

CD

CD

CD

106
44

circle race of RESPONDENT:

1 White

2 Black

3 Other (SPECIFY)

What is your impression of the respondent's hearing ability?

Would you say:

1 the respondent's hearing was good?

2 the respondent had a little trouble hearing?

3 the respondent had a lot of trouble hearing?

4 Other (SPECIFY)

Did you observe any devices which would suggest a vision or

hearing defect or a physical disability?

1 Eyeglasses (belonging to the respondent)

2 Hearing aid (on the respondent)

3 Crutches, walker, or wheelchair

4 Other (SPECIFY)

In general, what was the respondent's attitude during the

interview? Was it:

1 friendly and eager?

2 cooperative, but not particularly eager?

3 indifferent and bored?

4 hosti le?

5 No answer

Was the respondent's understanding of the interview good,

fa i r, or poor?

1 Good

2 Fair

3 Poor

J

107
<15 \

211 Did anyone beside the respondent participate in the interview,

such as answering questions or discussion answers?

2 Yes

I No

212 IF "YES", SPECIFY WHICH ITEMS OR SECTIONS OF THE

INTERVIEW WERE AFFECTED:

J

108
46

r

213

214

215

216

A large number of obvious factors can affect a respondent's

answers, yet there may be no questions about these in the

interview schedule. Please tell us what you know about four

of these factors.

First, was anything happening during the interview, either

inside or outside the dwelling unit (other than those noted

above), which might have affected the interview? A constant

barrage of noise is an example.

1 No

2 Yes (SPECIFY)

Second, did any extreme or unusual conditions exist either

before or during the day of the interview? Examples include severe or unusual weather or climatic conditions; a personal

reaction to a job loss, injury, death, illness, or the like;

strikes by employees of utilities, services, or the like, that

serve the household.

NoYes (SPECIFY).

Third, is there anything about the dwelling unit or outside

places belonging to the household that was distinctive or which is informative insofar as answers to the interview are

concerned? You can include reference to housekeeping or maintanance, repair problems, decorations, furnishings, and

the like.

NoYes (SPECIFY).

Fourth, is there anything about the household members, including the respondent, that can help us to understand the

respondent's answers to the interview questions? Examples

could include life style, temporary occupants, pets, or the

like. NoYes (SPECIFY).

Q

DDCD i CD

1 TO

CD>4 CD5 (b ID DOio

TO TO

TO TO

D

j

109
47

217

218

if OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH, circle producer.

NON-BREAKTHROUGH circle 70.

IF

1 Alcoa

2 Bqi se Cascade

3 Bui Iding Systems

4 Came i

5 Christiana Western

6 Descon/Concord i

a

7 FCE-Di 1 Ion

8 General Electric

9 Herco form

10 Home Building

1 1 Levitt

12 Material Systems

13 National Homes

14 Pantek

15 Pemtom

16 Repub 1 ic Steel

17 Rouse-Wates

18 Sho 1 z

19 She 1 ly

20 Town land

21 TRW Systems

70 Not Breakthrough

98 Don't know producer

IF INCOMPLETE OR NO INTERVIEW, CIRCLE THE REASON

AFTER THE LAST CALLBACK:

Nobody ever home

No primary adult present

Non-cooperation (unwilling to participate at

all)

Terminated interview

Other (SPECIFY)

00

HID @3

110
BREAKTHROUGH BOUNDARIES

(used for QUESTIONS 8 AND 9 )

City: Indianapolis City: Sacramento

Site : Operation BREAKTHROUGH Site: Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Site Name: Park Lafayette Site Name: Greenfair

Boundaries

:

Boundaries

:

(N) Open fields; Noble School (N) Subdivision of single

(S) 21st Street family housing called

(E) Tibbs Avenue Elmhurst

(W) Open field ( S ) Broadway

(E) Fairgrounds Drive

(W) Fairgrounds Drive

City: Kalamazoo

Site : Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Site Name: New Horizon Village City: St. Louis

Boundaries

:

Site: Operation BREAKTHROUGH

(N) Spring Valley Park Site Name: LaClede East

(S) Gull Road Boundaries

:

(E) A subdivision of single (N) Olive Street

family housing (S) Market Street

(W) Cherrywood Trace Apartments (E) Beaumont Street

(W) Ewing Avenue

City: King County (Seattle)

Site: Operation BREAKTHROUGH City: St. Louis

Site Name: Lendemain Site: Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Boundaries

:

Sit6 Name: LaClede West

(N) Marked hiking trail (sits on Boundaries

:

top of Tolp River Pipeline) (N) Olive Street

(S) A park area called Greenbelt (S) LaClede Avenue

(E) 124th Avenue, N.E. (E) Compton Avenue

(W) Two adjoining subdivisions of (W) Charming Avenue

single family housing

called Queens Gate and

High Woodlands City: Seattle (city)

Site : Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Site Name : Bryant Manor

City: Macon Boundaries

:

Site: Operation BREAKTHROUGH (N) East Yesler Way

Site Name: Crystal Lake (S) Where future city park

Boundaries: will be; Seattle

(N) The yards belonging to older, Community College

single family housing (E) Temporary city park

(S) Chambers Road (W) 18th Avenue

(E) Wooded area

(W) Wooded area

City: Memphis

Site: Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Site Name: Edison Park

Boundaries

:

(N) Jefferson Avenue

(S) Madison Avenue

(E) Hamlin Street

(W) Danny Thomas Boulevard

111
*

4 CHAPTER 5: THE REVISED CORE QUESTIONNAIRE

Purpose 113

Description of the Questionnaire . 113

Content 113

Format 115

The Research Instrument 115

Suggestions About Content and Use 115

Deleting and Adding Items 115

Preparation for Data Entry 115

Preparation of the Questionnaire Master Copy 116

Revised Core Questionnaire 118

Comments on Questionnaire Items 154

112
CHAPTER 5: THE REVISED CORE QUESTIONNAIRE

PURPOSE

The revised Core Questionnaire (rev. CQ) is a revision of the Core Questionnaire (CQ) presented in chapter 4. Based on experience with the CQ in the

study of Operation Breakthrough (OBT) housing, the rev. CQ is a 100-item, 36-

page questionnaire for post-occupancy housing evaluations. The revision has

removed all material linked exclusively to OBT.

The rev. CQ was prepared because a housing survey questionnaire is an efficient

and effective way of obtaining resident opinion. Therefore, a field-tested,

available housing questionnaire that covers a wide range of topics applicable

to the residential environment is a source upon which others can build for

their housing evaluation studies. Using this source of questionnaire items

should reduce costs and time in developing a questionnaire for similar postoccupancy evaluations.

DESCRIPTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Content

A comparison of the CQ and the rev. CQ reveals the following general likenesses

and differences:

1. Both cover the same topics, and the items in both questionnaires are, in

most instances, similar in focus and intent if not in their actual wording. An index to the topics in the rev. CQ appears in table 10. An itemby-item comparison of the CQ and the rev. CQ is available, on request,

from the author.

2. The rev. CQ incorporates information originally in the CQ's interviewer's

and coder's manuals, such as instructions for use and coding categories.

This change makes the rev. CQ a more useful research instrument.

3. Both questionnaires are applicable to a range of housing types and

to housing sites designed or designated as planned unit developments.

4. The time for administering either questionnaire could be as long as 75

minutes, with 60 minutes for questions about the residential environment

and 15 minutes for background information about the respondent and his/her

household. However, actual administration time will typically be shorter

since only occasional respondents will be asked every question.

There is one limitation to the rev. CQ. Although the rev. CQ and the CQ have

housing-type-specific items, neither has development-specific items. The study

of OBT housing indicates that development-general items have limitations. If

researchers can become familiar with the developments they plan to evaluate

prior to questionnaire development, they should seriously consider including

113
Table 10. Index to the rev. CQ

Question

1

1 Contents

1

1 Deck/

| Column(s)

1

1

1

| Pagea

1

1-7A

i

I Basic respondent data

1

| 1/7-24

1

1 1-3

7B I Other head of household data | 1/25-37 1 4

8 | Data on other occupants | 1/38-68 I 5 9 I Data on site definition I 1/69-70 I 5 10-11 I Length and type of tenancy I 2/7-12 1 6

12 I Reasons for selecting development | 2/13-23 1 6

13-14 I Site appearance and maintenance | 2/24-29 | 7 15-21 I General use of site | 2/30-65 | 8-10

22 I Site services | 2/66-79 1 11

23 I Household income | 2/80 1 11

24-29 I Fires and accidents | 2/7-18 | 12-13

30-34 | Friends and neighbors I 3/19-36 | 13-15

35-38 I Security (personal or property) | 3/37-58 I 16-17

39-40 I Site location | 3/59-79 1 18

41-42 1 Hours at home I 4/7-14 1 19

43-44 1 Physical disabilities | 4/15-31 1 19

45-52 I Interiors: general | 4/32-44 | 20

53 I Interior rooms I (living room, kitchen, bath) 1 4/45-76 1 21

53 1 Interior rooms II (other rooms) I 5/7-46 | 22

54-60 1 Interiors: miscellaneous | 5/47-71 I 23-25

61-63 I Housekeeping and upkeep | 5/72-80 1 25

64-66 1 Lighting of the site | 6/7-22 | 26

67-69 I Noise | 6/23-44 I 27-28

70 I Privacy | 6/45-46 | 28

71-72 | First occupancy and residential mobility | 6/47-48 | 28

73-75 I Cost of occupancy ! 6/49-57 | 29

76-78 | Maintenance and repairs | 6/58-70 | 29-30

79-82 I Rules and regulations | 6/71-80 I 30-31

1 1 7/7-9 1 83 I Housing innovations | 7/10-16 1 31

84 I The area around the development 1 7/17 1 31

85-88 I Respondent's overall impressions | 7/18-25 I 32

89 I Plans to move | 7/26-41 | 33

90 I Prediction of the development's future | 7/42-43 1 34

91-100 I Questions for the interviewer

1

| 7/44-58

1

| 34-36

1

a Refers to the internal pagination of the rev. CQ.

114
supplementary development-specific items in their version of the rev. CQ.

These additions should increase the researchers' understanding of the developments being studied and their differences.

Format

The rev. CQ has 100 items of which 90 are addressed to the respondent (items

1-90) and 10 are addressed to the interviewer (items 91-100). Like the CQ,

the rev. CQ contains items of all levels of coding complexity. The difference

in the number of items in the CQ (218 items) and the rev. CQ (100 items) is,

in large part, a result of format changes rather than of reduction in scope.

Items that were separately numbered in the CQ were often combined into one numbered item on the rev. CQ. For example, rev. CQ item 6 includes the

material covered by CQ items 96, 98, 99, and 102-105.

The Research Instrument

The rev. CQ appears at the end of this chapter. The rev. CQ pagination is

enclosed in hyphens and is just above the chapter pagination.

SUGGESTIONS ABOUT CONTENT AND USE

Several topics that can affect the content and use of the rev. CQ deserve

comment. Advice on deleting items from the rev. CQ and on preparing the rev.

CQ for keypunching appear in this section. A lengthy section presenting background information and instructions on the use of rev. CQ items directly follows the rev. CQ at the end of this chapter. Readers should be able to answer

other questions about the rev. CQ and its use by carefully studying the rev. CQ

and this report.

Deleting and Adding Items

Use of the rev. CQ for other studies might require dropping certain items.

For example, a study may not be concerned with residential security—at least

to the extent it is covered in the rev. CQ. These questions and the material

linked to them may be deleted from the questionnaire without harming the questionnaire's usefulness. However, new materials should not be added without

expert advice.

Preparation for Data Entry

The rev. CQ was designed so that edited, coded forms would be ready for

keypunching on 80-column cards because keypunching was popular at that time.

However, it is also suitable for key-to-disk entry. The rev. CQ's design

minimizes the transfer of data, thereby providing fewer opportunities for

introducing errors into the data.

The instructions for the keypunch operators appear in the right hand margin

of the questionnaire. These marginal entries indicate that the rev. CQ

requires seven keypunch cards. These seven cards correspond to the seven

115
decks indicated in the upper right hand margin of each page. For example, on page 1 of the rev. CQ the note reads "BEGIN DK 1," and on page 26 it reads

"BEGIN DK 6." These notes refer to cards 1 and 6, respectively.

For each keypunch card the first column should contain a number indicating

the portion of the rev. CQ covered by the card; that is, the first column

should contain the deck number corresponding to that card. The next five

columns (columns 2-6) of each card are reserved for an identification (ID)

code for each respondent. This code number should be entered on page 1 of the

rev. CQ. A code number allows the computer to relate each of the seven cards

in a person’s file. This is necessary in order to allow a person’s response

to an item on one card to be compared with the same person’s response to items

on other cards in his/her file.

Standard instructions for keypunch operators are used. The symbol "?" in the

margin of the rev. CQ means the information to be keypunched is not in the margin but appears within the black border. The symbol means the information

is in the margin itself. There are boxes within the border and in the margins

for recording the code numbers for the applicable coding categories. It is

assumed that the codes will be numerical and not alphabetical. Only one digit

goes into each box; a two-digit code would require two boxes, and so on.

The rev. CQ does not require alphabetical codes. However, the CQ did for the

respondent's address (see page 1, columns 3-16 of the CQ). The quotation marks

in columns 3 and 16 of page 1 of the CQ are conventions required by the SPSS/

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [Nie et al. , 1975] to indicate that

alphabetical information might appear in that field (series of columns). If

researchers plan to use alphabetical codes, they should check their data processing software system to determine whether and under what conditions it

accepts alphabetical information.

PREPARATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE MASTER COPY

If researchers plan to use the rev. CQ and want to have their version look like

the version in this chapter, they should follow the instructions in this section. These instructions produced the master copy of the rev. CQ from which

the copy in this chapter was prepared.

The questionnaire master copy is prepared on Xerox XRD 11-1/8 in by 14-1/3 in

bond paper. It is typed on an IBM Selectric II typewriter, with the paper

guide set at zero and the left-hand margin set at 20 (ten pitch) or 24 (12

pitch). Courier typefaces are used throughout. Ten pitch is used occasionally

for emphasis (as on the two "cards," for example), but essentially the material

is in 12 pitch. Space-and-a-half between lines is frequently used to fit in

lists of coded responses. Horizontal half-spaces are also used to center

column titles and response codes. All interviewer script appears in Courier

Italic, along with a few items that must be inserted for any specific application, such as the name of the sponsoring agency.

Borders are inset on the master copy, 1 in at the top and left, 1-1/2 in at

the bottom and right. On a few of the pages, the bottom border is slightly

116
lowered to accommodate copy. All keypunch instructions are outside the border

the question numbers are set to the left of the margin stop. Code boxes are inserted within a 3/8 in square template. A 30 mm diameter is used for the corners.

The master copy is reduced to fit on a standard 8-1/2 in by 11 in page, using

a Xerox 7000 reducing copier (Mode 3 setting).

117
Revised Core Questionnaire

Please Do / Not Write

In This

Column.

BEGIN DK 1:

1/1

2 -6/?

7/?

118
(DK 1)

INTRODUCTION (proceed only if an ADULT RESIDENT is present)

; my name is Hello. I'm with

We're doing a study of housing in this area and we'd like to get the opinions of residents, like yourself, about their homes and the neighborhood. The information will be

used to improve future housing. I'd like to take a little of your time and ask you some questions

.

(If respondent agrees to be interviewed, enter the PRESENT TIME: AM/PM

If respondent cannot be interviewed at this time, attempt to fix a more convenient appointment, and note outcome of this call on the cover page.)

Before we begin, I should tell you that your answers will be strictly confidential. The

only people who see them will be the researchers who analyze the information we get.

What we learn will be used to write a report on what the people around here think of

their housing. No individuals will be identified in any of our reports.

So to begin—

1.

How many people live here? (PROBE: exclude temporary visitors, non-resident family

members like students living away from home, etc.; include all children, people who

are temporarily away from home, roomers, and any other residents whether related to the respondent or not. Include the respondent in the total.)

Total Persons

2.

I need to know a few basic things about each of you. Let's start with yourself:

can you tell me how old you are? (ALSO CODE RESPONDENT S SEX)

Respondent's Age

Respondent's Sex: Male... 1

Female.. 2

3. Did you ever get a high school diploma? (IF YES, ASK:) A college degree?

(IF YES, ASK:) What degree? (PROBE: circle one code for highest educational

attainment.)

Did Not Complete High School 1

High School Diploma Only 2

Some College, No Degree 3

B.A. or Equivalent 4

Graduate Studies, No Degree 5

M.A., Ph.D. , L.L.B., M.D . or Other Graduate Degree or More 6

4. Are you currently going to school? (IF YES, ASK:) Full time or part time?

Not Presently Enrolled 1

Enrolled, Part Time 2

Enrolled, Full Time 3

8-9/?

10 - 11/?

12/?

13/?

14/?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 2-

119
(DK 1)

5. Are you currently receiving retirement benefits from a former employer

or from the government?

Yes 1

No 2

6. Are you presently employed , or looking for a job?

NO: Neither Employed nor Looking.. 1 — —-—YES: Presently Employed 2 ~~— YES : Not Presently Employed

,

But Currently Looking for Work. ... 3

IF YES: ASK ITEMS A, B, AND C

A. Is this full time or part time work? ("Full time" is thirty

hours a week or more, from one job or any combination of

part-time jobs.)

Full Time 1

Part Time 2

B. What kind of work do you do? (PROBE: if response is not

specific, inquire into main duties, etc.)

WRITE IN JOB TITLE (sales clerk, teacher, machinist, etc.)

C. And what kind of a place or business do you work for?

(PROBE: What do they make or sell, etc.)

WRITE IN TYPE OF EMPLOYER (department store, public school

system, automobile factory, etc.)

7. And are you the head of this household? (Circle one. If respondent lives alone,

code this item "Yes.") Yes (GO TO QUESTION 8) 1

A. IF NO: Who is the head of the household?

(Circle one)

-No (ASK ITEM A) 2

^Respondent's Spouse 1

Respondent's Parent. 2

Respondent's Child 3

Respondent's Other Relative... 4

IF THE RESPONDENT DESIGNATES ANY OTHER

PERSON AS THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD,

ASK ITEM B ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.

Non-Relative 5

No Particular Person is the

Head of This Household (You

may ignore Item B and go directly to Question 8) 6

15/?

16/?

17/?

18-20/:

21-22/:

23/?

24/?

- 3-

120
Question 7, continued

B. ASK ONLY IF RESPONDENT HAS DESIGNATED ANOTHER RESIDENT

AS THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD:

I. How old is that person? (If respondent does not know Head's age, code boxes "99." Also

enter code for Head's sex.)

Head ' s Age

Head's Sex: Male... 1 Female . . 2

II. And how far did this person go in school? (Circle one for highest attainment, as before)

Did Not Complete High School . . 1 High School Diploma Only 2 Some College, No Degree 3 B.A. or Equivalent 4 Graduate Studies , No Degree ... 5 M.A., Ph . D . , L.L.B., M.D. or Other Graduate Degree or More. 6 Don't Know 9

III. Is this person currently going to school?

(IF YES:) Full time or part time? Not Presently Enrolled 1 Enrolled, Part Time 2 Enrolled, Full Time 3 Don't Know 9

IV. Does this person currently receive retirement benefits

from a former employer or from the government?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't Know g

V. Is this person currently employed , or looking

for a job?

NO: Neither Employed nor Looking.. 1 YES: Presently Employed 2 YES: Not Presently Employed,

But Currently Looking for Work.... 3 IF YES: ASK ITEMS (a), (b) , (c) Don't Know g

(a) Is this full time or part time work?

Full Time 1 Part Time 2 Don ' t Know 9

(b) What kind of work does this person do? (PROBE)

WRITE IN JOB TITLE

(c) And what kind of a place or business do they work for? (PROBE)

WRITE IN TYPE OF EMPLOYER

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

-4 -

(DK 1)

25-26/?

27/?

28/?

29/?

30/?

31/?

32/7

33-35/:

36-37/:
(DK 1)

8. ASK IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER PERSONS, INCLUDING CHILDREN, LIVING IN THIS

HOUSEHOLD IN ADDITION TO THE RESPONDENT AND A DESIGNATED HEAD:

Now let's take up the rest of the people who live here. How many

of them are— Number:

A. —children two years of age or less?

B. —children aged three through twelve?

Which are boys and which are girls?

C. —children aged thirteen through eight- teen? Which are boys? Girls?

CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS

:

BOYS, 3-12 YEARS:

GIRLS, 3-12 YEARS:

TEENAGE BOYS:

TEENAGE GIRLS: —other persons, aged nineteen or more? OTHER ADULTS:

(Enter number AND complete one of the

lines provided below for EACH such person)

ENTER DETAILED INFORMATION FOR OTHER ADULTS (OVER 18 YEARS OLD)

INTERVIEWER: check to make sure all persons living in dwelling unit (Question No. 1) have

been accounted for, either as respondent, as a separately designated head of household,

or in Question 8 above.

9. (ASK OF EVERY RESPONDENT) Do you call this place [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME]? Yes.

No.

.

38/?

39/?

40/?

41/?

42/?

43/?

44-48/?

49-53/?

54-58/?

59-63/?

64-68/?

69/?

When I refer to [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] , I mean the area between...

[ADD SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES , ACCORDING TO APPLICATION OF SURVEY. Example: "The area bounded by Jones Road on

the West, the park on the North and East, and Highway 30 on the South."]

Are we talking about the same thing? Yes 1

No 2

IF NO: Record any comments the respondent may have and continue interview.

70/?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 5-

122
BEGIN DK 2: 1/2

2-6/ID

7-10/?

11/?

12/?

13/?

14/?

15/?

16/?

17/?

18/?

19/?

20/?

21/?

22/:

23/:

123
(DK 2)

13. (ASK BOTH A AND B.)

A. Now that you're living here, what do you think of the way

[INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] looks overall? Do you like the

appearance very much, like it somewhat, dislike it somewhat,

or dislike it very much? (Code ONE response in the line below)

B. And what do you think about the appearance of the outside

of your own building? Overall, do you like it very much,

like it somewhat, dislike it somewhat, or dislike it very

much? (Code ONE response in second line below)

A.of

B.of

Appearance

Development

Appearance

Own Building

Like Very Much Like Somewhat Dislike Somewhat Dislike Very Much

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

14. (ASK BOTH A AND B.

)

A. In general, what do you think about the way the people who

live here maintain and keep up their homes and the area around their

homes? Do you think it's excellent, good, average, below average,

or poor? (Circle ONE response in Line A below)

B. And what do you think of the way the people who manage this

place maintain and keep up (INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME)? Do you think it's excellent , good, average, below average, or poor? (Circle ONE response in Line B)

A. People's Maintenance of Own Home

B. Management's Maintenance of

Development

Excellent Good Average Below Average Poor

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

IF RESPONDENT CHOOSES EITHER "BELOW AVERAGE" OR "POOR" TO EITHER QUESTION, ASK:

What is the problem? (RECORD RESPONSES BELOW)

Problems With People's Maintenance of Own Homes

Problems With Management's Maintenance of Development

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

-7-

24/?

25/?

26/?

27/?

28/:

29/:

124
(DK 2) 15. When the weather is right, how often do you spend time outdoors on the grounds

of [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME]? Is it very often, often, sometimes, seldom, or never?

Very Often.

.

1 30/?

Often 2

r Sometimes . .

.

3

A <

IF SOMETIMES, SELDOM, OR NEVER, ASK: l Never 5

A. Is there any particular reason why you don’t go

outside around here more often? (PROBE: circle

one code for each reason listed)

MAJOR FACTOR:

Stressed by

Respondent

MINOR FACTOR:

Also Mentioned

By Respondent

NOT A FACTOR: Not Mentioned

By Respondent

Illness or Physical Health 1 2 3 31/?

Ascribed to Appearance—The Way

It Looks, Smells; Also Noise

1 2 3 32/?

Threats to Safety, Including Lack

Of Repairs, Ongoing Construction on

Site, Inadequate Maintenance (Such as Slippery Sidewalks in the Winter)

1 2 3 33/?

Threats to Personal Security

(Fears of Criminal Activities) 1 2 3 34/?

Social Reasons: Activities/Friends Are

in Own Building or Off Site Altogether 1 2 3 35/?

Outdoor Areas Pre-empted by Others:

Respondent Stays Away (Such as Childreii) 1 2 3 36/?

Ascribed to Design of the Site

What is There and Where It is 1 2 3 37/?

Legitimate Competing Activity—Job,

School, Housework, Having to Study 1 2 3 38/?

IF RESPONDENT CITES OTHER REASONS, INCLUDING "NO SPECIAL REASON," ENTER HERE: 39/:

n 16. How often do you spend time inside or on your porch or balcony, watching what's

going on or just taking in the view? Is it very often, often, sometimes, seldom, or never?

Very Often.

.

1 40/?

Often 2

Sometimes . .

.

3

Seldom 4

Never 5

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE
j

(DK 2)

I;, M

41/?

42/?

43/?

44/?

45/?

46/?

47/?

48 /?

49 /?

50/?

51/?

52 /?

53/:

126
(DK 2)

19. Is there anyone in this household for whom there are no suitable

recreation facilities or planned activities , or who could use additional

or improved facilities or activities , here at [INSERT DEVELOPMENT

NAME] ? (Circle one.)

Yes.

No. .

IF YES, ASK:

What is the problem? (PROBE and circle

one code for each possible problem)

NEEDS FOR PROVIDING, ADDING TO, OR IMPROVING

—Facilities for

Toddlers/Young Children —Planned Activities for

Toddlers/Young Children —Facilities

for Teenagers —Planned Activities

for Teenagers —Facilities for

Non-Elderly Adults —Planned Activities

for Non-Elderly Adults —Facilities for

Elderly People —Planned Activities

for Elderly People

Don't

Know 9

Mentioned By Not Mentioned By

Respondent Respondent

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1

1

1

2

2

2

RECORD ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS:

20. How many cars or other powered vehicles does this household

regularly park at [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] ? (Enter number; NUMBER OF VEHICLES:

if no vehicles, enter zero.)

21. Do you (or anyone else in the household) , or your visitors and

guests, ever have parking problems? (Circle one)

Yes, for Respondent and/or

Others in Household Only 1

Yes, for Guests/Visitors Only. 2

Yes, for Both Those in This

Household and Visitors 3

No 4

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 10 -

54/?

55/?

56/?

57/?

58/?

59/?

60/?

61/?

62/?

63/:

64/?

65/?

127
(DK 2)

22. Now, I'd like to ask you about some services that may be provided at [INSERT

DEVELOPMENT NAME] to people who live here. What we'd like to know is, first

is the service provided as far as you know, and if you or your household

makes use of it. If a service isn't provided and you think it should be,

tell me about that. For the services you do use, I'd like you to tell me if it's satisfactory or not. First, let's take day care. As far as you

know, is it provided for the people who live here?

(CODE BOTH ITEMS A AND B FOR EACH SERVICE NAMED)

A. Is [SERVICE] provided?

B. (IF YES) Do you use it?

If so, Is it satisfactory?

Yes No—But It Should Be

No—Don't Care

If It's Provided

Or Not

Don't

Know

Used,

and

Satisfied

Used,

Not

Satisfied

Not Used

Day Care Responses: 1 2 3 9 1 2 3

. . . garbage and trash

removal from this

building

1 2 3 9 1 2 3

...snow and ice re- moval from public

streets s sidewalks

1 2 3 9 1 2 3

...recreation supervision, including

life guards

1 2 3 9 1 2 3

...services for

el derl y peopi

e

1 2 3 9 1 2 3

. . .bookmobile or other on-site

library service

1 2 3 9 1 2 3

. . .community

laundry room

1 2 3 9 1 2 3

We also need to get a rough idea about the annual income of each household

covered by this survey. Can you tell me about how much income was earned, overall,

by everybody who lives in this household? (PROBE unless Respondent refuses to answer, in which case go on to the next item. Income estimate should take account

of all persons in the household and should include wages and salaries , net income

from a business or farm, pensions, dividends, interest, rent, or any other form of

money income. You may read coding categories to Respondent.)

Under $2,500 1 Under $5,000 2 Under $7,500 3 Under $10,000 4 Under $12,500 5 Under $15,000 6 Under $20,000 7 $20,000 or More 8 Don't Know 9

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 11-

66-67/?

68-69/?

70-71/?

72-73/?

74-75/?

76-77/?

78-79/?

80/?

128
BEGIN

DK 3:

1/3

2-6/ID

7/?

8/?

9/?

10/?

11/?

12/:

- 12 -

129
(DK 3)

27. Now we'd like you to think about places here that could cause an accident

for you (or others in this household) . Is there any place in [INSERT

DEVELOPMENT NAME], like walkways, steps, play areas—anyplace

other than inside buildings—that you consider hazardous?

IF YES: Would you please tell me what the hazard is, where it is, and

why you think it's unsafe? (RECORD COMMENTS)

Yes.

No.

.

13/?

14/:

28. Now, is there anything or anyplace inside your home (or building) which you

think is unsafe or could cause an accident?

Yes 1 15/? i

IF YES: Please tell me what it is, where it is, and why you consider

it unsafe . (RECORD COIfiffiNTS)

No 2

16/:

29. Since living in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] , have you (or others in this

household) had an actual accident , either inside or outside?

IF YES: Please tell me about it: who had the accident, where it took

place, and what happened. (RECORD COMMENTS)

Yes.

No.

.

17/?

18/:

30. Do you have personal friends here in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME]?

Yes 1 19/?

No 2

IF YES, ASK: Where do they live?

each possible location)

(Circle one code for

Elsewhere on This Floor of Bldg.

Other Floors, but Same Entrance

In Same Building, Different Entry

Next-door House or Building

Other Five or Six Nearby Bldgs.

Elsewhere in Development

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

20/?

21/?

22/?

23/?

24/?

25/?

- 13 -

130
(DK 3)

31. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS PERSONAL FRIENDS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT—IF RESPONSE TO QUESTION 31 WAS "YES":) When did you get to know

each other, before you came here or afterwards?

IF RESPONDENT MET FRIENDS AFTERWARDS, ASK:

Where did you meet? (Code response below. If more than one

location, PROBE for most significant single location.)

32. ASK OF EVERYONE: Where in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] do you most often spend time talking with other people who live here,

other than in your own home? (Code response below)

Before

Afterwards

.

CIRCLE ONE CODE IN EACH COLUMN

Where Respondent

Got to Know Friends

(Q. 31, Cols 27-28)

Where Respondent Most

Often Spends Time

Talking to Others

(Q. 32: Cols 29-30)

IF NO RESPONSE WAS APPLICABLE FOR

WHERE RESPONDENT MET FRIENDS, CIRCLE: Bk-Bk (NOT APPLICABLE)

Hallways 01 01

Lobby 02 02 Mailbox 03 03 Laundry Room 04 04 Community Room 05 05 Storage Room 06 06 Home of a Friend/Neighbor 07 07

Other Place in Building 08 08

Community Center/Club House 09 09

Swimming Pool 10 10 Tot Lots/Playgrounds 11 11 Other Recreation Areas 12 12 Parking Areas 13 13 Office of Management 14 14 Yards/Patios/Porches/Front Steps 15 15 Pedestrian Paths/Walks/Streets/Trails 16 16 Bus or Other Public Transportation Stop 17 17 Off Site (All Locations) 18 18 Other (SPECIFY) 19 19 No Special Location 20 20 Don't Know/Can't Recall 21 21 Respondent Doesn't Talk to Others (NOT APPLICABLE) 22

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

26/?

27-28/?

29-30/?

- 14-

131
(DK 3)

33. (ASK IF RESPONDENT HAS CHILDREN 17 YEARS OF AGE OR LESS:)

Have your children made friends in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME

]

since you moved here? (Circle one code)

THEN ASK:

In general , do you think the kids in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] are a bad influence , more bad than good, more good than bad,

or a good influence on your own children? (Circle one code)

Yes.

No. .

31/?

Too Soon to Tell

(Either Children

Too Young or Too New in This Area) 3

A Good Influence 1

More Good Than Bad 2

More Bad Than Good 3

32/?

A Bad Influence 4

Don't Know 9

34 . HAND COPY OF CARD "A" TO RESPONDENT (SAME AS CARD "A" BLOCK BELOW)

.

These are some words and phrases which could be used to describe the

people who live (in this building and) in the buildings near yours

around here in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME], We'd like you to rate

your neighbors on each pair of items. For example, if you think your

neighbors are noisy, call out the number right next to the word "noisy."

If you think they're quiet, call out the number right next to the word

"quiet." If you think they're somewhere in between, call out the number

you think fits them best. What number would you give your neighbors on

the pair "noisy or quiet"? (REPEAT FOR EACH OF THE FOUR PAIRS:) What

number would you give them on "friendly or unfriendly"

?

(Continue until

you have circled one code for each pair.

)

NOISY ' 1 2 3 4 5 QUIET

UNFRIENDLY 1 2 3 4 5 . FRIENDLY

CONCERNED ABOUT

THIS PLACE

1 2 3 4 5 INDIFFERENT ABOUT THIS PLACE

PEOPLE I DON'T

FIT IN WITH 1 2 3 4 5 PEOPLE I DO FIT IN WITH

33/?

34/?

35/?

36/?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 15 -

132
35. Have you ever felt threatened around here, by anyone inside or outside of

[INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] ? Please don't identify anyone. (Circle one)

(DK 3)

Yes.

No.

.

IF YES, ASK:

Again, I don't want you to identify anyone, but do they live in the area right around here—in the five or six buildings nearest this one?

(Circle one code for each area where such persons might live.) Do

they live elsewhere in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME]? Do they live

in the areas surrounding the development—that is, within a ten minute walk or a half mile away? Do they come from an area more

than half a mile away?

Right Around Here—In the Five or

Six Buildings Nearest This One

Elsewhere in This Development

Areas Surrounding Development

Ten Minute Walk/Half Mile Away

Area More Than Half Mile Away

36. Since moving here, has anyone in this household actually had problems

with crime or threats to themselves or their property , such as car

theft, burglary, property vandalism, threats of assault, harassment

,

and the like?

IF YES, ASK: Would you mind telling me what happened and where

it happened? It's not necessary to name any names. (RECORD COMMENTS)

Yes No Don't

Know

1 2 9

1 2 9

1 2 9

1 2 9

Yes.

No. .

AND THEN ASK: Was the incident reported to the police?

Was it reported to the management? (Circle one code in

each row.

)

Reported to Police

Reported to Management

Yes No Don't

Know

AND THEN ASK: What steps could be taken—by home builders , police, management, or residents—in a place like this to prevent such incidents from happening?

37/?

38/?

39/?

40/?

41/?

42/?

43/:

44/?

45/?

46/:

133
(DK 3) 37. Now I'd like to ask about a few other things that might affect your

security here. (ASK A THROUGH I. Circle one code for each)

A. Have the original locks on the entry door to your

home been adequate?

B. Have these doors themselves been adequate?

C. Have the window locks been adequate?

D. Have these windows themselves been adequate?

E. Have you changed any of the locks in this place?

F. Does the front door have a door viewer ("peephole" )

?

G. Have you added any locks, bars, or other security devices?

H. Is the outside lighting of the site adequate at night?

I. Is the police and security patrol protection on the

site adequate?

38. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD B, DEPICTED BELOW:)

1. I NEVER WORRY ABOUT SECURITY. I FEEL SAFE THERE ANY TIME

OF THE DAY OR NIGHT.

2. I GENERALLY DON'T WORRY ABOUT SECURITY BUT I'M CAUTIOUS.

I TAKE SOME STEPS TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY PROPERTY.

3. I WORRY ABOUT MYSELF AND MY PROPERTY QUITE A BIT, SO

I TAKE SOME EXTRA STEPS TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY PROPERTY.

4. I DON'T FEEL SAFE THERE AT ALL.

I'd like to know which one statement on this card best describes your feelings

about security—your feelings of personal security and protection of property

from criminal acts. First, show me which statement applies when you're inside

your own home. (ASK A, B, AND C. Circle one code for each.)

Yes No Don't

Know

1 2 9 47/?

1 2 9 48/?

1 2 9 49/?

1 2 9 50/?

1 2 9 51/?

1 2 9 52/?

1 2 9 53/?

1 2 9 54/?

1 2 9 55/?

A. Response for how respondent

feels inside own home:

B. And how do you feel when you

are outside your home, but

still in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT

NAME]

?

C. What about how you feel when

you are in the areas immediately outside or surrounding

[INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME]

that is, about a ten minute

walk or a half mile from here?

1. Feel Safe

Anytime

2. Don't Worry, But Cautious

3. Worry

Quite a Bit

4. Don't Feel

Safe At All

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 17 -

56/?

57/?

58/?

134
(DK 3) 39. Now, I'd like to get your thoughts about how convenient the location of

[INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] is, in terms of where you work, where you shop,

and so on. For example, is it convenient for you personally to get to the doctor? How do you typically get there—by walking, driving, taking

the bus, or what?

(REPEAT THESE QUESTIONS FOR ITEMS A THROUGH G BELOW. MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION NEED NOT BE CODED IF ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO RESPONDENT.)

1. Is Getting There

Convenient?

2. If Applicable:

What Means of Transportation?

Yes No Not Applicable:

(No Such Trips)

Walk Bicycle

Private

Car

Taxi

Public

Transport

Other

A. Responses for Going

to the Doctor 1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

B. What about getting

to work? 1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

C . Grocery Shopping? 1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

D. School? 1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

E. The Movies? 1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

F. Your church or

synagogue?

G. The friends or

1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

relatives you visit most often?

1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

40. Keeping the same set of places in mind—going to the doctor, getting to work,

shopping for groceries , getting to schools, going to the movies, going to church, and visiting friends—how important is it for you to be conveniently

located with respect to these? Taking them one by one, is it very important

to be conveniently located, or only moderately important, or not important?

Convenience of Location is:

Very Important Moderately Important Not Important

A. Getting to the

Doctor 1 2 3

B. Getting to Work 1 2 3

C . Grocery Shopping 1 2 3

D. Getting to Schools 1 2 3

E. Going to Movies 1 2 3

F. Getting to Church

or Synagogue

1 2 3

G. Visiting Friends

or Relatives

1 2 3

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 18-

135

59-60/?

61-62/?

63-64/?

65-66/?

67-68/?

69-70/?

71-72/?

73/?

74/?

75/?

76/?

77./?

78/?

79/?

1
41. For whatever reasons—whether personal or related to work—during which hours do you

typically sleep on weekdays? (Code to the

nearest full hour and circle code for AM/PM)

FROM: Hour AM/PM TO : Hour AM/PM

1 2 1 2

42. Other than the time you sleep, how much time do you

spend at home on a typical weekday?

Number of Hours

43. Do you have difficulty getting around inside or outside your home, or have

difficulty doing daily chores, because of a permanent disability or

physical handicap?

IF YES, ASK ITEMS A-F. Circle one response for each:

Yes.

No.

.

A. How often must you stay in the house because of the

disability—never, sometimes , or most of the time?

B. How often do you need the help of ano ther person in getting

around inside or outside—never, sometimes , or most of the time?

C. How often do you need some special aid (cane, wheelchair , etc.)

to get around inside or outside—is it never, sometimes, or

most of the time?

Never

Sometimes

Most of

the Time

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

D. Can you see well enough with glasses to read ordinary

newsprint with either eye?

E. Can you see well enough to step down stairs or off a curb?

F. Can you see moving objects, such a moving cars or people walking?

44. ASK IF MORE THAN ONE OCCUPANT IN HOUSEHOLD: Does anyone else here have difficulty getting around inside or outside, or have difficulty doing daily chores,

because of a permanent disability or handicap?

IF YES, ASK ITEMS A-G. IF MORE THAN ONE OTHER DISABLED PERSON,

RECORD DATA FOR THE FIRST PERSON MENTIONED.

Yes No

1 2

1 2

1 2

Yes.

No. .

A. What is this person's age and sex? (Code age in

the boxes and circle a number code for sex)

Age Male/Female

B. How often must this person stay in the house because of the

disability—never, sometimes , or most of the time?

C. How often do they need the help of another person in getting

around inside or outside—never, sometimes, or most of the time?

D. How often do they need some special aid (cane, wheelchair , etc.)

to get around inside or outside—is it never, sometimes , or

most of the time?

Never

SomeTimesMost of

the Time

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

E. Can they see well enough with glasses to read ordinary newsprint

with either eye?

F . Can they see well enough to step down stairs or off a curb?

G. Can they see moving objects, such as moving cars or people walking?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

Yes No Don ' t Know

1 2 9

1 2 9

1 2 9 ,

BEGIN DK 4: 1/4

2-6/ID

7-12/?

13-14/?

15/?

16/?

17/?

18/?

19/?

20/?

21/?

22/?

23-25/?

26/?

27/?

28/?

29/?

30/?

31/?

- 19 -

136
(DK 4)

Yes.

No.

.

45. Now, about your home. Is there anything or anyplace in your home that

unnecessarily difficult to get at, to move arbund in, or to move past?

IF YES, ASK:

What is the problem and where in your home is it? (RECORD COMMENTS)

46. Counting any separate basement or attic levels used as living, work, or storage areas, how many floors or levels are there in this home?

(PROBE. Don't count crawl spaces or "sunken" rooms).

Number of Levels

47. How many flights of stairs are there inside your home? Count each run of two or more stairs between one landing or level and another landing

or level as one flight.

Number of Flights:

32/?

33/:

34/?

35/?

48. ASK IF UNIT IS IN A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING:

And the main entrance to your unit is on the [ INSERT NUMBER] floor of the building,

is that right? (Confirm with "yes" or "no." Enter number of floor.)

Floor Number:

49. ASK A, B, AND C, AND RECORD NUMBERS:

A. How many full baths—with a sink, toilet, and either a shower or

a tub—are in this home?

B. How many half baths—only a sink and toilet—do you have?

C. How many separate bedrooms were included in this place by

the builder? (There may be none, as in an efficiency unit.)

50. Other than bedrooms, are there any other rooms that are used regularly

by people living here as places to sleep?

IF YES, SPECIFY WHICH ROOM(S)

Number

Number:

Number

Yes.

No.

.

36-37/?

38/?

39/?

40/?

41/?

42/:

51. IF MORE THAN ONE BEDROOM, ASK: Is the bedroom that you use a master bedroom—

that is, is it the largest bedroom in the home?

Yes.

No.

52. IF MORE THAN ONE FULL BATHROOM, ASK: Is the bathroom you usually use for

bathing and personal hygiene a master bathroom—that is, is it accessible

only through a bedroom? Yes.

No.

.

43/?

44 /?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 20-

137
(DK 4) 53. I'd like to ask you about some of these rooms and places in your home,

take them one by one. Let's

(ASK ALL ITEMS FOR EACH ROOM BEFORE GOING TO THE NEXT ROOM, COLUMN BY COLUMN.

IF UNIT IS AN EFFICIENCY, COMPLETE COLUMNS FOR LIVING ROOM, KITCHEN, AND BATH.

(A) Living

Room

(B) Kitchen (Incl.

Dining Alcove)

(C) Bathroom Used

by Respondent

(D) Other Bathrooms

(If Applicable)

Is the [ROOM NAME]

large enough ? Yes: 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2

Does it have sufficient Yes: 1 1 1 1 built-in lighting?

No: 2 2 2 2 Not Applic.

:

9 9 9 9

Does it get sufficient

natural light? Yes: 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 Not Applicable—No Windows: 9 9 9 9

Did enough built-in Yes- 1 1 1 1 storage—closets, cupboards , etc

.

—come

with the room? Don't

,

. No: 2 2 2 2 count anything you may have added.

Not Applic.

:

9 9 9 9

During cold weather,

can you get the room

as warm as you want it,

throughout the room? Yes: i 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 Don't Know/Not Applicable: 9 9 9 9

In warm weather, can

you get the room as

cool as you want it? Yes: 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 Don't Know/Not Applicable: 9 9 9 9

What about humidity?

Does it ever seem too humid or too dry? Too Humid: 1 1 1 1 Too Dry: 2 2 2 2 Both: 3 3 3 3 Neither: 4 4 4 4

Have you made any major

changes to the room, like moving a wall or Yes: 1 1 1 1 adding a closet? Don't

count things like painting or buying furniture

.

2 2 2 2

45-48/?

49-52/?

53-56/?

57-60/?

61-64/?

65-68/?

69-72/?

73-76/?

QUESTION 53 CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE

- 21-

138
QUESTION 53, CONTINUED: NOTE THAT ITEMS CHANGE SLIGHTLY FOR THESE ROOMS:

(E) Bedroom Used

by Respondent

(F) Other Bedrooms

(If Applicable)

(G) Separate

Dining Room

(H) Family

Room

(I) Den

(1) Was a [ROOM NAME] included

included in this home? Yes: 1 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 2

(2) Is it large enough?

Yes

:

1 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 2

(3) Does it get sufficient

natural light? Yes: 1 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 2 Not Applicable—No Windows: 9 9 9 9 9

(4) Did enough built-in Yes* 1 1 1 1 1 storage—closets, cup- boards, etc. —come with the room? Don't No: 2 2 2 2 2 count anything you may have added. Not App . : 9 9 9 9 9

(5) During cold weather,

can you get the room

as warm as you want it,

throughout the room? Yes: 1 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 2 Don't Know/Not Applicable: 9 9 9 9 9

(6) In warm weather, can

you get the room as

cool as you want it? Yes: 1 1 1 1 1 No: 2 2 2 2 2 Don't Know/Not Applicable: 9 9 9 9 9

(7) What about humidity?

Does it ever seem too humid or too dry? Too Humid: 1 1 1 1 1 Too Dry: 2 2 2 2 2 Both: 3 3 3 3 3 Neither: 4 4 4 4 4

(8) Have you made any major

changes to the room, like moving a wall or Yes: 1 1 1 1 1 adding a closet? Don't

2 2 2 2 2 count things like painting or buying furniture.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

BEGIN

DK 5: 1/5

2-6/ID

7-11/?

12-16/?

17-21/?

22-26/?

27-31/?

32-36/?

37-41/?

42-46/?

- 22 -

139
(DK 5)

54 . As part of your home, do you have

for your private use: (ASK A THROUGH

D, AND CIRCLE ONE CODE FOR EACH)

A. Porch Yes ..... No

B. Balcony Yes No

C. Yard (front or Yes

back) , or Patio No

D. Garage or a Yes. .... Carport NO

55. Do you have a private storage bin or shed outside

this apartment (house)?

IF YES: ASK ITEMS A THROUGH D:

A. Is this space large enough?

B. Is the lighting adequate?

Yes 1

No 2

Yes 1

No 2

Yes 1

No 2

C. Is the space too humid or too dry? Too Humid,... 1 Too Dry 2 Both 3 Neither 4

D. Is it adequately protected against theft? Yes 1 No 2

56. Let me name a room, and you tell me whether or not it's easy

for you to arrange your furniture in it- For example, how

easy is it for you to arrange the furnishings in the...

Easy Not Easy Not Applicable

. . .living room? 1 2 9

. .

. your own bedroom? 1 2 9

...other bedrooms? 1 2 9

.. .a separate dining room? 1 2 9

. . .a separate family room? 1 2 9

..a separate den or study? 1 2 9

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 23 -

47/?

48/?

49/?

50/?

51/?

52/?

53/?

54/?

55/?

56/?

57/?

58/?

59/?

60/?

61 /?

140
(DK 5)

57. I'd also like to know about rooms that have been converted from

one use to another, like a den used as a dining room, or a dining room used as a bedroom, or a bedroom used as an office. If there are rooms like this in your home, please tell me the original name of the room and what you use it for now: (RECORD UP TO FOUR)

62/:

(1) ORIGINALLY

NOW

(2) ORIGINALLY

NOW

(3) ORIGINALLY

NOW

(4) ORIGINALLY_

NOW

58. Earlier I asked you about major or expensive permanent changes that might

have been made in particular rooms , Now I'd like you to think about the

bi gges

t

single change you've made since moving here, other than adding

furniture or painting—changes such as moving a wall or adding a closet

(IF SINGLE FAMILY, ADD: or changes you may have made to the outside of

the home) . Are there any such changes? If so, were they made to correct

something that was wrong , or to add something you wanted to have?

63/:

64/:

65/:

IF ANY CHANGES REPORTED, ASK:

What was this change?

Where is it?

To Correct Something Wrong 1 To Add Something You Wanted to Have 2 Both to Correct and to Add 3 Some Other Reason: SPECIFY 4

No Changes Made 5

67/:

68/:

59. A final question about your bathroom—the one you use most frequently. What do you think of the layout and arrangement of the fixtures , like the sink, mirror,

medicine cabinet, toilet, tub, etc.? Is it excellent, good, average, below

average, or poor?

Excellent 1 Good 2 Average 3 Below Average 4 Poor 5

IF ANY ANSWER OTHER THAN "AVERAGE," ASK: What about the bathroom makes you say that?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

69/?

70/:

- 24-

141
60. (DK 5) Given how you use this kitchen: what do you think of the layout of

the cabinets and countertops , the arrangement of the appliances

,

the sink, and the rest: is it excellent , good, average , below

average, or poor?

Excellent

Good

Average

Below Average

Poor

IF ANY ANSWER OTHER THAN "AVERAGE," ASK: What about the kitchen layout

makes you say that?

2

3

4

5

61.

Compared with your experience before moving here, do you think the routine

cleaning of floors, windows, sinks, toilets, and so on, is easier than it was before, about the same, or more difficult?

Easier Than Before 1

About the Same as Before 2

More Difficult Than Before 3

Why do you say that? (PROBE for sources of difficulty, sources of ease)

62.

Here are some typical housekeeping and upkeep chores. For each one, can you

tell me who is mainly responsible for carrying them out? (Circle one code

in each row)

Hanging Drapes, Shelves, Pictures:

Light Housekeeping—Dusting, Cleaning Floors:

Heavier Work—Trash Disposal , Snow Removal

:

Minor Repairs—Painting, Patching:

Respondent

Mainly

Responsible

Respondent

Shares With

Others in

Household

Someone Provided

by Management

(if applicable)

63.

When repairing or decorating your home: was the way the walls were built (such as with or without studs), or did the wall material itself (like plaster or concrete)

present any problems for repairs or decorating projects?

Yes 1 No 2 IF YES, ASK: Don't Know/Not Applicable... 9

What was the problem and how did you handle it?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 25-

71/?

72/:

73/?

74/:

75/?

76/?

77/?

78/?

79/?

80/:

142
64. Earlier, I asked about the lighting inside your home. What about the

lighting here in [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME], generally? Do you think

there is adequate lighting— (Circle one code in each row.

)

Yes No Don't

Know

Not

Applic

.

Along the pathways , sidewalks and streets? 1 2 8 9 —In the area around building entrances? 1 2 8 9 —In outdoor recreation areas? 1 2 8 9 —In outdoor public parking areas?

ALSO ASK:

1 2 8 9

—In the entryway or lobby? 1 2 8 9 —In Hallways? 1 2 8 9 —In Elevators? 1 2 8 9 —In Stairways? 1 2 8 9 —In a community room? 1 2 8 9 —In the laundry room? 1 2 8 9

66. IF "NO" TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, ASK:

What kinds of problems do you think may be caused by inadequate lighting?

(PROBE. Circle one code in each row.)

MAJOR FACTOR:

Stressed by

Respondent

MINOR FACTOR:

Also Mentioned

By Respondent

NOT A FACTOR: Not Mentioned

By Respondent

SECURITY-RELATED PROBLEMS: creates

lurking places for criminals/prowlers

,

inability to recognize people, etc.

1 2 3

SAFETY AND HEALTH-RELATED PROBLEMS: can't see obstacles, steps or stairs or other hazards like toys left outside

1 2 3

LOCOMOTION/MOBILITY-RELATED PROBLEMS

:

can't see addresses or street signs;

difficult to find your way around

1 2 3

LIMITS USE OF SITE FACILITIES: can't use recreation areas after dark 1 2 3

GENERAL STATEMENT OF WORRY OR FEAR: No specific problem or consequences

1 2 3

IF RESPONDENT CITES OTHER PROBLEMS OR CONSEQUENCES OF POOR LIGHTING ON THE SITE

OR IN/AROUND RESPONDENT'S BUILDING, ENTER HERE:

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 26-

EEGIN

DK 6: 1/6

2-6/ID

m

8/?

9/?

10/?

11/?

12 /?

13/?

14/?

15/?

16/?

17/?

18/?

19/?

20/?

21/?

22/:

143
67. We haven't spoken about noise and whether it's a problem here. Is there anything

inside your home that is making noise that bothers you? (PROBE: where does the

noise come from and what is causing it? Circle one code in each row.)

MAJOR FACTOR:

Stressed By

Respondent

MINOR FACTOR:

Also Mentioned

By Respondent

NOT A FACTOR:

Not Mentioned

By Respondent

Noise From Windows, Doors, Floors: 1 2 3 Noise From Heating/Cooling/Ventilation

Systems: Furnace, Fan, Air Conditioner

1 2 3

Noise from Plumbing: Flushing, Water

Running, Pipes in the Walls, Etc.

1 2 3

Noise Made by a Bathroom Fan 1 2 3 Noise From Appliances: Washer, Dryer, Etc. 1 2 3 Noise From Light Fixtures or Other

Components of the Electrical System 1 2 3

23/?

24/?

25/?

26/?

27/?

28/?

ALL OTHER RESPONSES, INCLUDING "NO NOISE INSIDE THE HOUSE" OR "OTHER SPECIFIC SOURCE

OF NOISE" (PETS, CHILDREN, ETC.): RECORD HERE:

29/:

68. What about bothersome noises that originate outside this house/apartment—that come in

through the walls or floors or ceiling, or through closed doors or closed windows?

(PROBE, as above. Circle one code in each row:)

Reasons Applicable to All:

MAJOR FACTOR:

Stressed By

Respondent

MINOR FACTOR:

Also Mentioned

By Respondent

NOT A FACTOR: Not Mentioned

By Respondent

Noise From People or Pets Outdoors or in Another Building 1 2 3

Noise From Traffic On or Off the Site 1 2 3 Other Noise Outside the Building

(PLEASE NOTE: SPECIFY BELOW) 1 2 3

Reasons Applicable to MULTIFAMILY

RESPONDENTS ONLY: noises from--

OTHER DWELLING UNITS IN THE BUILDING:

Sounds of People or Pets 1 2 3 Pianos, TV's, Hifi Systems , Etc. 1 2 3 Sounds of Mechanical Systems, Plumbing,

Appliances, Floors or Other Fixtures 1 2 3

ELSEWHERE IN THE BUILDING:

Elevators, Trash Chutes, Laundry Rooms 1 2 3 Halls, Stairs, Doors, Inside the Building 1 2 3 Other Sounds Inside the Building

(PLEASE NOTE: SPECIFY BELOW)

1 2 3

30/?

31/?

32/?

33/?

34/?

35/?

36/?

37/?

38/?

ALL OTHER RESPONSES, INCLUDING "NO NOISE OUTSIDE THE HOUSE" OR "OTHER SPECIFIC SOURCE

OF NOISE" (IF MAJOR OR MINOR FACTORS CODED ABOVE) : RECORD HERE: 39/:

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE
(DK 6)

69. ASK UNLESS RESPONDENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEMS WHATEVER WITH NOISE:

What is it that is irritating about the noises you mentioned? (PROBE and

code as before)

MAJOR FACTOR:

Stressed By

Respondent

MINOR FACTOR:

Also Mentioned

By Respondent

NOT A FACTOR:

Not Mentioned

By Respondent

Awakens Persons From Sleep;

Makes Falling Asleep Difficult 1 2 3

Distraction, Disruption, Interruptions of Everyday Activities 1 2 3

Vibration of the Dwelling Unit:

and Its Consequences (Breakage)

1 2 3

Sheer Loudness 1 2 3

ALL OTHER RESPONSES, INCLUDING "NOT BOTHERED BY NOISE,"

ANY OTHER TYPE OF NOISE IRRITATION REPORTED, DON'T KNOW, ETC: RECORD HERE:

70. UNLESS THE RESPONDENT LIVES ALONE, ASK: A AND B:

A. When you need it, can you find a place in this house to get away by yourself?

Would you say you can find such a place anytime you wish, or most of the time, or sometimes , or not at all? (Circle one)

Anytime 1 Most of the Time 2 Sometimes 3 Not at All 4 Don't Need It

(SKIP PART B) 5

B. When you want to be alone and be left alone, where do you usually go? (DO NOT PROBE.)

71. ASK OF EVERYONE: Are you the first to occupy this house/apartment?

Yes 1

No 2

Don't Know. . 9

72. How many times have you moved during the past five years?

Include the move into this place (if in this time frame).

[NOTE: TIME FRAME OF REFERENCE MUST BE ADJUSTED TO

SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE IN A SURVEY.]

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

Number of Moves

- 28-

40/?

41/?

42/?

43/?

44/:

45/?

46/:

47/?

48/?

145
(DK 6)

73. Last month, about how much did it cost you (and the others in the household)

to live here? (PROBE to make sure respondent includes a consideration of

all housing costs: rent or mortgage payments; any property or assessment

taxes; all utilities, including fuel oil, but excluding telephone; and any

maintenance or other fees. Detail beyond "nearest five dollars" level is not necessary. If Respondent does not know monthly cost, code blocks "999")

74. How much of this was spent on fuel oil, gas-, coal, or electricity?

75. IF HOME IS OWNED (INCLUDING COOPERATIVES AND CONDOMINIUMS), ASK:

What was the total purchase price of this home, to the nearest

does not know, code blocks "999")

$

•

1 JJthousand

76. If you need repair work done inside the home, who is mainly responsible

for doing it, or seeing that it gets done? (Circle one code in each row)

Mainly May Also Not Mentioned

Responsible be Involved by Respondent

Occupants or Someone Hired by Occupants 1 2 3

Manager or Someone Working for Management 1 2 3

Homeowner's Association 1 2 3

Builder/Developer 1 2 3

ALL OTHER RESPONSES, INCLUDING OTHER SOURCES OF REPAIRS, STATEMENT THAT NO ONE

TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPAIRS, OR DON'T KNOW: RECORD HERE:

77. In the past three months, have you attempted to get repairs made to this home?

— —- Yes 1

No 2

IF YES, ASK:

Has all of this work been finished, to your complete satisfaction?

Yes 1

’No 2

IF NO: What is the problem?

49-51/?

52-54/?

55-57/?

58/?

59/?

60/?

61/?

62/:

63/?

64/?

65-66/:

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 29-

146
(DK 6)

78. Going back to [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME], who is responsible for the maintenance

and upkeep of the development itself, like the grounds, facilities , and streets?

Is it the management, or a homeowner's

association, or some other person or group?

(Circle one in each row.)

Management or Manager

Homeowner's Association

Other (SPECIFY BELOW)

ETC . : RECORD HERE

(Circle one code in each row)

Management or Manager

Homeowner's Association

Other (SPECIFY BELOW)

Mainly

Responsible

May Also

Be Involved

Not Mentioned

By Respondent

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

ICATION OF "OTHER," ABOVE, DON'T KNOW,

rules and regulations here?

Mainly May Also Not Mentioned

Responsible Be Involved By Respondent

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

ALL OTHER RESPONSES, INCLUDING "NO ONE," SPECIFICATION OF "OTHER," ABOVE, DON'T KNOW,

ETC. : RECORD HERE

c

80. Do you think there are any unfair rules or regulations here at [INSERT DEVELOPMENT

NAME]? (IF YES, ASK:) Which ones are they? Why do they bother you? (PROBE and

circle one code in each row)

Limitations on Use of Dwelling Unit:

Restrictions on Decoration or Modification

or on Other Furnishing of the Home

Size of Fees, Assessments, Payments;

Collection or Return of Deposits

Site Facilities/Services: Recreation

Areas and Supervision, Garbage Removal,

Rules on Common Use Areas, Parking, Etc. Unequal/Unfair Treatment of Occupants by

Management: Occupant Selection, Enforcement

of the Regulations, Occupant Eviction

Specific Rules About Children, Pets, Visitors

(SPECIFY WHICH ONE OF THESE BELOW)

MAJOR FACTOR: MINOR FACTOR: NOT A FACTOR:

Stressed By Also Mentioned Not Mentioned

Respondent By Respondent By Respondent

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

ALL OTHER RESPONSES, INCLUDING CHILDREN/PET/VISITOR DISTINCTION, OTHER BOTHERSOME

RULES, "NO UNFAIR RULES," DON'T KNOW, ETC.: RECORD HERE

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

- 30-

67/?

68/?

69/?

70/:

71/?

72/?

73/?

74/:

75/?

76/?

77/?

78/?

79/?

80/:

147
81. Is anything permitted here that you don't approve of?

BEGIN DK 7:

Yes

NoDon't Know

1/7

2-6/ID

7/?

IF YES: What is it that you object to?

8/:

82. Overall, what do you think of the way [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] is managed?

Are you very well satisfied, somewhat satisfied , somewhat dissatisfied , or

very dissatisfied? (Circle one code)

Very Satisfied 9/?

Somewhat Satisfied 2 Somewhat Dissatisfied.. 3 Very Dissatisfied 4

83. Have you noticed anything innovative , or new, or different about the way

your home was built, inside or outside, or about the materials used to construct this home?

Yes

NoDon't Know

1

2

9

10/?

IF YES: What is it that you've noticed—can you describe the new or different

features of this home? (PROBE. Record up to three examples. In each case

also ask: Do you find that this feature is an improvement? —and code yes/no.)

EXAMPLE #1

EXAMPLE #2

EXAMPLE #3

IMPROVEMENT? Yes.. 1 NO . . . 2 DK. .. 9

IMPROVEMENT? Yes . . 1 No... 2 DK... 9

IMPROVEMENT? Yes.. 1 No . . . 2 DK... 9

12/?

13/:

147?

ISA

16/?

84. What is your opinion about the area around [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME]

is it a very good area in which to live, or about average,

or not so good? Very Good

About Average

Not So Good .

.

1

2

3

17/?

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

-31-

148
(DK 7) 85. Now that you've been living here, what are the one or two things you likh

most about [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME]

?

(RECORD COMMENTS)

( 1 )

( 2 )

86. And what are the one or two things you dislike most? (RECORD COMMENTS)

( 1 )

( 2 )

87. ASK A AND B:

A. Thinking about your experiences here, overall, what do you think of your home as

a place to live—are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied

,

or very dissatisfied?

Very Satisfied 1 Somewhat Satisfied 2 Somewhat Dissatisfied... 3 Very Dissatisfied 4

B. If any one aspect of this house/apartment could be changed, regardless of cost,

what would you want changed? (RECORD COMMENTS)

88. ASK A AND B:

A. What do you think about the physical aspects of this development—the grounds,

facilities , streets, and all? Are you very satisfied , somewhat satisfied,

somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the development as a place to live?

Very Satisfied 1 Somewhat Satisfied 2 Somewhat Dissatisfied... 3 Very Dissatisfied 4

B. If any one physical aspect of the development could be changed, regardless of

cost, what would you want changed? (RECORD COMMENTS)

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

18/:

19/:

20/:

21/:

22/?

23/:

24/?

25/:

- 32 -

149
(DK 7)

89. How likely is it that you will wove from this place during the next two or three

years? Are you certain to move, or do you think you might move, or do you currently plan to stay here?

'Certain to Move

Might Move

Plan to Stay

Can't Say, Undecided..

IF "CERTAIN TO MOVE" OR "MIGHT MOVE", ASK A AND B:

A. Why are you thinking about moving? (PROBE; Code one response in each row)

Economic Dissatisfaction With Present Home: Lower Costs, Better Housing for the Price,

Feeling That One Can't Afford to Live Here Want Privacy, Quiet—No Privacy Here Prefer Improved Location in Same Area;

to be Closer to Shops, Schools, Work

Moving Out for Personal Reasons: School, New Job, Marriage, Family Moving, etc. Expect to Go to Rest Home/Retirement Home Because of Other People : Dislike People

Here, Too Many/Too Few Children, Etc. Need a Larger House , More Room, Etc. Prefer a Smaller Place —House is Too Big

Desire for More Space Around Unit : Want More Land, Larger Yard

Want Better Constructed/Higher Quality Home Lack of Maintenance , Bad Maintenance

Lack of Security for Property or People

Building or Buying Another Home

MAJOR FACTOR:

Stressed By

Respondent

MINOR FACTOR:

Also Mentioned

By Respondent

NOT A FACTOR:

Not Mentioned

By Respondent

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

ALL OTHER RESPONSES, INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW": RECORD HERE

B. What type of housing will you be looking for, owning or renting? Highrise? Lowrise?

Plans to Buy Single-family Detached House

Plans to Rent Single-family Detached House....

Plans to Buy Single-family Attached House

Plans to Rent Single-family Attached House....

Plans to Buy Dwelling in Multifamily Building.

Plans to Rent Dwelling in Multifamily Building

Mobile Home (Either Rental or Purchased) ...... Moving in With Relatives

Other: SPECIFY BELOW (including Don't Know) ••

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

1

2

34

5

6

78

9

- 33 -

26/?

27/?

28/?

29/?

30/?

31/?

32/?

33/?

34/?

35/?

36/?

37/?

38/?

39/?

40/:

41/?

150
(DK 7)

90. Finally, what do you think [INSERT DEVELOPMENT NAME] will be like in five years?

Will it be a better place to live than it is now, or about the same, or not as good?

Better 1

About the Same 2

Not as Good 3

Don't Know 9

IF EITHER "BETTER" OR "NOT AS GOOD," ASK:

Why do you say that?

RECORD RESPONSE

We want to thank you very much for your time and cooperation

l

ENTER THE PRESENT TIME: AM/PM

END OF INTERVIEW. THE REMAINING ITEMS ARE TO BE

COMPLETED LATER BY THE INTERVIEWER.

42/?

43/:

44/?

45/?

151
(DK 7)

46/?

47/?

48/?

49/:

50/?

51/?

52/?

53/?

54/:

- 35-

152
(DK 7)

55/?

56/?

57/?

58/:

153
COMMENTS ON THE REVISED CORE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

These comments have been keyed to the internal pagination of the rev. CQ and,

when needed, to question numbers. Text page numbers appear in parentheses.

Page 1 The interviewer's appointment record is used to keep track of attempts

(118) to obtain a particular interview. Callbacks, up to some specified

number of trials, should be made until a complete interview or an outright refusal is obtained. The record will provide the date of

the interview, which may be keypunched if desired (e.g., in columns

71-80 of deck 1) to allow machine calculation of elapsed time between,

for example, the time the respondent moved in and the interview date.

Compare with Q. 10, page 6 of the questionnaire.

ID codes : The code number either may be assigned serially or may be

specially devised for the particular survey application. For example,

a study of occupants of a set of five high rise buildings could use

the first digit to code the building, the second and third to denote

the floor, and the fourth and fifth to denote apartment numbers. The

entire file of respondent data could then be linked by computer with

a separate file of data on the physical characteristics of each

apartment and building.

Zero filling : Every coding box should be filled in unless

instructions allow the question to be skipped. This means the number

"zero" should be used. For example, the two-digit code for the month

of January is 01, not the single digit 1.

Whether the interviewer will fill out or confirm data on the

respondent's name, address, etc., will depend on the application.

In some cases, a respondent's name will be known in advance and the

interviewer would simply track down the person whose name appears on page 1 of the questionnaire. In other cases (such as in random block

samples), the name of the respondent may not be known in advance and

would be filled in at the time of the interview. Because surveys can invade the privacy of respondents, researchers may wish to protect

their respondents by subsequently removing identifying information,

such as their names, from the questionnaires.

Building [housing] type : In some surveys a fifth code may be needed

to denote mobile homes. Compare with Q. 89 b, page 33.

Page 2 Who is to be interviewed : The questionnaire should be administered

(119) to an adult resident only. If desired, the survey could be limited

to only one kind of person (e.g., the head of the household, if there

is one, or his or her spouse). In this case the study would run a larger risk of failing to pick up "first person" data that might be

helpful in dealing with special issues and problems for excluded

respondent groups, such as older or incapacitated occupants. In any

154
Page 3

( 120 )

Page 4

( 121 )

Page 5

( 122 )

Page 6

(123)

event, the best approach is to adopt clear-cut selection rules n advance since the survey results may be compromised if it is not

clear what kinds of people provided the information.

Present time is not coded because its only use is for field checks on how long interviews take.

Q.4, dealing with school enrollment, refers to any sort of degreeor certificate-granting program but should not apply if the person is

taking only informal work of a purely recreational sort.

Q. 6, dealing with occupation, is designed to be consistent with U.S.

Bureau of the Census coding procedures. The interviewer will write in

both an occupational title and a type of employer. This information

can generate a three-digit code, using the standard coding guidebooks

of the Bureau of the Census for this purpose. Two-digit prestige

scores [National Opinion Research Center, 1972], which are wellvalidated measures of socioeconomic status, could be inserted at the same time. Q. 6 is the first use of an open-ended response item in

the questionnaire.

This page is used only if the head of household is not the respondent.

Many portions of the questionnaire are filtered in the same way.

Q. 8: The sum of the numbers in the boxes (Q. 8A through Q. 8D, coded

in punch card columns 38-43), plus the respondent, plus a separate

head of household if there is one, should equal the number of people

in the household given in Q. 1, page 2 of the questionnaire. One line

of "other adults" information should be completed for each person

noted in column 43 for Q. 8D. In the unlikely event that there are more than five such persons, the interviewer should write the information about the extras in the top and bottom margins of the page and

insert a note to warn the editor of the exception. The same technique

should be used for all data that do not fit sensibly into the format

of the instrument. The questionnaire is designed to serve as an aid

and a convenience, but where it does not fit the circumstances of a particular case, additional information should be recorded as needed.

Q. 9: A question that defines the boundaries of the site is included

to ensure agreement between interviewer and. interviewee as to the

exact limits of the development. These comments are not coded.

Instead, they would simply be transcribed during the editing process

so that the analyst may know what kinds of uncertainties exist about

site limits. "Transcribed" is a literal term; it means that any

responses for this open-ended item are transferred to a list of all

such responses.

Q. 10: The month/year code illustrates the need for zero filling. If

the first box for the month has a "1" in it for January and the second

is blank, the editor has no way of knowing if this is an incorrectly

coded January (01) or one of the months October, November, or December

155
(10, 11, 12, respectively). Most computers would assume the blank

to be a zero and would read the code as "10" for October. There

probably would be no way to catch this type of error once the data

has been read into the computer.

Q. 11: The open-ended "other" category is handled in a fashion similar

to that outlined above (see Q. 9) for uncertainties of site definition.

The responses are listed during editing so that the analyst acquires

knowledge of what kinds of cases there are. If there are very many

responses, they can be reclassified and at least one subgroup could

obtain a unique code.

Q. 12: The list of reasons for choosing the development were based

on the answers frequently given by OBT respondents to CQ item 14.

Appropriate probes would include "Is there anything else you recall

about why you moved here?” The response categories in the list should

not be named in order to avoid putting words in the respondent's

mouth.

"Major factor" for a choice is whatever the respondent thinks his

or her major reason is; "minor factor” includes anything else the

respondent mentions. If the respondent says "no particular reason,"

this should be so recorded. That is, if the respondent's reasons do

not fit the precoded list, the list should not be used; rather, the

answer should be written out and left to the editor for treatment.

Analysts also can code the "other" reasons that respondents give.

These could be sampled from early returns, classified, and later

coded.

Page 7 Q. 14A: The phrase "maintain and keep up their places and the area

( 124) around their homes" refers to both public areas in multifamily

buildings and to outdoor areas around houses.

Q. 14B: The open-ended responses on possible problems with maintenance

and upkeep illustrate the second level of coding complexity. Problems

can be anticipated to some extent and precoded, especially when the

target site is known in advance. However, not all respondents would

have the anticipated problems. The result is a compromise. No precodes are used; as returns come in, actually reported problems are classified; appropriate codes are then assigned during data reduction.

As additional experience is built up with such inquiries, the sophistication of this approach would be refined.

Page 8 Q. 15: "When the weather is right..." is an example of a phrase that

(125) should not be defined. If a respondent asks what is meant, the answer

to the respondent is "whatever this means to you." This is not a casual or flippant reply. Although respondents' interpretation of

the meaning of any survey item can vary, careful pilot work will help

to ensure that most items will be so straight forward that no one will

be inclined to quibble about them. Note that the possible "no" answer

to Q. 15A—meaning "no particular reason" —must be entered in writing

156
Page 9

(126)

Page 10

(127)

Page 11

(128)

Page 13

(130)

Page 14

(131)

in the space provided for open-ended responses. There is no Q. 15B

;

often survey instruments violate traditional numbering conventions in

order to generate convenient labels.

Q. 17: The list of possible items of interest is based on NBS

experience; for other applications, special categories might be

inserted or unnecessary ones deleted.

Q. 19: Improvement of facilities can include references to change in

size, design, location, or physical accessibility, as well as improvements in maintenance and safety. "Planned activities" include programs, parties, supervision (e.g., management or parents), security,

etc.

Q. 20: Company cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc., may be counted; in

general, any motorized vehicle regularly parked by someone in the

household should be included.

Q. 22: "Services to the elderly" can include such things as group

social activities, "Meals on Wheels," 24-hour nursing care, and arts

and crafts.

Q. 23: Reading the coding categories to the respondent, in contrast

to asking directly for a dollar amount, may make this personal question more acceptable to the respondent. Interviewers should have the

respondent indicate the coding category that applies either by presenting the coding categories one at a time and asking for "yes/no"

answers, or by asking the respondent to choose and state the applicable identifying number (1, 2, ... 9).

Q. 27-29 all allow for possible open-ended responses about where

people have had accidents or perceive hazards of some sort. The NBS

researchers originally tried using separate codes to record where a problem occurred, what sort of problem it was, and why the respondent

was worried. Because of the multiplicity of possible responses, this

approach failed. Precoding seems inadvisable. Therefore, NBS recommends that researchers code only the seven or eight most frequently

reported problems, using classes derived during code preparation.

All other reported troubles would be lumped together in an "other"

code. This will increase the usable variation. For Q. 29 the question may apply to others as well as to the respondent. If there is

more than one accident, interviewers should record the most recent

one. Recall of the event may be better.

Q. 31-32 are among the few in this instrument to use a precoded list

of more than a few items (also see Q. 89). Two-digit codes allow

treatment of up to 99 locations. When "no response was applicable"

is to be coded for Q. 31 (i.e., in the left-hand column), the instructions ask that a double blank code (Bk-Bk) be circled to assist the

keypuncher, who must skip these two columns. This must be carefully

157
checked in editing. "Own dwelling" is not in the list because the

principal focus is site effects on social interaction; if "own dwelling" is named, treat it as an "other."

Page 15

(132)

Q. 34 (as well as Q. 38 on page 17 of the questionnaire) uses a separate card handed to the respondent. This must be printed in

advance and supplied to each interviewer. The use of cards is a common technique. It allows the respondent to look over a list of

potential responses before giving his or her answer.

Page 16

(133)

Q. 36: As with accidents (see Q. 29), if there is more than one incident, interviewers should code the most recent. The coding for

crimes or threats should follow the sample-the-answers-and-classif ythem procedure advocated in this report. Detailed crime coding

schemes, such as those used by the FBI, should not be used. These

require distinctions which cannot be made reliably without a good

deal of expert assistance and extra work.

Page 17

(134)

Q. 37A: An "entry door" is the door at which deliveries are usually

made and where strangers would come.

Page 18

(135)

Q. 39 is a good example of a set of similar questions, repeated for a series of places, rooms, or other things. The entire query should be

repeated until the respondent is familiar with the question in its

entirety.

Q. 40: Note that there is no "not applicable" code; the "not

important" code serves this function here.

Page 19

(136)

Q. 41: If there is no fixed, regular pattern for sleeping hours (for

example, a policeman working changing shifts), then this should be

noted and left for the editor to handle. In short, if none of the

precoded responses fit the respondent's reply, then the interviewer

should not use the precoded responses. Instead, the respondent's

answer should be written in.

Page 20

(137)

Q. 46-48 are examples of data that could be obtained without inquiries

to the respondent, should site and unit data be available in advance.

As a general rule, factual items can be omitted from interviews--

unless there is a specific reason for wanting respondents' perceptions

of the facts. Answers can be obtained using independent measures so long as such measures are available and their use does not result in

a net increase in the costs for field work. For Q. 48 a unit may turn

up on a basement level (other than a level 01). In such cases no num- ber code should be assigned. If the information is written in, the

coders can assign a code later. "Official" floor numbers should be

used; e.g., if the real 13th floor is called "14," the code would

also be 14 and code 13 would not be used for the building.

158
Pages

21-22

(138-

139)

Page 24

(141)

Page 25

(142)

Page 26

(143)

Page 27

(144)

Page 28

(145)

Page 29

(146)

Q. 53: Note that the second page of items (page 22) uses slightly

altered items; the question about built-in lighting (no. 2 on page 21) has been deleted and a new item inserted that asks if the

unit has this type of room or not (no. 1 on page 22). Also, both

columns "D" (other bathrooms) and "F” (other bedrooms) apply to all

extra bathrooms and bedrooms; all other columns refer to one room

and one room only.

Codes for Q. 57 are combinations of the most frequently reported

pairs, e.g., "bedroom to study" or "dining room to bedroom."

Q. 62 asks the respondent, "Who is mainly responsible?" The

categories focus on the personal involvement and familiarity of the

respondent with certain typical housekeeping and upkeep chores. If

alternative or additional answers are recorded, codes can be assigned

for these answers later. If these additional answers do not address

the respondent, they can be coded "3" to indicate an "other answers"

category.

Q. 64-66 uses both the "don't know" and "not applicable" response

categories. "Don't know" means that the respondent did not answer

Q. 64-66 because he or she had not used or was otherwise unfamiliar

with a facility, such as a community room, available on site. "Not

applicable" means that the respondent could not provide an answer

because a facility or area mentioned in Q. 64-66 was not part of his

or her site or building.

Q. 68: The coding categories under "elsewhere in the building" refer

to noises arising from the use of these facilities.

Q. 70 deals with privacy. The "do not probe" instruction reflects

this. In a study of housing it is inappropriate to press for

information of this kind.

Q. 72: Depending on the survey objective, the time frame can be

adjusted in several ways. For example, researchers can adopt a constant time period (as NBS has done) or a constant base year (e.g.,

"How many times have you moved since 1970 ?").

Q. 74: If utilities are included in the rental payment, researchers

can use either "999" (the "don't know” code) or a special code (e.g.,

997) to designate that utilities are included in the rental payment.

Q. 75: This is another piece of information that may be obtainable

without asking the respondent. This question asks for the full

purchase price, not just for the down payment.

Q. 76: If a particular person is named, interviewers should record

the information verbatim. Names can be rechecked later for assignment

of codes.

159
Page 30

(147)

Page 32

(149)

Page 33

(150)

Pages

34-36

( 151-

153)

Q. 79 will tell interviewers who the respondent believes is

responsible. If, however, they want to know who the actual responsible individuals are, they can get this information through the field

staff without asking the respondent. The use of field staff to obtain

"objective" information also could apply to Q. 83, page 31, about

innovations in building materials or in construction methods, and to

other questions.

Q. 85-86 are provided with single-column codes. Thus, two most liked

features and two most disliked features can be coded. Alternatively,

two-digit codes could be developed, but then only a single like and a single dislike could be coded. In conjunction with the response to

Q. 12, these answers help establish whether a respondent's expectations were fulfilled or unfulfilled.

Q. 89A: All of the coding categories with two exceptions refer to some aspect of the current residential environment. The two exceptions are "building or buying another home" and "moving out for personal reasons." These two categories are used only if the respondent's answer

in no way links house-buying or personal reasons to opinions about

the current residential environment.

In Q. 89B "buying" may include sole ownership, condominium ownership,

and cooperative ownership. If these distinctions are important to

the study, the question should be rewritten accordingly.

Planners may find it useful to reduce the large number of response

categories in Q. 89A if they find, as NBS did in the study of OBT

residents, that the predominant reasons for moving out were personal

reasons. However, researchers should take care in recoding these

categories. Recodes can become too broad, hence ambiguous.

The interview ends with Q. 90. The remaining items, Q. 91-100, are completed by the interviewer. They cover the type of household, the

respondent's physical condition and race, and the interview itself.

The single code box on page 36 is provided for a machine-readable

identifier for unusual cases, so that they can be flagged and

processed accordingly.

160
CHAPTER 6: THE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE

Purpose 162

Description of the Questionnaire 162

Content 162

Format 162

The Research Instrument 162

Description of the Study 164

Research Considerations 164

Results 164

Suggestions About Content and Use 166

Content and Format 166

Use 167

Exit Questionnaire 168

161
CHAPTER 6: THE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE

PURPOSE

The researchers felt that the Core Questionnaire (CQ) alone might not provide an accurate occupant evaluation of Operation Breakthrough (OBT) housing. Perhaps occupants completing the CQ would be reluctant to discuss problems con- cerning the OBT management if they feared management reprisal. Thus, the Exit

Questionnaire (EQ), a 28-item questionnaire, was designed for telephone interviews with OBT occupants who had made a binding commitment to move out or who

had relocated.

The purpose of the EQ was to get opinions from people who, because they were

free of OBT management, were likely to be honest when talking about problems

with OBT housing. Also, this questionnaire allowed a comparison of the opinions of ex-occupants with those of current OBT occupants. Similar results

would imply that the researchers' concerns about OBT occupants were probably

unjustified.

DESCRIPTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Content

The EQ asked about (1) the type of housing to which the respondent was moving

and the type of tenancy in this new housing; (2) what the respondent wanted

from residential housing and whether it was provided by OBT housing; (3) reasons for choosing OBT housing as a home and what the respondent currently liked

and disliked most about the OBT experience; (4) overall satisfaction with OBT

housing, the housing site, and the management; and (5) the principal reasons

for the decision to move out. The interviewer also obtained descriptive information about the respondent, the respondent's household, and the respondent's

OBT housing.

The "reasons for the decision to move" (EQ item 18) was the focal question.

Specifically, through this question researchers tried to find out if people

were relocating due to dissatisfaction with the OBT residential environment

or due to non-OBT-related factors.

Format

Of the 28 items on the EQ, 14 are addressed to the respondent (EQ items 8-21).

Of these 14 items, 4 are precoded, 8 are open ended, and 2 multiple-part items

have both open-ended and precoded components. Answers to the remaining 14

items (EQ items 1-7, 22-28) are obtained from sources other than the

respondent.

The Research Instrument

The EQ begins on p. 168. An item-by-item comparison, in table 11, shows how

similar the EQ is to both the CQ and the rev. CQ. Although the content of the

EQ in this chapter and that of the original EQ are identical, the EQ in this

162
Table 11. Item-by-item comparison of the EQ with the CQ and the rev. CQ.

Topic

1

1 EQ

1

i r

1 CQ I

1 1

Rev. C

Name of respondent

T

-

| 1

I

1 1

1 cs 1

1 1 CS

Name of head of household 1 2

1

; * |

l i

*

Respondent's address

1

1 3

|

i

1 cs I

1 1 CS

OBT development name 1 3

|

1 cs 1

1 1 cs

Respondent's telephone number 1 4

j

1 cs I

1 1 cs

City

1

| 5

1

1

1 cs 1

1

cs

Housing system producer/manufacturer

i

1 6

I

1 217 1

1 1

*

Housing type *

| 7

|

I 2 | cs

Relocation validation

1

1 8

1

1 199 |

1

1 [89A]

Duration of occupancy

i

1 9

|

1 10,11 1

1 1 10

Address, city when relocated 1 10

1

1 * 1

1 1

*

Housing type when relocated

1

1 11

1

1 1

i * 1

1 1 89B

Tenancy when relocated ! 12

1

1 1

1 * 1

f 1 89B

What the respondent is looking for in housing and whether it was provided

at OBT

l

i

1 13

1

I

1 1

1 1 * 1

1 1

1 1

[89B, 88

Why OBT was chosen

1

1 14

1

1 1

1 14 | 12

Most liked about OBT experience 1 15

1

1 192 |

1 85

Most disliked about OBT experience l 16

1

1 1

1 193 |

1 | 86

When decision to relocate was made 1 17

1

1 1 * 1

1 | *

Reason for relocation 1 18

1

i 1

| 200 |

1 i 89A

Overall satisfaction with

1

i

1

i 1

1 1

Dwelling unit 19

|

1 1

1 194 | 87a

Housing site 19

1

1 195 |

1 i 88a

Management 1 19

1

1

1 188 | 82

Household size, age of members

1

| 20

1

1 4,5-7 | 1,8

Information about head of household

1

1 21a-e

1

1 1

1 5-7 B-E, |

I 106-110 |

1 i

7b

Income

1

1 21 f

1

1 1

1 201 |

1 i 23

Interviewer and appointment

information

1

| 22,23,25

1

1

1 cs 1

1 1

CS

Duration of interview 1 24

1

1 3,204 |

1 | pgs. 2,. Noninterview 1 26

1

1 218 |

1 CS

Evaluation of the interview 1 27,28

1

i i

1 209,210 |

1 1 97,98

Item Number3

a Code

CS = Cover sheet

* = Not applicable

[] = Shares similar content; item wordings are not identical.

163
chapter differs in minor ways. For example, the original was five pages long;

the present copy is six pages long. Furthermore, the coding boxes of the

original had column numbers and item numbers; much of this detail has been

removed from the present copy.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

Research Considerations

The EQ was field tested with 15 households during two pilot studies in August

1973. Shortly thereafter, the names of 78 relocating households were secured

from OBT site management, and the telephone interviews were conducted between

December 1973 and March 1974. Sixty of the 78 households could be reached by

telephone; all agreed to be Interviewed. Of the 60 households, 6 had moved

from one OBT unit to another at the same development. (Unfortunately, in the

statistical analyses these six cases were not treated separately. ) The 18

noninterviewed households either had no telephone, had an unlisted telephone

number, or had left no forwarding address. The telephone interviews took 10

to 15 minutes and were conducted by a single interviewer.

Results

A general feel for the results can be obtained by comparing the 60 EQ respondents’ answers with those of 614 CQ respondents from three OBT developments:

Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, and Macon. These three OBT developments accounted for

85 percent of the 60 EQ respondents and 41 percent of all the CQ respondents.

Because EQ interviews took place between December 1973 and March 1974, and CQ

interviews took place during January and February 1974, some respondents may

have participated in both interviews. Unfortunately, the premature discarding

of a file made exact crossfile matching impossible. Consequently, the exact

number of respondents common to both studies is unknown. However, the

researchers calculated that no more than 11 percent of the CQ respondents at

any site also completed an EQ.

Answers to questions common to the EQ and the CQ (table 11) were compared. For

these comparison the 60 EQ respondents were compared with all 614 CQ respondents because there had been no cross-tabulation of intention to relocate (CQ

item 199) with the items in common in table 11. Of the 614 CQ respondents, 53

percent said they were certain to or probably would move out (EQ item 199).

In spite of differences in item wordings, in coding categories, and in research

techniques, the responses to common items on the EQ and CQ are similar, especially the rankings of answers (table 12). For example, among CQ respondents

who expressed an intention to move out (CQ item 199), the first and second

ranked reasons were (1) personal reasons unrelated to the OBT experience, such

as changing one's job, and (2) lack of space inside or outside the home. Among

EQ respondents the first and second ranked reasons (to EQ item 18) were

(1) personal reasons unrelated to the OBT experience and (2) reasons that

emphasized finding a more desirable dwelling elsewhere. The latter included

164
EQ respondents ' reasons tor deciding to

from OBT dwelling units and,' >r si ;es. a

Frequency of Mention

Reasons Number |

1 Percent^

Job related—promotions, transfers, job changes,

better job opportunities, locale or home closer to

work.

1

1

1 13 |

I 22

Found more desirable dwelling elsewhere—cheaper,

larger, preferred building type, better constructed,

better heated, more healthful humidity conditions,

home with a yard.

1

1

1

1 13 | 22

Prefer owning to renting a home; OBT site has only

rental units.

1 10 |

|

17

Completed higher education at nearby university. 8 1

1 13

Change in marital status. 8

1 13

Children's behavior adversely affected by peers

on site.

l

1 2 1 3

Desire to be closer to friends or parents.

1 2 1

|

3

Respondent disabled—needs quiet; former apartment

on same site noisy because located below large unit

with children.

l

1

1 1 |

1 2

Respondent "got into trouble;" management asked him/her

to leave the site.

I 1 |

1 2

Maintenance requests unheeded for inordinately long

periods of time.

1

1 1 |

I

2

"Arbitrary" management constantly overrode policies

established by coop tenants.

1

I 1 |

1

2

Totals 60

a Six respondents had moved from one residence to another within an OBT site.

b Refers to percent of all reasons given, not of respondents who gave the answers.

165
a lack of space. But there were also dissimilarities in rankings of reasons

for relocating. The clearest example was that EQ respondents more often than

CQ respondents mentioned a preference for owning a home over renting one.

Nevertheless, most comparison of EQ and CQ results showed similar responses.

For example, when asked their reasons for initially selecting an OBT development (EQ item 14, CQ item 14), the top five ranking reasons for both groups were the same, and the agreement in ranking was near perfect. The reasons focused on financial considerations; site location; site features; dwelling

unit size, layout and appearance; and occupant characteristics.

Comparisons revealed that the EQ and CQ respondents also agreed on the most

liked aspects of

1. The dwelling unit —room size and cost;

2. The site—landscape/scenery, parking, recreation facilities, traffic,

and occupant characteristics; and

3. The development’s management—management characteristics and their

maintenance of the grounds.

(EQ item 13, CQ item 192)

There was also reasonable agreement about what was most disliked about

1. The dwelling unit—quality of construction, appliances, and mechanical

and plumbing systems;

2. The site—parking; and

3. The management—management characteristics and maintenance by management.

(Management had both its proponents and its opponents.)

(EQ item 16, CQ item 193)

The similarity of results allayed concerns that fear of management reprisals

significantly influenced CQ respondents’ opinions. This fear was one reason

why data confidentiality was strictly observed. Furthermore, the reasons given for relocation did not indict OBT residential environments. Instead

the reasons were usually unrelated to experiences with the OBT developments.

SUGGESTIONS ABOUT CONTENT AND USE

Content and Format

1. Item wordings and coding categories shared by the EQ and CQ should be

coordinated to provide more meaningful item comparisons. However, this

coordination should be sensitive to the requirements of face-to-face

versus telephone interviewing. The EQ interviews were conducted by

telephone; the CQ interviews were face-to-face.

166
2. The EQ need not be a short CQ. For example, the EQ could address

relocation-related topics in greater detail than does the original or revised CQ.

3. For general use, questionnaire material linked exclusively to OBT should

be removed (e.g., EQ items 5 and 6). The EQ items about the site itself

assume that the site is a planned unit development.

4. The coding category "moving to another dwelling unit within the same development" should be added to EQ item 10. Ten percent of the interviewed households had done just that.

5. Boxes for coded answers to EQ item 17 should be added to the EQ if this

information is needed in the survey.

Use

1. The premature discarding of a file necessary for exact crossfile

comparisons underscores the importance of document control. Document control bears on all aspects of the survey procedure, although it is usually

mentioned only concerning the movement of questionnaires from the main

office to the field and back to the main office.

2. Had the researchers been able to directly compare the questionnaire

responses of those respondents who completed both the EQ and CQ, they

could have measured, however crudely, the reliability of their answers

to common items administered at different but relatively close points in

time. Determining the reliability of an instrument (or even of some of its

items) is important to the proper use and interpretation of its results.

If researchers cannot measure the reliability of answers by asking the same question at different points in time, they can increase the chances

of getting reliable results by choosing respondents with stable opinions.

Respondents who are knowledgable about and involved with the topics in

the questionnaire are likely to have stable opinions on these topics

[Kunreuther, Ginsberg, Miller, Sagi, Slovic, Borkan, & Katz, 1978],

167
Exit Questionnaire

EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE

1 . Name o f

2. Name of

3. Address

respondent

Head of Household

OBT Development Name

4. Telephone

5. Site: (Circle one)

Indianapolis 1 Jersey City 2

Kalamazoo 3

Macon 4

Memphis 5

St. Louis 6

Sacramento 7 King County 8

Seattle 9

Circle one)

Alcoa 01 Levitt 11

Boise Cascade 02 Material Systems 12

Building Systems 03 National Homes 13

Camci 04 Pantek 14

Christiana Western 05 Pentom 15

Descon/ Concordia 06 Republic Steel 16

FCE-Dillon 07 Rouse-Wates 17

General Electric 08 Sholz 18

Hercoform 09 Shelly 19

Home Building 10 Town land 20

TRW Systems 21

7. Type: (Circle one)

Multifamily high-rise 1 Multifamily low-rise 2

Single-family attached 3

Single-family detached 4

168

FILE

05

17

18 19

07
8. We understand you are moving. Is this

(if no, do not complete questionnaire)

correct? Yes or No

9. How long have you lived here? yrs . mos

.

10. Where did you decide to move? Does not know.

Address City

11. What kind of housing unit are you moving to? (Circle one)

1. Multifamily high-rise (more than four stories)

2. Multifamily low-rise (four stories or less)

3. Single-family attached (townhouse, duplex, triplex, etc.)

4. Single-family detached (a home by itself)

5. Mobile home

6. Moving in with relatives

7. Other (specify)

YRS

21

12. Will you be owning or renting? (Circle one)

(if answer is owning, ask:)

Will it be cooperative ownership? (Circle one) Yes No

13. What are the two or three most important things that you are looking

for in housing?

(I)

1 . 27

2 .

( 2 )

31

(3) 3. _35

(Complete the following by circling yes or no)

4. Was (read Item 1 above) provided here? Yes No

5. Was (read Item 3 above) provided here? Yes No

09

MOS

22 23

24

25

26

Q 13

(4)

39

(5)

40

169
6. Was (read Item 3 above) provided here? Yes No

( 6 )

QI4

14 .

15.

42

What was there about (OBT development name) that led you to choose —

this place for your home? —

50

54

SAMPLE CARD mn

76 80

FILE

I 2 Now that you have lived here, what are the things you liked most about

(OBT development name)? Q i

3

7

II

15

16.

What are the things you dislike most about (OBT development name)?

31

17.

When did you decide to move?

18.

All things considered, what was the one thing that made you decide

to move? QI8

35

170
19 . Row that you've decided to move and will be moving out of your present

home, when you think about your experiences here, overall, were you

satisfied or dissatisfied with...

(a) your apartment /home? Satisfied Dissatisfied

(5) Other (9) No answer

(Depending on answer)

Would you say you were:

(1) Very well satisfied (2) Somewhat satisfied

Would you say you were

:

(3) Very dissatisfied (4) Somewhat satisfied

(b) Were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the housing site, that is

the grounds, the community facilities, parking, play areas, and the

like? Satisfied Dissatisfied

(5) Other (6) No asnwer

(Depending on answer)

Would you

(1)

say you were:

Very well satisfied (2) Somewhat satisfied

Would you

(3)

say you were

:

Very dissatisfied (4) Somewhat dissatisfied

(c) Were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the management?

Satisfied Dissatisfied

(5) Other (9) No answer

(Depending on answer)

Would you say you were:

(1) Very well satisfied (2) Somewhat satisfied

Would you say you were

:

(3) Very dissatisfied (4) Somewhat dissatisfied

171
020

20 .

21 .

How many people, related to you or not and including children, live in

your household?

a. How many people under 17 years old live here?

b. How many people over 62 years old live here?

(Questions about the head of the household.

)

a. What age is (are you?) Mr. (or Ms.) (name of head of household)?

b. (Do not ask unless necessary) What sex is head of household?

c. What race is (are you?) Mr. (Ms.) (name of head of household)?

42

(o)

(b)

Q2I I

(a)—

46

(b)

(c)

49

d. 1.

2 .

What kind of work do you (or, does Mr. head of household) normally

do? That is, what is (your/his) job called?

( d) OCCUPATION: ! |

I J

50

IF NOT ALREADY ANSWERED, ASK : What (do/did) you (or he) actually

do in that job? Tell me, what (are/were) some of your (or his)

main duties? PRESTIGE

SCORE

3. What kind of place (do/did) you (or he) work for?

INDUSTRY:

4. IF NOT ALREADY ANSWERED, ASK : What (do/did) they (make/do)?

e. Do you (Does he/she) have any college degrees?

(If yes: What degree?)

(If no: Did he/she ever get a high school diploma?)

f. Can you tell me, for last year, what the total family income was before taxes?

(If respondent does not give answer, ask:)

(e)

172
56

If I read a list of income groups, can you tell me which group

is right?

1 . Under $2,000 8. Under $17,900

2. Under $4,000 9. Under $20,000

3. Under $6,000 10. Under $25,000

4. Under $8,000 11. Under $30,000

5. Under $10,000 12. $30,000 or over

6. Under $12,500 13. Refused

7. Under $15,000 14. Don ' t know

15. No Answer

22. Interviewer Code

23. Date of Interview

24. Time of Interview: Start: a.m. p.m.

9top: a.m. p.m.

25. Number of calls: a time

date

58

26.

Reason for non-interview: (Circle one)

(1) No answer (3) No primary individual present

(2) Telephone out of service (4) Refused

(5) Other (Specify)

27. In general, the respondent's attitude toward the interview was:

(Circle one)

(1) friendly and eager (3) indifferent and bored

(2) cooperative but not (4) hostile

particularly eager (9) No answer

28. The respondent's understanding of the interview as: (Circle one)

(1) good (3) poor

(2) fair (9) No answer

FOR OFFICE USE

Sample Number

CODED BY:

028

SAMPLE

76

CARD

a

80

173
CHAPTER 7: THE SITE VISITOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Purpose 175

Description of the Questionnaire 175

Content 175

Format 175

The Research Instrument 176

Description of the Study 176

Research Considerations 176

Results 177

Suggestions About Content and Use 178

Content and Format 178

Use 178

Site Visitor Questionnaire 180

174
CHAPTER 7: THE SITE VISITOR QUESTIONNAIRE

PURPOSE

Like the Exit Questionnaire, the Site Visitor Questionnaire (SVQ) was designed

to complement the perspective of the Core Questionnaire (CQ). The SVQ was a one-page, self-administered questionnaire for visitors to model homes at OBT

developments. While the CQ asked for an occupant’s evaluation of OBT housing

and sites, the SVQ was intended to provide a consumer's perspective. The SVQ was not intended to determine the characteristics of prospective buyers or renters. In fact, the SVQ was not designed to followup prospective buyers or renters since all SVQ's were completed anonymously. Visitors, as consumers,

were regarded as reasonable sources of "first impressions" unaffected by a prior commitment to live in an OBT unit.

DESCRIPTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Content

The SVQ asked visitors for their opinions about (1) inside the dwelling;

(2) outside the dwelling, including the house itself, the area in the

immediate vicinity of the house, and the development; and (3) the neighborhood surrounding the development. The SVQ also collected general and personal

information about the respondents and their households.

F ormat

The SVQ was developed to be self-administered in 2-3 minutes by most

respondents. It was designed to measure opinions and to apply to all OBT

model units and sites. Self-administration and brevity were necessary because

the site visitor survey was not to interfere with the work of the sales and

rental agents. The cooperation of these agents was necessary if the study of

visitor opinions was to be successful. The SVQ did not ask the respondents

which model they were rating. Other persons recorded the model unit which

each completed SVQ evaluated. In the pilot study, assistants performed this

task; in the full-scale study, sales and rental agents did so.

Respondents recorded their opinions about the model units, sites, and

surrounding communities by marking the one box of five that corresponded to

their overall opinion. The five options ranged from "very good" through "very

poor." If they could not or did not wish to state an opinion, respondents were instructed to mark "don't know."

All respondents remained anonymous. In order to encourage the respondent to

distinguish the research project from the marketing activity, the SVQ did not

request personally identifying information (e.g., name, address, phone number).

The researchers hoped this separation would make the survey more acceptable to

potential respondents.

175
The Research Instrument

The SVQ appears at the end of this chapter. Slight physical differences in

type face and in space provided for the specific answers distinguish this

version from the original.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

Research Considerations

The first site visitor study was a pilot study. Using an early version of the

SVQ, the pilot study took advantage of a well-publicized weekend open house in

October 1972 at the Sacramento development. Since large crowds were expected

to visit the models, five assistants were trained to select eligible respondents and ask them to complete a questionnaire. A visitor was an eligible

respondent if he or she was at least 17 years old and had just completed a tour of a model unit. However, if a family had toured a model unit together,

only one member could be asked to be a respondent. Based on questions that

respondents asked assistants, researchers concluded that the questionnaire had

been successfully designed for self-administration. The five assistants cov- ered the same 10 units on each of two days, moving between assigned units on a predetermined schedule. On the first day an 11th model was inadvertantly covered; on the second day it was dropped. Some assistants required constant

supervision to ensure that they maintained their schedule and the quality of

their performance.

Based on this pilot study, researchers modified the SVQ. The full-scale study

used the resulting, final version. This study, although aimed at all eight OBT

sites, was not planned as a major study. To keep expenses to a minimum, site

personnel and sales and rental agents conducted the full-scale study, without

onsite supervision or in-person training. Furthermore, visitor opinion was collected without regard to an OBT development's marketing plan or stage of

occupancy. Under these conditions, the researchers did not expect a representative sample of visitors or of visitors' opinions about OBT housing and sites.

The full-scale study, launched in February 1973, was targeted for completion

in May 1973. By the May deadline only four of the eight OBT developments had

returned any completed questionnaires (194 SVQ's), which was about one-half

the number (406 SVQ's) collected during the pilot study. There were three

reasons for the low response rate. First, three developments had negligible

visitor flows because their marketing efforts were essentially over. Second,

other sites were affected by adverse weather conditions (e.g., rain) on days

when large flows were expected. Third, some site personnel regarded the SVQ

as an interference with the marketing effort or felt that conducting the study

took time away from more urgent job tasks. Looking back, the researchers feel

that if there had been onsite National Bureau of Standards supervision and

training of site personnel and marketing agents, interest in the study and

cooperation with its aims may have been greater.

176
Results

The pilot study respondents in Sacramento rated favorably the overall quality

of the 10 models evaluated, the appearance of the housing, the location of play

areas, the safety and security on the development, and the access to public

transportation. The cost of the units was acceptable. However, the majority

of respondents were not in the market for a new home.

The multifamily rental units received higher ratings than did the single family

sales units. The rental units, which were in multifamily high rise and low

rise buildings, had been set aside for senior citizens; thus, the visitors to

rental units tended to be older than the visitors to the sales units. This

confirmed the finding in the CQ study that elderly respondents tend to express

more favorable opinions about the residential environment than younger

respondents

.

In the full-scale investigation of visitor opinion, four of eight developments

returned 194 completed SVQ's. Indianapolis returned 12 completed SVQ's. At

the developments in King County, Macon, and Sacramento only 5 of the 20 model

units received at least 10 evaluations. A summary of such results is not

informative. Of greater interest are the results of an exploratory comparison

of SVQ and CQ responses. There were instances of similar opinions toward the same targets, both for developments and for housing systems. For example, the

most direct comparison involved opinions toward developments. Visitors' overall opinion of the development for the four developments in the full-scale

visitor study were compared with occupants' overall satisfaction with the same sites (CQ item 195). The rank ordering of overall evaluations of the two

groups of respondents agreed for three of the four sites. The fourth site,

however, was top ranked for one group of respondents and ranked last for the

other group.

These comparisons are exploratory and the results tentative. Because there

were no explicit plans to compare the SVQ and CQ at the time the SVQ was developed, researchers did not attempt to make the two questionnaires comparable.

Also, because SVQ's were completed anonymously, the researchers cannot tell

whether any SVQ respondents completed more than one SVQ or became OBT residents

of developments they had visited. Therefore, important differences between the

visitors' and occupants' studies have been handled by assumption. For example,

SVQ opinion items with five response categories and CQ items with four have

been weighted to make resulting statistical measures comparable. These tentative results suggest that visitors and occupants, in spite of differences in

their relationship to OBT housing systems and sites, had similar opinions about

them.

177
SUGGESTIONS ABOUT CONTENT AND USE

Content and Format

1. The SVQ items were not identical with corresponding items on the longer

questionnaires, especially the CQ. To facilitate comparisons of the SVQ

with other questionnaires, differences in item wording and response

categories should be eliminated.

2. Recommended content revisions include the following:

a. Changing "adequacy of baths" to "adequacy of bathrooms";

b. Separating the topics of safety and security;

c. More clearly distinguishing, in the section "outside the home," the

items on dwelling-site relationships from those on the site and its

features; and

d. Changing "don't know" to "no opinion" or "can't say."

3. Whether the SVQ (or any questionnaire) should be completed anonymously

must depend on the survey's objectives, the conditions of field work,

and the planned use of the results (e.g., the comparison of results from

different questionnaires about a specific housing system or site). In

Project Feedback the SVQ was completed anonymously to separate it from

associated, but independent, marketing programs. On the other hand, the

Work Order Form was not completed anonymously for reasons explained in

chapter 8.

Use

1. The appropriateness of different survey sampling strategies, such as time

sampling [Kish, 1965, pp. 474-477], should be investigated if the following two factors exist:

a. Different market segments will be emphasized at different stages of

the marketing effort, and

b. Researchers wish to sample from all the market segments visiting a development.

2. In the pilot survey, site visitors could have completed an SVQ at each

model they visited. The SVQ's were completed anonymously, thus if respondents completed SVQ's for more than one model, this introduced an unknown

degree of statistical dependency into comparisons of opinions of different

models. For this reason, this practice was discontinued during the full

scale survey. If researchers want to compare the same respondents'

impressions of different houses, they must be able to identify the respondents. Just as important, they must carefully consider how visiting many

houses, the order of the visits, and opinion measurement on many occasions

178
will affect particular attitude statements. Unless researchers can resolve the theoretical issues and can implement the proper research

design and statistical analysis procedures, they should use one questionnaire per site visitor.

179
Site Visitor Questionnaire

My opinions about this home and this housing site are

MARK THE BOXES WHICH BEST DESCRIBE YOUR

OVERALL OPINION. IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER AN ITEM,

MARK, DON'T KNOW. IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS, PUT THEM ON THE BOTTOM OR BACK

OF THE PAGE

OVERALL OPINION

INSIDE

OF HOME

SIZE OF ROOMS \

ADEQUACY OF STORAGE, CLOSETS, CABINETS ADEQUACY OF KITCHEN

ADEQUACY OF BATHS WORKMANSHIP

ROOM ARRANGEMENT

OVERALL OPINION OF HOME INTERIOR )

OUTSIDE

OF HOME

APPEARANCE OF BUILDING FROM OUTSIDE \

ADEQUACY OF BALCONY OR YARD

LOCATION OF RECREATION AND PLAY GROUNDS

WALKWAYS, GRASSY AREAS, AND TREES SECURITY AND SAFETY LOCATION OF PARKING OVERALL OPINION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

NEIGHBORHOOD

CONVENIENCE OF SHOPPING \

QUALITY OF SCHOOLS ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

OPINION OF THIS PART OF TOWN /

ARE YOU NOW INTERESTED IN RENTING OR BUYING A HOME? RENTING BUYING NOT INTERESTED^

ARE YOU INTERESTED IN RENTING OR BUYING THIS HOME? YESD NOD DON'T KNOWQ

GENERAL IS THE SALES PRICE OR RENT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? YES NOD

HOW DOES THE PRICE/RENT COMPARE TO YOUR PRESENT HOME? LOWER ABOUT THE SAMED HIGHERD

HOW DID YOU FIRST LEARN ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT? PASSING BAD RADIO/TV PAPERD FRIENDSQ

OTHER (Specify) J

I AM

FEMALE MALE ADDITIONAL REMARKS

AGE: TEEND 20-39 40-59D 60+D

NO. IN PRESENT HOUSEHOLD in 2n 3D 40 5+n

OCCUPATION (Speci fv'l

I NOW: HOUSE HOUSE

RENT QaPT OWN QAPT

OTHER(Specify) OTHER (Specify). THANK YOU

HOUSE NO.

:

DATE:

180
CHAPTER 8: THE WORK ORDER FORM

Purpose 182

Description of the Questionnaire 182

Content 182

Format 182

The Research Instrument 182

Description of the Study 182

Research Considerations 182

Coding 183

Results 187

Suggestions About Content and Use 187

Content and Format 187

Use 190

Work Order Instructions * 192

Work Order Form 195
CHAPTER 8: THE WORK ORDER FORM

PURPOSE

Although Project Feedback originally intended to measure the physical,

economic, and behavioral aspects of Operation Breakthrough (OBT) housing, the

final scope of the study was much more narrow. Thus, the Work Order Form was Project Feedback's only chance to evaluate physical performance. This form was used to record occupants' requests for repairs of dwelling units, and management's determination of the nature, location, and cause of needed repairs.

DESCRIPTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Content

The form has three sections. The top section addresses the complaint or problem; the middle section deals with the consequent repairs; and the third

section offers the repairperson or management a chance to make additional

comments. There are 26 items, 23 of which are control items, such as who

made the request and who received it, the resident's name and address, when

the requested repairs were started and when they were completed, and whether

the cost of the repairs was covered by a warranty or whether it was to be paid

by the resident. The remaining three items deal with (1) the complaint itself,

(2) the work description, which includes the nature of the repairs, and (3) the cause of the problem. The latter two, both in the middle section, were to be

completed by the repairperson.

Format

The Work Order Form was prepared as five sheets: an original (cover sheet) and

four color-coded carbon copies. The color identified to whom a copy was sent.

The resident making the request, the development's management, and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were among the recipients.

Researchers identified the development at which the form was completed by

printing identifying names for each development in the upper left hand corner

of the form.

The Research Instrument

A page from one Work Order Form and the instructions mailed for its use appear

at the close of the chapter. The instructions have been edited for readability

for this case study.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

Research Considerations

Following a 2-month pilot study, there was an 8-month data collection period

(mid-April through mid-December 1973). During data collection, seven of eight

occupied developments, representing 1,224 occupied dwellings units, forwarded

5,324 completed work orders to HUD.

182
At the start of the pilot study, Work Order Forms and instructions for their use were mailed to the management of occupied OBT developments. The mailed

instructions were the basis for training Site management and repairpeople in

the use of the form. Throughout the pilot and regular study completed forms

were returned to HUD monthly, and additional forms were mailed by the

researchers to participating developments.

The top section of the form was completed when management received a repair

or maintenance request. This section could be completed by the resident or by management. As a rule, management completed it. The request was the basis

for sending a repairperson to assess and treat the problem. The remaining sections of the form were to be completed following repairs, by the repairperson

or by management based on a report from the repairperson.

Management kept copies of all Work Order Forms from their development and

found the information useful for management and control. This may have been

their incentive to pursue this study since management was not given financial

aid for this purpose.

Coding

Six items of information from the Work Order Form were selected for

coding and statistical analysis:

1. The date of the report,

2. The development that forwarded the form,

3. The complainant’s address (which, through a crossfile reference, was used

to establish the housing system producer),

4. The dwelling unit space in which the reported problem was located,

5. The nature of the reported problem, and

6. The housing element involved in the reported problem.

Codes for items 4, 5, and 6 were derived from the statements in the work

description section. The complaint and cause sections were not used as sources

of information about the nature of the problem for two reasons. First, management usually made no attempt to reconcile discrepancies between information in

the complaint section and in the work description section. Under these conditions, the investigators chose to rely on the description of the problem by the

repairpersons rather than by the resident. Second, the cause section either was incomplete or had inadequate information. Consequently, this item was not

used.

Codes for the dwelling unit space (table 13) and the nature of the housing

problem (table 14) were developed from information in the work description

section. By contrast, the housing element code (table 15) was created by
Table 13. The work order code for dwelling unit space.

01 Entrances

02 Hallway

03 Living room

04 Dining room

05 Living/dining area

06 Family room

07 Kitchen

08 Bedroom or den

09 Bathroom or lavatory

10 Stairway within a dwelling unit

11 Indoor storage, trash, or garbage disposal areas

12 Basement

13 Attic

14 Crawl space

15 Utility area/mechanical room

16 Lobby

17 Elevator

18 Public hallways in apartment buildings

19 Public stairways in apartment buildings

20 Entire interior of a dwelling unit

21 Exterior surfaces of a dwelling unit

22 Patio/porch

23 Balcony

24 Yard

25 Garage/carport

26 Entire upstairs or downstairs of a dwelling unit

27 Kitchen/family room area

184
Table 14. The work order code for housing problems.

01 Inoperative, works improperly, doesn't work

02 Miswired or misconnected

03 Improperly adjusted or installed

04 Missing, falling or fallen off or down

05 Wrong size or ill-fitting

06 Loose

07 Cracked, delaminated, has large hole

08 Marred, scratched, worn off, chipped, has nail or burn hole, damaged, piece missing

09 Disconnected, off the track (pertaining to doors

or windows)

10 Leaking gas or dripping water

11 Burned out (bulb or appliance elements), worn out

12 Needs recaulking or resealing

13 Torn or broken

14 Noisy or squeaks

15 Wet or damp

16 Mismatched

17 Freezing up

18 Defective

19 Water or oil pressure improperly regulated or provided for

20 Dirty, stained, spotted, sloppy appearing, unfinished

21 Buckling, warped, sagging, bent

22 Overheated

23 Shorting

24 Rusty or moldy

25 Exposed, unwrapped, uncovered wires or pipes

26 Nail pop

27 Clogged, plugged, obstructed, jammed

28 Unsupported or Inadequately supported

29 Inadequately graded

30 Overloaded

31 Needs cutting

32 Lacks adequate insulation

33 Dead

34 Undercharged

IRS
Table 15. The work order code for housing elements.

General Housing Element

n

Examples

1

01 Structures

1

| Foundations, beams, intramodular

1 connections

| 02 Walls

I

I Wall covers (tile, formica, etc.),

I molding

1 03 Doors and windows

1

I Viewer, screen, track, sill, or

1 threshold

i 04 Floor and ceiling

1

| Covering (carpet, tile, etc.),

I molding

1 05 Hardware

1

I Door knobs, hinges, strike plate,

| woodwork on stairways, electric

I switches, all plates

1 06 Fixtures

1

I Sink, bathtub, shower stall,

I toilet, light fixtures, and their

I components

! 07 Plumbing, heating,

and ventilating equipment

!

| Air conditioner, duct, furnace,

1 hot water heater, and their

| components. Also water lines,

1 outdoor faucet

1 08 Appliances

1

1 Freezer, refrigerator, stove,

I garbage disposal, dishwasher,

I and their components

1 09 Electrical and communication

system elements

1

I Electrical outlets and covers,

! circuit breakers, intercom

1 systems, smoke detectors, thermoI stat, doorbell, master TV antenna

i 10

i Enclosed elements and related | Closet, cabinet, countertops,

items | interior surface of rooms

1 11

1 Elements on exterior surfaces | Roof, siding and metal trim,

of buildings and in their ! steps, walks, fence, grass, door,

immediate vicinity | door stoop, meter pit, outdoor

1 storage shed

1 12 Miscellaneous

1 Door stop, mirror, soap dish,

I chimney, down spout, door knocker

1

186
architects at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) before the study. Both

general and specific housing elements codes were developed. However, only

the general categories were used for coding of Work Order Forms.

One person did most of the actual coding: the person who developed the codes

for dwelling unit space and housing problems. Two other coders, trained and

supervised by this person, helped with the coding. Coding was based on a key

word search of the work description. This search was generally sufficient to

code housing problems and housing elements. Dwelling unit space generally was not recorded. When required information on a form was absent or insufficient,

coders asked management to get the information.

Results

Five of the 11 general housing elements accounted for 70 percent of all

reported problems (table 16). In rank order these are fixtures; plumbing,

heating, and ventilating equipment (HVAC); door and window elements; major

appliances; and floor and ceiling elements. This suggests that the dwelling

unit spaces having fixtures, mechanical systems, and major appliances would be

the places associated with work order complaints. In general, this was the case (table 16). In rank order, the dwelling unit spaces associated with

complaints were kitchens and bathrooms, bedrooms, entries to dwelling units,

and utility /mechanical equipment rooms.

Two housing problems predominate in table 16: works improperly and leaks

(categories 01 and 10, respectively, in table 14). However, housing problems

are better understood in relation to housing elements. Among the important

associations of housing problems and housing elements are inoperative plumbing

or mechanical systems, inoperative major appliances, inoperative hardware,

leaks from the exterior of units, and cracked structures (table 17).

At each site the number of work orders per occupied dwelling varied. These

differences appear to be consistent with the observation that repair problems

remaining after housing has been judged complete and ready for occupancy (i.e.,

after what is called the final inspection) are usually reported during the

first period of occupancy and during a warranty period. This is probably

because occupants do not pay for repairs at these times.

SUGGESTIONS ABOUT CONTENT AND USE

Content and Format

1 . A Work Order Form for describing in-use physical performance should include

the following items:

a. Sufficient identifying information for crossfile matching, if this is

planned, and for collating different requests from the same dwelling

unit obtained over time.

1 Q7
Table 16. Major dwelling unit spaces, housing elements, and housing problems in the work order study.

Dwelling Unit Space3 Housing Elements3 Housing Problems3

Rank Code'5 Category Codec Category Code0* Category

1 1

1 07 I Kitchen1

I 22 1

1 06 | Fixtures1

I 20 1

1 01 I Improperly working1

1

1 27

2

1

1

1

|

09

1

1 Bathroom

1

1

I 20

1

1

1

I

07

1

1 Heating, ventila1 tion, plumbing

|

1 15

1

1

1

1

10

i

1 Leaks

1

1

1

i

i

i

20

3

1

1

1 08

i

I Bedroom

1

1 9

1

1

1 03

1

I Doors, windows

1

1 14

1

1 04

1

I Something missing

1

1

1 9

4

1

1

1

l

13

i

1 Utility/mechan1 ical room

|

| 7

1

1

1

1

08

1

| Major appliances

i

1

1 12

1

1

1

1

20

i

I Dirty/stained

1

|

1

i

i

1

6

5

1

1

1 01

1

1 Entrance

1

| 7

1

1

1 04 I Floor or ceiling

1

i 9

1

1

1 06

1

I Loose

1

1

i

1 5

6

1

1 21

1

1 Exterior surface

1

1 09

1

I Electrical,

1

1

1

1

1

i

1

|

I of building

1

1 6 1

1

| communications

|

| 7 1

1

1

|

i

1 7

1

1

1 24

l

1 Yard | 5

1

1

1 10

1

I Enclosed elements

|

I 6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

i

1 8

1

1

1

i

1

1 02

1

I Walls 1 6

1

1

1

1

1

i

Categories

Total Number

Listed above

27b

7

lie

8

34d

5

3 Under each of the three major

5 percent or more of all work Percentages are rounded.

column headings, all categories are orders concerned with that heading.

listed that were mentioned in Categories are ranked by percent.

b From table 13

c From table 15

d From table 14

188
Table 17. Work order housing problems by housing elements.

Housing Elements

(rank ordered)3

T

Reported Housing Problems

(ranked within elements)^

1 Total0

Fixtures (20%)

T

Leaks (36%), inoperative (17%),

I missing (10%), stained (5%)

|

68%

Heating, ventilation,

plumbing (15%)

1

I Inoperative (54%), leaks (22%)

1

75%

Doors, windows (14%)

1

1 Inoperative (19%), missing

I (18%), leaks (14%)

|

51%

Major appliances (12%)

1

I Inoperative (50%), leaks (10%),

I missing (8%), stained (5%)

|

73%

Floors, ceiling (9%)

1

I Leaks (26%), stained (23%) 49%

Electrical,

communication (7%)

Inoperative (40%), burned out

| (38%)

|

79%

Enclosed areas (6%)

1

1 Missing (27%), inoperative

j (14%), stained (11%)

I

52%

Walls (6%)

1

I Damaged (42%), stained (17%),

| cracked (14%), leaks (13%)

1

86%

Hardware (6%) I Inoperative (50%), missing

1 (13%)

I

64%

Exterior surface (4%)

1

I Leaks (67%)

I 67%

Structures (1%)

1

| Cracked (70%), stained (11%)

1 leaks (8%)

1

89%

a The housing element categories are ranked by the percent of all

housing elements that were mentioned. Percentages are rounded.

b Included are housing problems accounting for as few as 5 percent

of all reported problems for a specific element. Percentages are rounded.

c This total is the sum of the reported housing problem percentages

but is based on the precise percentages. Therefore, the totals are not always equal to the sum of the rounded values.

1 QO
b. The date the request for repairs was made by the occupant or received

by management, and the date the repair personnel completed the necessary repairs from management's perspective. Date of occupancy should

be recorded if the researchers want to know how many requests are being made during a warranty period.

c. Dwelling unit space (i.e., where the problem is located) including,

if appropriate, locations in public areas of building (e.g., lobbies).

d. Specific housing elements associated with the problem.

e. The three items of information listed below, preferably obtained from

one expert.

Item

The reported problem

Nature of the repair

Direct or immediate

cause

Example

A wet spot

Resealed a joint

Poorly installed

joint

Recorded Under

Complaint

Work description

Cause

2. For recording the preceding items (c), (d), and (e), researchers could

include on or with the forms the frequently reported coding categories

in table 16. Codes make the forms easier and faster to complete and

thus more acceptable. The forms should also advise the user to add

other categories as needed.

3. For factory built housing, it would be useful to have information on antecedents (indirect causes) of problem. For example, was a joint

loosened as a result of manufacturing practice, or stresses of transporting the system containing the joint from factory to the site, or onsite erection practices, or occupant misuse of a system and its com- ponents? Such information could be used to correct the problem, but it

will be very hard to measure or obtain.

Use

Researchers should consider three aspects of using Work Order Forms:

(1) supervision and training of form users, (2) data comparisons across data

files, and (3) the use of the work order data to flag problems.

1. Form Users—To adequately train and motivate workers, investigators should

carefully prepare and test forms and instructions for ease of use and

clarity of meaning. Also, it would help to hire a field supervisor at

each development. This person would be responsible for distributing and

submitting the forms, and for ensuring that completed forms meet predetermined criteria. For example, the presence of a field supervisor should

reduce the number of unanswered or inadequately answered work order items,

a problem encountered during the Project Feedback Work Order Form survey.

190
The training of the field supervisor should include in-person or telephone instructions and discussions. This personal contact should

help create a shared understanding of the study's goals and methods

across developments.

2. Data Comparison—Work order data were collected through mid-December 1973 . Core Questionnaire (CQ) interviews with OBT occupants took place during

January and February 1974. To focus on recent, presumably betterremembered events, CQ interviewers asked about repairs during the previous month. Thus, respondents interviewed during January whose requests

for repairs were recorded on Work Order Forms during the first 2 weeks in

December provided an opportunity for crossfile comparisons. But this

comparison was not made. Had the work order data collection continued

through mid-February 1974, the Work Order Forms could have provided a validity check on CQ answers to factual questions on repairs, such as CQ item 179. Errors in recall could have been studied. For example,

attitudes toward management might be associated with the direction of errors in recall.

3. Flagging Problems—The Work Order Form was developed to identify repair

and maintenance problems, specifically their frequency of occurrence. Flagged repair problems proved to be valuable to management as a management and control mechanism. The information should also be useful in

developing solutions that would prevent or reduce such problems in future

housing, especially if causes of problems are traceable to their

antecedents.

191
WORK ORDER INSTRUCTIONS

(These instructions have been edited for this report.)

1. Whenever a work order is received at the maintenance office, the

person in charge of the office at the time should immediately fill in

all information requested in the uppermost boxes on the Work Order

Form:

a. The work order number (work orders should be numbered serially—in

the order received).

b. His or her name as the recipient of the order.

c. Date and time order is received.

d. The name of the person requesting the work order. A work order may

be requested by a member of the maintenance staff, by management, or

by a resident. For example, work orders may result from a maintenance crew's routine inspections, whether periodic, seasonal, or when

a resident vacates a dwelling unit. Usually, however, requests are made by a resident and mailed or phoned to the maintenance office.

e. A description of the complaint /problem. The person requesting a work

order may identify a problem, such as "My furnace is not working" or

"My living room is cold," without understanding its cause. However,

as many details as possible should be secured from the complainant

and recorded in the "complaint/problem" space so that the maintenance

crew can determine the urgency of the complaint and prepare for

investigating it.

f. The name of the resident and the address (include the apartment

number, if relevant) of the dwelling unit where the work is to be

done.

g. Telephone number, and date and time authorized to inspect the

premises.

When the same repair or maintenance work is to be done at several

dwellings, a separate Work Order Form may be filled out for each one, or all the names and addresses of dwelling unit residents may be listed in

the space provided in a single form.

2. The center box on the Work Order Form is provided to state what work was done to solve the complaint/problem, when the work was started, and when

the work was completed.

a. The Work Order Form is printed in five copies. When the work order

is activated, the white and green copies should be kept in the maintenance chronology file, but the three remaining copies should be

taken to the work site by the maintenance crew chief or maintenance

person and retained until the work has been completed. When all

work is completed in response to each request, the two chronology

file copies of the work order should be completely filled out to

match the three "working" copies and all five copies subsequently

filed as indicated at the bottom left-hand corner of the form.

192
b. For the maintenance crew to carry out the work necessary to solve

any complaint/problem, all or most of the following steps will

probably be required. Some of these steps, noted with an "X,"

require entries on the Work Order Form.

Inspect premises.

(X) Describe the cause of the complaint/problem as determined by the

inspection. Enter in the "cause" space of the Work Order Form.

(X) Describe the work needed to remove the complaint or to solve the

problem in terms of materials, labor, and services. Enter in

"work description" space.

(X) Establish the priority or urgency of the work: low, moderate,

high.

(X) Secure necessary approval to begin work and charge costs.

NOTE: THIS IS CRITICAL.

When the work order is for maintenance or repairs, approval of

the maintenance chief is required. For remodeling, approval of

the project manager is required. For a warranty item, approval

of the housing system producer is required. When the work order

is due to the resident's negligence, or if it is otherwise caused

by the resident and not due to normal wear and usage, the resident must pay the cost of the work and must approve the work

before the work can begin.

(X) Negotiate with the resident the date and time for starting work.

Assign maintenance crew and its chief to larger projects; assign

single maintenance person to smaller projects.

Reorder replacement parts if stock is depleted by performing a work order.

Order parts if not in stock.

Order outside labor and contract services as required.

(X) Reschedule work starting date and time if necessary (if parts

must be ordered or if required labor or services are not immediately available) at the mutual convenience of the resident and

maintenance crew or maintenance person.

(X) Complete work and cleanup. Indicate date and time work completed.

(X) Describe the work actually performed and redescribe the cause of

the work if different from the earlier diagnosis. This will

determine whether management, the housing system producer, or the

193
resident is to pay for the work performed. It may also suggest

that similar dwelling units should be inspected for the same complaint/problem. Enter in "work description" and "cause"

spaces

.

(X) Secure maintenance chief's approval of work performed in "work

completed" space on Work Order Form. The maintenance chief

should carefully review the form for completeness and accuracy

before filing.

3. The third and last section of the Work Order Form is provided for

miscellaneous remarks.

194
Work Order Form

Edison Park

Apt. 915, 550 Techno Lane

WORK ORDER

NO.

fREQUESTED BY: RECEIVED BY: TIME: DATE: A

RESIDENT'S NAME ADDRESS:

APARTMENT NO. TELEPHONE: PERMISSION TO ENTER

TIME(S): DATE(S):

COMPLAINT/PROBLEM:

fWORK STARTED: PRIORITY APPROVED BY: TIME: DATE \

WORK DESCRIPTION:

CAUSE

WORK COMPLETED: APPROVED BY: TIME: DATE

CHARGE TO: L

REMODELING MAINTENANCE

REPAIR

WARRANTY RESIDENT

fREMARKS: 'N

Distribution: White: M anag&rnent USCOMM-NBS-DC

Ore pit. Dwelling Unit File Pale Yellow: Resident

Pink: HUDS.T.H.

Dark Yellow: HUD Washington

195
REFERENCES

Anderson, S., Auquier, A., Hauck, W. W. , Oakes, D., Vandaele, W., & Weisberg, H. I. Statistical methods for comparative studies: techniques for

bias reduction . New York: Wiley, 1980.

Bernhardt, K. L. Recent research on consumer attitudes towards industrialized

housing . Paper presented at the Conference on Housing in the 1970's, Ann

Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan, April 1972.

Campbell, D. T. Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 1969, 24,

409-429.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin , 1959, _56_, 81-105.

Canter, D. Priorities in building evaluation: some methodological

considerations. Journal of Architectural Research , 1977, 6^(1), 38-40.

Caporaso, J. A., & Roos, L. L., Jr. (Eds.). Quasi-experimental approaches:

testing theory and evaluating policy . Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University

Press, 1973.

Carson Consultants, Inc. Final report on [a] method of selecting comparison

housing groups . Report prepared for the National Bureau of Standards, July

1973.

Carson, D. H. , Margulis, S. T., Carson, F. E., & Wehrli, R. Post-occupancy

housing evaluations: a practical strategy for obtaining control groups.

Environment and Behavior , 1980, 12_ t 541-550.

Chombard de Lauwe, P. Famille et habitation . Paris: Edition du Centre

National de la Recherche Scientif ique, 1959.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. The design and conduct of quasi-experiments

and true experiments in field settings. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational research . New York: Rand-McNally , 1976.

Cornog, J. R. Development and administration of the community survey. In

L. Llewellyn, C. Goodman, & G. Hare (Eds.), Social impact assessment: a source for highway planning (Vol. 4). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1981.

Davis, J. A. Are surveys any good, and if so, for what? In H. W. Sinaiko, & L. A. Broedling (Eds.), Perspectives on attitude assessment: surveys and their

alternatives . Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1975.

Fidler, D. S., & Kleinknecht, R. E. Randomized response versus direct

questioning: two data-collection methods for sensitive information.

Psychological Bulletin , 1977, 84_, 1045-1049.

196
Finger, H. B. Recent developments in building systems . Paper presented to the

Royal Society, London, England, November 1971.

Hall, W. G., & Slovic, L. T. Survey manual for estimating the incidence of

lead paint in housing (NBS Technical Note 921). Washington, D.C.: National

Bureau of Standards, 1976.

Institute for Social Research. Refined survey techniques greatly improve

quality of data; require increased effort for researchers. ISR Newsletter , 1977, J5(3), 4-5. (Published by the Institute for Social Research, University

of Michigan.

)

Institute for Social Research. Telephone helps solve survey problems. IRS

Newsletter , 1978, j5(l), 3. (Published by the Institute for Social Research,

University of Michigan.)

Juster, F. T. Validity procedures at the Survey Research Center. In

M. J. Schlinger (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 2). Chicago: The

Association for Consumer Research, 1975.

Kelman, H. C. Privacy and research with human beings. Journal of Social

Issues , 1977, 33(3), 169-195.

Kish, L.

' Survey sampling . New York: Wiley, 1965.

Kunreuther, H., Ginsberg, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Borkan, B., & Katz, N. Disaster insurance protection: public policy lessons . New York:

Wiley-Interscience, 1978.

Lansing, J. B., Marans, R. W. , & Zehner, R. B. Planned residential

environments . Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, University of

Michigan, 1970. (Available from National Technical Information Service,

No. PB-200-066.)

Lawton, M. P., & Cohen, J. Environment and the well-being of elderly innercity residents. Environment and Behavior , 1974, 6_t 194-211.

Marans, R. W. Survey research. In W. M. Michelson (Ed.), Behavioral research

methods in environmental design . Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross,

1975.

Margulis, S. T. A comparison of the opinions of Operation Breakthrough

occupants and conventional housing occupants about their housing.

Industrialization Forum , 1975, 6^(1), 21-26.

Michelson, W. Social insights to guide the design of housing for low income

families. In C. Telly (Ed.), An urban world . Boston: Little, Brown, 1974.

National Opinion Research Center. National data program for the social

sciences: codebook for the spring 1972 general social survey . Chicago:

National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, July 1972.

1Q7
Nie, H. H., Hull, C. H. , Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner , K., & Bent, D. H.

SPSS/statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Pastalan, L., & Carson, D. H. Spatial behavior of older people . Ann Arbor,

Mich.: Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, 1970.

Pfrang, E. 0. Guide criteria for the evaluation of Operation Breakthrough

housing systems (5 vols.) (NBS Report 10 200). Washington, D.C.: National

Bureau of Standards, 1970. (Available from NTIS, Nos. PB-212-055 through

PB-212-058).

Powers, 0. J., & Sohr, M. A. Survey of residents of Operation Breakthrough and

comparison housing . Report prepared for the National Bureau of Standards by

Westat, Inc., February 1974.

Rossi, P. H. Testing for success and failure in social action. In P. H. Rossi

& W. Williams (Eds.), Evaluating social programs: theory, practice, and

politics . New York: Seminar Press, 1972.

Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. , & Cook, S. W. Research methods in social

relations (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1959.

Sheatsley, P. B. Survey design. In R. Ferber (Ed.), Handbook of marketing

research . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

Tuchfarber, A. J., and Klecka, W. R. Random digit dialing: lowering the cost

of victimization surveys . Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1976.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Atlantida: a case study in household sample sur- veys (14 vols.) (Series ISP0-1). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1965.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Atlantida: a case study in household sample

surveys, unit VII. Editing and coding (Series ISP0-1 , NO. 1-1). Washington,

D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1966.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Feedback, volume 1: design

and development of housing systems for Operation Breakthrough (HUD-RT-28).

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

Ware, W. H., & Parsons, C. Perspectives on privacy: A progress report. The

Bureaucrat , 1976, _5, 141-156.

Weinberg, S. Social problems in modern urban society (2nd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Weiss, C. H., & Hatry, H. P. An introduction to sample surveys for government

managers . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1971.

Westat, Inc. Breakthrough survey status report . Report prepared for the

National Bureau of Standards, December 1973.

Wright, J. R. Performance criteria in buildings. Scientific American , 1971,

224(3), 16-25.

198
Appendix 1: COMPARISON GROUP SELECTION VARIABLES AND THE PRINCIPLES USED TO

SELECT THEM

PRINCIPLES OF SELECTION

In the selection of variables for field matching of conventional housing and

sites with Operation Breakthrough (OBT) housing and sites, the following four

principles or criteria were employed [Carson Consultants, Inc., 1973].

Relevance :

Feasibility :

Clarity :

Accuracy:

The variable must be known to influence judgments about housing.

Field matching should be possible and economical.

Measurement of the variable should be simple and direct.

The sources must be in a position to have accurate information.

There are three additional corollary principles:

Duplication : When one variable is known to correlate with another, the easier

one to measure and to obtain should be selected.

Verification : Variables should have multiple sources for cross-checking.

Location : Whenever possible, variables should suggest obvious and logical

sources and ways of reaching these sources in the field.

Some relationships between these principles and the eight selection variables

follow.

PHYSICAL VARIABLES

Age of Dwelling Unit or Development

Relevance: Age is known to influence the evaluation of housing; however,

the influence of age on evaluation can be curvilinear or idiosyncratic.

Feasibility: Matching for age should be relatively easy to get in the field.

Clarity: Age is no problem if researchers can find the original owner,

developer, investor, or manager as sources of information. (If

the development is 6 years old or less, researchers are more likely to find these sources.)

Accuracy: Age is easy to measure in years. For matching with OBT housing,

the recommended cutoff for age of comparison housing is 6 years

because OBT developments are relatively new. (Six years takes

into account the time from start of the first unit to the

occupancy of the last constructed unit.)

199
Duplication: Age correlates with social and economic variables; however, age

should be used in matching.

Verification: There are multiple public records, including legally required

ones; these take time and trouble to locate.

Location: Sources of information are available in the city assessor's

office and from the housing development office.

Size of Dwelling

Relevance: Size is known to influence evaluations if the dwelling is too

small. One study shows an ironic influence on evaluations when

the unit was "too large" [Chombard de Lauwe, 1959]; families

tended to treat the dwelling as too small.

Feasibility: It is easy to find a specific size (e.g., 3-bedroom units), but

it is less easy to find a distribution of specific sizes at a particular development (e.g., a certain minimum number of 2-,

3-, and 4-bedroom units from which to sample).

Clarity: The best measure is number of bedrooms. This measure is

frequently used by occupants in selecting a unit. Floor area

may be estimated, but this is more difficult to obtain. Use

the number of bedrooms to get units of approximately the same areas in conventional and OBT housing.

Accuracy: Most sources involved with housing should have information on

the number of bedrooms and may even have information on the

distribution of sizes, but the latter is less likely.

Duplication: Size, though it correlates with many variables, is the preferred

variable.

Verification: Typically information on size can be found in several places;

Location:

it is less probable that information on the distribution of

sizes will be.

Size of units can be obtained from newspaper advertisements, the

housing developer, or the city assessor's office. It will be

harder to get information on the distribution of sizes, however.

Housing Type and Mix (a planned unit development [PUD] criterion)

Relevance: This variable interacts with social variables to influence

judgments.

Feasibility: This information may be easily obtained by observation in the

field.

200
Clarity: It is easy to distinguish housing types: single family detached

and attached, and multifamily low rise and high rise.

Accuracy: This presents no problem.

Duplication: Although type and mix correlate with economic, social, and

locational variables, type and mix are preferred.

Location: Information about housing type and mix is available from the

housing development plan. The plan can be obtained from either

the housing developer or the city assessor's office or perhaps

from the housing development office itself.

Amenities Onsite (a PUD criterion)

Relevance: This variable has been known to affect housing judgments as far back as the middle 1950's; if anything, this variable may

be more relevant today because amenities now appear more often

in the marketing of housing developments.

Feasibility: It is relatively easy to get this information; it is even used

in advertising.

Clarity: Matching specific facilities like swimming pools, tennis courts,

and clubhouses on a yes/no basis is easy; however, matching

large open spaces is more difficult because it requires measurement as well as judgment. One measure of open space is based on comparing sizes on units per acre, with streets excluded.

Accuracy: For specific facilities, accuracy is high; for large open

spaces, accuracy is good but not high unless maps are used.

Duplication: Although amenities correlate with economic variables, both

amenities and economic variables should be used because the

presence of subsidies can lower the correlation of these

variables. (Subsidies can result in more amenities on otherwise

lower-cost sites.)

Location: This information is available from newspaper advertisements,

from site visits/direct observation, and from the housing

developer's information brochures.

ECONOMIC VARIABLES

Type of Tenancy (Tenure)

(Rental, sole ownership, condominium ownership, cooperative ownership)

Relevance: Tenancy is related to maintenance of the dwelling unit, to

community involvement, and to duration of residency; it also

affects housing judgments.

201
Feasibility: It is easy to obtain matches for sole ownership and for rental

status. It is less easy to find matches for cooperatives.

Since a cooperative is like renting as long as new housing is

involved, researchers may have to compare rental units with

cooperatives to avoid dropping a group. Such matches represent

a workable but not a completely successful solution for this

selection criterion.

Clarity: Clarity is not a problem.

Accuracy: Accuracy is high.

Duplication: Tenancy correlates with economic variables like income; however,

tenancy is easier information to get in the field.

Verification: This information can be obtained from several sources.

Location: This information is available from the housing developer, the

city assessor’s office, and the housing development office.

Price Range

Relevance: Price is known to affect judgments about housing, and it relates

to judgments about the quality of the neighborhood.

Feasibility: Price is easy to obtain from management and marketing

personnel.

Clarity: Getting information about range in dollars (highest and lowest

price) provides no problem; the distribution (the proportion of

units at each price) is a bit harder to get. For rentals,

researchers should use dollars per month as a measure; for

sales, use the present market price.

Accuracy: Information on the price of rental and cooperative housing

tends to be accurate. Sales prices are somewhat less accurate

if units are resales because there is an open market for price

in resales.

Duplication: Price range correlates with income and certain social variables

[Lansing, Marans, and Zehner, 1970], but subsidies and higher

price ranges both reduce these correlations.

Location: Price range information is available from newspaper advertisements, the city assessor's office, the housing developer, or

the housing development office.

202
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Occupants* Stage in Life Cycle

Only three stages were employed: student (an undergraduate or in professional

or graduate school), elderly (62 years old or older), and other (usually a non- student, nonelderly adult with a spouse and/or children).

Relevance:

Feasibility:

Clarity:

Duplication:

Location:

This variable is known to be significantly related to housing

judgments [Pastalan and Carson, 1970],

Information about the stage in the life cycle is easier to get

when very few stages are used.

For field work, the simple trichotomy of "elderly /students/

other" may be used with ease since these classes do not overlap

in membership and the groups are usually found in different

housing projects.

This variable correlates with income and certain social

variables [Lansing, Marans and Zehner, 1970], but housing subsidies and higher price ranges both reduce the correlations.

This information is easy to get if the development has been

restricted to a specific occupant group (e.g., the elderly,

students). The data are available from the housing developer's

office or from the development's sales/rental office.

Majority/Minority Mix

Relevance:

Feasibility:

Clarity:

Accuracy:

Studies show this variable affects housing judgments. Since

equal housing opportunities have not been high in the past,

this mix is important.

It is easy to obtain information about whether there is

or is not a mix. But it is more difficult to get a rough estimate of the proportion of minority group

households, and it is even harder to get the exact percent

of minority group households.

Measurement is direct if "black" and "white" are the only

categories used; too many classes reduce overall clarity.

It is relatively high, but the exact proportions of groups on site are rather hard to get. Matching need not be too precise

if a "reasonable" mix is found at an OBT site.

Duplication: This criterion is correlated with many economic and social

variables, but this variable should be included because it is

easier to measure.

203
Location: Gross figures are available from the housing manager's office

(e.g., there are or are not minority group members). Exact

figures are easier to get at public housing developments.

204
Appendix 2: ADMINISTRATION, EDITING, AND CODING PROCEDURES FOR THE SURVEY

INTERVIEWS OF BREAKTHROUGH AND COMPARISON GROUP HOUSING OCCUPANTS

The following procedures are based on 0. J. Powers and M. A. Sohr, "Survey of

Residents of Operation Breakthrough and Comparison Housing" (February 1974)

and on Westat, Inc., "Breakthrough Survey Status Report" (December 1973).

Information is from Powers and Sohr unless otherwise noted. Westat, Inc.,

called the "contractor" in the text that follows, conducted the components of

the occupant survey described in this appendix.

DATA COLLECTION

Recruitment and Training

Field supervisors were selected for each of the Operation Breakthrough (OBT)

site cities: Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, Macon, Memphis, Sacramento, St. Louis,

Seattle (inner city and King County sites). There were seven field supervisors, with one supervisor responsible for the two OBT sites in the Seattle

area. Each supervisor provided from 6 to 12 interviewers. A total of 57

interviewers was used for all sites.

Supervisor training began on December 28, 1973, with a briefing in Sacramento

for representatives from St. Louis, Sacramento, and Seattle/King County.

During these sessions survey materials were distributed including the Core

Questionnaire (CQ), interviewer and supervisor instructions, time schedules,

interview control forms, and address listings.

Briefings for the other field supervisors were held at the individual sites

immediately preceding the interviewer training sessions during the first week

of January 1974. The contractor was unable to hold a briefing session in

Washington, D.C., for the other supervisors as originally planned. Instead,

these field supervisors received and studied the training materials well in

advance of the arrival of the training specialist and were well prepared to

assist in the interviewer training sessions.

Interviewer training took place between January 2 and January 5, 1974, in all

of the site cities except Memphis, where it had to be postponed until January

9 because of a severe ice storm. Each session used the following materials

which were developed specifically for the study.

Interviewing Instruction Manual : This gave the study background, general

rules of interviewing, general comments on the questionnaire, specific field

procedures for the study, definitions of technical terras, and examples of

control forms with an explanation of the use of each.

Question-By-Question Specifications : This was a "marked up" version of the CQ

that expanded on printed instructions for handling specific questions and

responses that could be given.

"Operation Breakthrough" and "Challenge" Brochures : These publications by

the Department of Housing and Urban Development explained why the OBT program

205
was established and what it was trying to achieve. These brochures were helpful in explaining to the interviewers the importance of this study.

Interviewer training was carried out in three phases:

1. Home study in advance of the group session using the training materials.

2. Group training session lasting 1 full day, conducted by training

specialists. At this session all training materials were explained and

discussed. Mock interviews and role playing were used to ensure interviewer understanding of each question in the questionnaire. At the end

of the session, an oral quiz was given by the training specialist to

review key ideas and to pinpoint areas that might be unclear in both the

questionnaire and field procedures. After this second phase of training,

interviewers were given the contractor's identification badge, a letter

of introduction from the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), and the

survey materials needed for interviewing.

3. Close examination of each interviewer's first completed questionnaire.

This was done by the field supervisor for the site on a one-to-one basis,

and was intended to catch any problems the interviewer might be having

and to identify areas for further study.

A second group training session occurred in Memphis on January 28, after a new comparison housing site (designated as group 2) was selected and additional

interviewers were needed.

Verification

Interviews at each site were verified largely by telephone due to the short

field period of this study and the high percentage of respondents with telephones. Some verification at each site, however, was made by postcard and by

personal revisit. At least 10 percent of the interviews at each site were checked to make sure that the interview actually took place and that the com- pleted questionnaire accurately reflected the respondent's answers. Researchers found no instance of an interviewer's inaccurate recording of responses.

In addition, field supervisors recontacted other respondents as needed for

clearer and more complete responses to open-ended questions as well as for

missing information.

Field Procedures

After the last phase of training, each interviewer was assigned addresses for

about 1 week of interviewing. Further addresses were assigned as needed

depending on the interviewer's speed and success in completing the previous

week's list.

All interviews were face-to-face interviews; no telephone interviewing was permitted.

206
Interviews were attempted at all designated households in the OBT comparison

group samples. Four in-person attempts—one initial and three callbacks—were required before a household either was designated as a noninterview (OBT site) or was replaced with a comparable unit (comparison housing site). Interviewers

visited at different times on different days of the week and made at least one of these four visits on the weekend. Telephone calls to households were used

for setting up appointments or after at least one in-person attempt to

interview had been made.

Interviewers were instructed to screen a household for an eligible

respondent. A member of a household was an eligible respondent if he or she was

1. The husband or the wife of the household, or

2. Another permanent member of the household at least 18 years old.

(Permanent is defined as someone who normally lives at the dwelling unit

during the year, even if he/she is away for temporary periods of time.)

Among eligible respondents, interviewers screened household members in

the following order:

1 . For family households

1st choice—wife or female head of household

2nd choice—husband or male head of household

3rd choice—any other permanent member 18 years old or older

2. For nonfamily households

1st choice—whoever had lived there the longest

2nd choice—whoever had lived there next longest

3rd choice—any other permanent member 18 years old or older

For comparison housing units, if an originally selected address did not yield

an interview, the site's field supervisor made a substitution. A description

of the substitution procedure follows [Westat, Inc., 1973].

Substitution Rules

1. Substitutions are to be made by the field supervisor.

2. Substitutions are allowed in comparison housing when an originally

selected address does not yield an interview due to

Refusal

Occupant not home in four calls

Vacant unit

Other problems (language problem, unable to communicate coherently, etc.)

207
3 Substitutions will be made from the next available address within the same strata. ("Available" means not already sampled.) This will tend to

provide a substitute that is similar to the household being replaced, due

to proximity and similar housing type (i.e., a one-bedroom apartment for

a one-bedroom apartment).

4. When a substitution is made, the supervisor will draw a red slash (/)

through the noninterview address and draw a red box around the next

address being substituted. For example, table 18 shows that at address

P, apartment F was a noninterview. Therefore, the next available twobedroom apartment on the list (apartment G) has been selected as shown

by the |(l| . If there had been no apartment G or H at address P, or if

G and H had already been selected, interviewers would move to the building

with two-bedroom apartments listed next on the page. This would take

interviewers back to the top of the page, and they would select address C,

apartment D as the substitute. Every effort will be made to select a substitute from the same strata as the unit being replaced. However,

when this is not possible (e.g., if the six backup one-bedroom apartments

in the example have already been used as substitutes), then substitution

must be made from the next available address elsewhere in the list (e.g.,

a two-bedroom apartment instead of a one-bedroom).

Management and Control

The management of the field operations and the control of the production and

questionnaire flow process were extremely important in this study because of

the very tight time schedule.

The control procedures began with the receipt of the lists of addresses. Each

address was given a unique four-digit number; the first digit indicating the

site and the next three digits indicating the particular questionnaire and

whether it was an interview with an OBT or a comparison household. This fourdigit code served as the identification number for each dwelling unit's CQ.

A master control log for the home office was developed to display by site the

code number for each household and the status of the questionnaire (i.e.,

complete, incomplete and reason why, substitution, receipt by home office,

verification, status of editing and coding, shipment to NBS). In addition,

separate control logs were made for each development. These were basically

the same as the home office master control log but without information on coding and shipment to NBS.

The following control forms were also used in this study:

1. Interviewer Weekly Assignment and Status Report : Interviewers filled this

out to report their weekly progress on each assigned dwelling. The form was turned in to the field supervisor along with completed interviews and

Noninterview Report Forms.

2. Noninterview Report Form (NIR) : The interviewer for any incomplete case filled out this form, showing the reasons for the noninterview, and gave

208
Table 18. A dwelling substitution for a comparison housing group. a

Location of Remaining Apartments (Nonelderly)

Building Number

[Address]

1

One-Bedroom

Apartments

1

1

1

1

1

Two-Bedroom

Apartments

A

“1

1 F

1

1

1

B

|(D©©0 1

1

j C

1

1

i ! 0©

l D F G H

D 100 E F ©0|

E ©0(9

i

1

1 F | E F G

|

I

i G | G H

1

i

1

H l ©000

1

1

I !

1 10 c D F (S) H

J 100 !

1 K 1 F

I

1

1 L

1

1

1 J0B F G H

M

1

1

1 J®

B ©0 G H

N

1

1

1 !®b F G H

0

1

1 B C D (e) F G (h)

P

1

1

1 !©b ODE H

Total number of one-bedroom (BR) apartments: 26

Total number of two-bedroom (BR) apartments: 50

Suggested sample of apartments: total = 20 one-BR and 20 two-BR.

Note that lower floor preference in one-BR is given to elderly,

so sample is biased toward upper floor apartments here.

a The plan applies to comparison group 1. All identifying

information has been deleted and is indicated by brackets.

209
it to the supervisor. The supervisor reviewed all the NIR's and then

decided whether or not to reassign them. For substitutions, a copy of

the NIR accompanied the questionnaires to the home office.

3. Substitution Form : This form was used if an interview could not be

obtained from an originally selected comparison housing household. It

showed the address of the originally selected household and the address

of the substituted household.

Information from completed questionnaires and from the preceding forms provided

the necessary input for control logs at each site as well as the master control

log at the home office.

In addition, phone contact between the home office and the field offices was maintained almost daily during the field period to monitor the production

schedule and resolve any technical or administrative problems.

Special Survey Conditions

The field work was completed at most sites on schedule and with no major

problems or unusual field conditions. At two developments, however, there

were some special conditions.

1. Kalamazoo : Although NBS wanted to double the proposed number of completed

interviews at the comparison housing site, it was not attempted because

the site management never gave permission to secure additional interviews

there.

2. St. Louis : In St. Louis, management at the OBT site and at two comparison

sites (designated groups 6 and 7), and bad weather adversely affected the

production schedule. (The OBT site and comparison group 6 had the same management.

)

During the field work, a man attempting to rob a small store located off

the main lobby in the group 7 building was shot and killed by a security

guard. The field supervisor said that the incident was generally known

by residents. Such an event may affect interview responses.

DATA REDUCTION

Editing Procedures

Field supervisors were responsible for editing every completed questionnaire

received from the interviewers. They checked for missing information, inaccurately followed skip patterns, unwarranted multiple coding, and illegible

answers. In addition, a scan-edit was performed on 100 percent of the questionnaires when they were received by the home office. This scan-edit took an average of 10 minutes per questionnaire. Those questionnaires with errors

that the home office staff were unable to correct were returned to the field.

The supervisor then recontacted the respondent to obtain the needed

information.

210
Coding Procedures

Coding of the CQ was done on a flow basis as the questionnaires came into the

home office. For the first 2 weeks coding was limited to questions with precoded answers. This was necessary because open-ended codes were being developed for six questions. After approval of the open-ended codes, however,

complete coding of the questionnaires began.

Coders were thoroughly trained and tested before being allowed to code. The

initial training session covered the questions with precoded answers. Trainers

discussed each question with special emphasis placed on items involving skip

patterns or special codes. Trainees then coded a test questionnaire to measure comprehension and competency. This test questionnaire was checked, and if

problems were apparent, the trainee was individually retrained by the coding

supervisor.

The second training session focused on the codes for 16 open-ended questions

that NBS had developed before field work and that the contractor later revised.

A thorough explanation of these codes was followed by trial coding and discussion of the results. Four coders were specially trained for the codes prepared

by the contractor and based on respondents' answer to six open-ended questions.

Special training was necessary due to the variety of possible answers and the

need for standardization in coding these particular questions. (Codes for

four of these questions appear in tables 6-9, in chapter 4.)

To minimize coder fatigue, supervisors varied coding tasks as much as possible.

For example, persons responsible for questions with precoded alternatives in

the morning were used to code open-ended questions or to verify already coded

questionnaires in the afternoon. Statistics kept by the coding supervisor

indicated that coder performance remained at a high level all day using this

method. At least 25 percent of each coder's time was spent checking the work

of other coders. In addition, a sample of each coder's work was checked by

the coding supervisor to ensure the quality and accuracy of the coding.

211
NBS-114A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See / nstructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 81-2258

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

June 1981

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Methodology for Evaluating Housing In Use: A Case Study Approach

5. AUTHOR(S)

Stephen T. Margulis

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see in struction s) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20410

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) has prepared a report on the methodology

of Project Feedback, the evaluation of Operation Breakthrough housing in use

(a post-occupancy housing evaluation) . The report introduces housing evaluations and encourages their use by providing both housing questionnaires and a nontechnical, practical discussion of research methods in general and of survey

research in particular. To increase the sophistication of housing evaluation

research designs, the report includes a tested approach for selecting control

group respondents for housing evaluations. In addition, it summarizes results

of NBS's housing evaluations, principally to illustrate ways of categorizing

(coding) occupants' answers, but also to introduce these studies and their

results. The case study approach is meant to encourage readers to build on NBS’s experiences. This book is suitable for research and instructional purposes.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Dwelling units (residential) ; housing; Operation Breakthrough; Project Feedback;

post-occupancy housing evaluation; questionnaires; research methods; survey research;

ncpr nbfiHq . 13. AVAILABILITY

4Xj Unl imited

| ] For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

J Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

15. Price

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80