Customer Satisfaction Pilot Studies and Analysis

Examples of Analyses from Pilot Studies

When the comparison analysis was conducted for the responses received from the States a few comparisons were made that illustrate the potential of this type of analysis. It should be noted that not all of the possible comparisons are presented here, since many produced no significant results. In State A (see Table 3), the sample included participants from Title IIA (adults), Title IIC (youth), Title III (dislocated workers) and Wagner-Peyser. Satisfaction for Title IIA and III participants was similar (no significant difference). Title IIC participants were significantly more satisfied than participants in the other two Title programs. Wagner-Peyser participants were significantly less satisfied than all of the other groups.

Table 3. State A Participant ACSISAT by Program

State A(N=530)
Customer Group
Overall Satisfaction
Compared to Expectations
Compared to Ideal
ACSISAT
State Average
7.82
7.37
7.42
72.40
Title IIA(105)7
7.56
7.15
7.11
69.90
Title III (177)
7.88
7.82
7.36
4.09
Title IIC (56)
8.65
8.30
8.49
82.44
Wagner Peyser (192)
7.48
6.80
6.94
67.448

To determine whether the differences could be explained by something inherent in Title IIA and III programs or the populations they serve, the same analysis was conducted for the responses received from State E (see Table 4). Significant and practical differences were found between Title IIA and Title III customers in each of the three questions and the ACSISAT index.

Table 4: State E Participant ACSISAT by Program Title

State E (N=418)
Customer Group
Overall Satisfaction
Compared to Expectations
Compared to Ideal
ACSISAT
State Average
7.69
7.37
7.33
72.08
Title IIA (137)
8.09
7.99
8.07
78.4
Title III (281)
7.45
7.11
6.93
68.64

The consistently higher scores for Title III customers compared to Title IIA customers as shown in Table 3 might cause State A management and policy makers to wonder about these programs, but they also might wonder if the customers have very different standards. For example, are Title IIA customers always going to be less satisfied? The State E analysis (see Table 4) for the same two programs yields exactly opposite results, however. In contrast to these two states, States C and F showed no significant differences among Title IIA, IIC, and III. Therefore, even when attempting to interpret your state's between-program results, it is important to have similar analyses from other states in order to have the necessary context for correctly interpreting your own results. Now State A and State E management can probably eliminate the idea that it is something inherently different in the type of customer that caused the difference in satisfaction. They can, with more confidence, consider what improvements can be made to the programs with the lower scores.

Continue>>

7The number in parentheses is the number of respondents used in the analysis.
8
These results adapted from those reported by Suzanne Kreutzer of Social Policy Research Associates in their draft report of September, 2000.

 
 
Home | About | Resources | Services | Forums