Youth Camp Outcomes Questionnaires
Some individuals may be interested in the statistical details behind these questionnaires. The following information, while a bit detailed, may be helpful to individuals who must document the strength and appropriateness of these outcome questionnaires. The following points highlight the construction and testing of the questionnaires:
- A classical test theory foundation (e.g., DeVellis, 2003; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Suen, 1990; Cronbach, 1990) was used in the four phases of this study: (1) identification of target outcomes, (2) operationalization of those outcomes, (3) data collection, and (4) data analysis and interpretation. The questionnaires went through rigorous psychometric testing during the pilot testing phase (summer 2006) through the participation of eleven camps and a total of 791 campers. Psychometric evaluation included examination of the internal structure (reliability, item-to-total correlations, inter-item correlations) of the individual instruments as well as cross-structure analysis (intercorrelations among scale scores and correlations between scale scores and age)
- Analysis of data supported the position that the Camper Learning survey can appropriately used as a unidimensional measure of generalized camp learning. The alpha reliability coefficient was .85. Item-to-total correlations ranged from .29 to .61. Thirteen of the 14 coefficients exceeded .40, and eight of those exceeded .50. Random effects analysis of variance revealed no significant “interviewer” variance.
- Data from the Basic Camp Outcomes Questionnaires suggested that this format worked well. All reliability coefficients exceeded .90, and all item-to-total correlations were greater than .50. The final versions of each of these seven scales include 6-14 items and are scored on five point rating scales.
- The Detailed Camp Outcomes Questionnaires format also worked very well. The change versions produced alpha reliability coefficients ranging from .87 to .93, and six of the seven alpha coefficients for the perceived status measures were above .80. Criterion related evidence of validly based on the matrix of correlations among the scale scores supported the use of these scales for their intended purpose. The final versions of each of these seven scales (status and change) include 6-13 items and are scored on six point rating scales.
- Return to previous page