2010 ChangeWorks Reliability & Heuristic Study

Hi, Everyone!

We are now ready to announce our new research project for 2010, which focuses on establishing the reliability and practical value of the ChangeGrid — the “2010 ChangeWorks Reliability & Heuristic Study.”

You can find the details at:


A question has already been directed to us, wondering whether or not existing ChangeWorks Practitioners can participate — and the answer is I don’t think so.  Since the study asks participants to rate things like reliability and value, we think that users of the system would give answers that would skew the results.

Ideally, study participants should have no prior experience with the ChangeGrid whatsoever.

Our hope is to have 500 human development professionals volunteer — so we would certainly appreciate it if you would spread the word about the study to your colleagues.



3 Responses to 2010 ChangeWorks Reliability & Heuristic Study

  1. Thornton Prayer says:

    Can HD professionals who have had a ChangeGrid reading participate? I have 2 or 3 people I could direct to the study under that criteria.

  2. Pam Brooks says:

    Hey T,

    I have to read a lot of research as college professor and just a quick question about your study… Why would it matter if a person has had exposure to the Change Grid? You say “Since the study asks participants to rate things like reliability and value, we think that users of the system would give answers that would skew the results.” If a person is answering the information truthfully then information would be acurrate no? Or is the assessment not a valid assessment?

    It seems to me that a better study would be to have two pools of people (exposed and unexposed) taking the grid in question so you can see if there are any potential differences in responses after being exposed to the Change Grid. I think this would be as important as having the non-exposed people taking the Grid for the first time. These two pools would allow you to do a comparitive analysis to see what may be different so you can explore “the why” they may be different.

    I also have a question as to referring people to this study. How will I know if someone I refered took it and what kind of follow up work is being done? It seems that the identification of referrals is important especially for Gold Team members and while this is an innocent study, it may lead people to becoming interested in the grid. I have a couple of avenues that I could post this study to, but am not sure that I would see any end result from it.

    • Hi, Pam — I like your recommendation about the comparison of populations with and without prior ChangeWorks experience. My reason for excluding experienced ChangeWorks professionals was purely defensive — I would hate for anyone to suggest that the current users would give artificially high praise since they have a vested interest in the outome. Keeping the populations separate would allow me to accomplish my initial goal AND give me the data for comparison. In order to keep the data sets separate, we would have to create a separate link to the profile so there’s no cross-contamination of the data.

      To your second question, we ask all participants how they came to be a part of the study specifically so we can let the referring Gold Team member know that the individual has volunteered. I think it would be great for the Gold Team member to follow-up with a note and answer any questions they may have.

      Thanks for the questions!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: