Retrospective Pretests: Recent Use in Visitor Studies Research and Ways to Make Them More Informative

IF 1.6 Q3 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
M. Hwalek, Cassandra Solomon-Filer, Deborah L Wasserman
{"title":"Retrospective Pretests: Recent Use in Visitor Studies Research and Ways to Make Them More Informative","authors":"M. Hwalek, Cassandra Solomon-Filer, Deborah L Wasserman","doi":"10.1080/10645578.2021.1977084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many visitor studies researchers use Retrospective Pretest (RPT) methods to document outcomes. Research literature compares the validity of RPT with traditional pretest-posttests. This article reviews visitor study and informal learning literature about how RPT has been used to evaluate programs in museums, aquariums, parks/recreation, zoos, and tourism. It furthers discussions about response shift bias, arguing that response shift can be either intentional or inadvertent. The type of response shift is important in determining when RPT should be used. We argue that RPT is the best choice when the program intends to shift participants’ understanding of constructs being measured, and when comparing intervention with non-intervention groups. The literature review found that RPT results usually focus on statistical significance testing. RPT data offer much more learning when the results are also examined from other perspectives. This article describes additional analyses of RPT data that can assess the applicability of programs to intended audiences.","PeriodicalId":45516,"journal":{"name":"Visitor Studies","volume":"25 1","pages":"1 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Visitor Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2021.1977084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Many visitor studies researchers use Retrospective Pretest (RPT) methods to document outcomes. Research literature compares the validity of RPT with traditional pretest-posttests. This article reviews visitor study and informal learning literature about how RPT has been used to evaluate programs in museums, aquariums, parks/recreation, zoos, and tourism. It furthers discussions about response shift bias, arguing that response shift can be either intentional or inadvertent. The type of response shift is important in determining when RPT should be used. We argue that RPT is the best choice when the program intends to shift participants’ understanding of constructs being measured, and when comparing intervention with non-intervention groups. The literature review found that RPT results usually focus on statistical significance testing. RPT data offer much more learning when the results are also examined from other perspectives. This article describes additional analyses of RPT data that can assess the applicability of programs to intended audiences.
回顾性预测试:最近在访问者研究中的应用以及使其更具信息性的方法
许多访问者研究人员使用回顾性预测试(RPT)方法来记录结果。研究文献比较了RPT与传统的前测后测的效度。本文回顾了游客研究和非正式学习文献,介绍了RPT如何用于评估博物馆、水族馆、公园/娱乐场所、动物园和旅游业的项目。它进一步讨论了反应转移偏差,认为反应转移可以是有意的或无意的。在决定何时使用RPT时,反应转移的类型很重要。我们认为,RPT是最好的选择,当程序打算改变参与者的理解被测量的构念,当比较干预与非干预组。文献综述发现,RPT结果通常集中在统计显著性检验上。当从其他角度检查结果时,RPT数据提供了更多的知识。本文描述了对RPT数据的其他分析,这些分析可以评估程序对目标受众的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Visitor Studies
Visitor Studies HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
13.30%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信