Executive Housekeeping Today - September 2008 - (Page 8)

Frugal (continued from previous page) cases, the institutions became the deliverer of the survey document because participants preferred this approach. The second challenge that emerged was finding the right source of contact at each institution to be the “lead” for the survey. Initially, it was felt that the institutional representative of APPA at each participating institution should be the contact person (as discussed later); however, reality dictated that the primary contact for such a process should be the institution’s research board or equivalent. Once this was determined, the process of disseminating the survey became much easier. A considerable amount of time and effort was expended on trying to contact the right people and offices to receive approval and distribution of the survey. Receiving approval for the implementation of the project at all randomly selected institutions also presented significant challenges. Not only was it difficult to find the right contact, it was also problematic to receive approval from some institutional research offices, due in part to the fact that many institutions were receiving too many surveys or that the timing of this particular research did not fit with the calendar of research at the institution. The research methodology began as planned. All APPA institutional representatives were contacted by e-mail and telephoned several times over the period of three months. Most declined to participate because it was either too hard to get IRB approval or because too many surveys were already planned for fall 2007. We discovered that having the APPA institutional representative seek IRB approval was not the best method because they do not perform research on a regular basis. It would have been more effective to go directly to each institution’s research board. Given that the desired response was not obtainable, it was determined that the best alternative was to accept those institutions that had agreed to participate and select others that would represent varying geographical areas of the U.S., and different sizes of public and private institutions. In addition, even though the researchers did not receive approval to survey 20 schools as originally planned, the fact that the student base of higher education institutions comes from scattered areas of the U.S. and many foreign countries led us to surmise a broad sampling of student perspectives and attitudes would still be possible. Dr. Dennis Eggett, director for the Center for Statistical Consultation and Collaborative Research at BYU, determined that a sample size of 1,000 would provide a qualified sample. Responses to Some Survey Questions More than 1,400 surveys were received from students attending institutions from the Western, Midwestern, Eastern, and Southern United States. Three of the institutions were public and two private. The institutions ranged in size from 1,185 to more than 34,000 students. Students provided 892 comments on how cleanliness affects their health, and 681 comments on how to improve campus cleanliness. The survey instrument, numerical responses, and written responses are included in the complete study. 8 Executive Housekeeping Today/September 2008

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Executive Housekeeping Today - September 2008

Executive Housekeeping Today - September 2008 Contents Executive Corner 2008 Salary Survey Results Strengthening Worker Safety in a High Throughput Laundry Frugal Housekeeper How CIMS Relates to You Feature Article The Green Scene The Un-Comfort Zone: What's Pushing Your Buttons? Inside the Industry Product Highlights New Members Joint IEHA/ISSA Members Advertisers’ Index Calendar of Events Inside I.E.H.A. What I.E.H.A. Has Done For Me

Executive Housekeeping Today - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.