This is the tip of the iceberg which is shown on another DMC website of mine
The other two header graphics remain from a previous use of this website - the unfathomable universe
--------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this page is to introduce and provide overview of two main themes in an abstract way to avoid identification by casual readers or by the result of searches. There are two hidden pages identified in the introductory email.
Contents
- Allegation 1 - the evaluation questionnaires
- Allegation 2 - suggestions for improvements to your evaluation
- Improvements to your evaluation?
- The detail
- Conclusion
- Hidden pages
1.1 Allegation 1 - the evaluation questionnaires
I understand that you completed the evaluation questionnaires yourself, which unfortunately makes them invalid for our study. The protocol requires that all data is collected through face to face interview with participants, and any deviation from this will lay our findings open to questions of validity. I apologise if this wasn’t made clear to you.
1.2 Response
1.2.1
Had it been possible for me to obtain the questionnaires without being given them or them being sent, the allegation may have some foundation.
1.2.2
Having been given the questionnaires, I attempted to arrange that the researcher would conduct face to face interviews. Due to pressure of work or other reasons, she was unable to interview. No mention of problems if I completed them myself.
1.2.3.1
Within the context of not being told about 1.1 or its consequences, and in the spirit of proving the maximum support to the researcher, I offered to complete them myself.
1.2.3.2
Obviously, I would not have spent hour upon hour doing the job had I been advised not to. The researcher cannot possibly claim that I proceeded independently.
1,2,4.1
The user evaluation is assessed by means of oral interviews for all the participants in the support programme
source - Design
1.2.4.2
It was obvious to me on reading the relevant questionnaire, that my wife would contribute very little, and that I would need to help the researcher within any face to face interview.
1.2.4.3
At this stage my wife had been attending the DMC over one month. During that time, it was evident she was not alone in the 1.2.4.2 situation. It was not likely for me to have concluded then that self-completion of questionnaire of the two types would create problems.
1.2.5.1
In order to assess the opinions of the people with dementia and their carers on the support they receive, all new participants in the support programme who agree to take part in the study will be interviewed by means of a questionnaire after three and six months of participation.
source Assessment instruments
1.2.5.2
Had the initial interview taken place after three months, I hope that I would have been better able to predict problems. However, the researcher's programme probably was the determinant of when the interview would take place.
1.2.5.3
"I apologise if this wasn’t made clear to you." needs to read "I apologise that this wasn’t made clear to you."
2 Allegation 2 - suggestions for improvements to your evaluation
2.1
The researcher tells me that you have offered some suggestions for improvements to our evaluation
2.2 Response
2.2.1
You have been asked within three emails to provide evidence.
2.2.2
All you can come up with is " .. .. it’s more that I don’t really know what you are looking for .."
2.2.3
Search for "evaluation".
2.2.3.1
WP6: Evaluation of implementation This work package comprises the evaluation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the implementation, the evaluation of the satisfaction of people with dementia and carers and the evaluation of the implementation process of the new implemented MCSP. WP Leader: University of Worcester, United Kingdom
2.2.3.2
Four irrelevant mentions here.
2.2.3.3
Nine mentions here, some of which are covered within this website.
2.2.3.4
I think it is time for you to specify what you mean by improvements to o u r e v a l u a t i o n
I think what you mean is the evaluation procedure within MCSP
I do not think you mean ADS evaluation
3 Improvements to your evaluation?
- An architect in Grimsby writes to an architect friend in Brighton to ask for an evaluation of his design for a nuclear power station in Grimsby.
- The friend answers with - Fine, send me the design and evaluation criteria.
- The Grimsby architect replies Can't. It's all top secret.
- .
- .
- .
- How am I supposed to have made suggestions for improvements to your evaluation without 3.3?
- The Meetingdem site gives very little here under Design. Perhaps there's more within the unlinked papers and who is going to wade through them here? Not unpaid carers.
4 The detail
Your emails are on the next page - hidden - see 4.2.1.
The main researcher emails are on the following hidden page. See email.
There are intra-links on those pages.
5 Conclusion
Your allegations are:
- Degrading
- Unproven - at least until you show otherwise
- Unnessary - apart from putting me in my place - locked out of the project
- Unfathomamble - in the context of " .. .. it’s more that I don’t really know what you are looking for .." this page begins and ends with that word.
- What is incomprehensible within "I would be grateful for text etc supporting the view that I have offered some suggestions for improvements to your evaluation of the Meeting Centres project."? [Item 5 - 6 July AFH and similar elsewhere on your email page.]
6 Hidden pages
It is necessary to hide pages because:
- They are for a specific readership such as user-groups and others with a specific interest
- They are a way of communicating certain types of information etc to various groups quickly and independently.
- They may be temporary
- They are shared between two or more of my websites and with specific purpose.