RESEARCH ON THE CHOICE-CUBE METHOD 2004 - 2010
The following assessment of Dr. Beth Cuje's research on The Choice-Cube Method 2004 - 2010 was done by statistician Douglas A. Samuelson of InfoLogic, Inc., a research and consulting company in Annandale Virginia. Previously Dr. Samuelson was principal decision scientist at Serco-North America. He is a frequent contributor to OR/MS TODAY, a magazine for operations research and management sciences. Click here to email Dr. Samuelson.
RESEARCH FALL 2004 (Click here to see the full report)
InfoLogix, Inc.
8711 Chippendale Court
Annandale, VA 22003
January 3, 2005
TO: Dr. Beth Cuje’
I analyzed the results of your evaluation instruments from the Choice Cube course
you administered in the fall of 2004. In summary:
- The results from the short evaluation form you developed are inconclusive. There is no clear evidence of significant change on any item from the pre- to the post-course administration.
- There is a statistically significant (p < .02 on a standard matched-pairs t-test) reduction in the Discouragement Scale for Adults (DSA) score from the pre-to the post-test administration, for the 26 subjects who completed both.
Douglas A. Samuelson, D.Sc.
Consulting Statistician
President, InfoLogix, Inc.
RESEARCH FALL 2008 and JANUARY 2009 (Click to see: 2008 graph, 2009 graph, and 2009 report)
On the lower right side of each graph, there is a scale for sizing the graph.
InfoLogix, Inc.
March 20, 2009
Analysis of Instrument Data Re Results of "Choice Cube" Training
InfoLogix analyzed the pre- and post-test results for "Choice Cube" training courses conducted in the fall of 2008 and January 2009.
These instruments are clearly worded and focused on specific skills or items of knowledge, an improvement over generally worded "how do you feel about…" questions. Since there were no negative comments about this instrument in the course evaluation and since there were few missing responses, respondents seems to have had little difficulty in interpreting the items.
Statistically, a simple sign test indicates that score sums, representing the degree of agreement to the items, generally increased from pre- to post-test in both courses to an extent unlikely to occur by chance: specifically, significant at the .05 level or better against the hypothesis of purely random results.
In both sets of data, almost all of the 15 respondents show increases from pre- to posttest.We can therefore conclude that respondents did, with few exceptions, acquire, at least to some degree, awareness, cognition, skills, and/or attitudes that should prove beneficial to them.
In both cases, the largest differences were on the questions about "not avoiding awareness of hurtful things I say to myself" (#13 and 14 in 2/09), "having ways to calm myself when I feel stressed" (#6 and 7 in 2009, #4 in 2008),and "I have a method for solving problems instead of controlling them" (#22 in 2009, #14 in 2008.) These consistent patterns support the conclusion that stress management and changes in cognition and will are the characteristics affected most by the training, and also provide further evidence that the differences are, indeed, attributable to the training rather than random chance.
Douglas A. Samuelson
President / Chief Scientist
InfoLogix, Inc.
SEPTEMBER 2010 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE JANUARY 2009 WORKSHOP
From: Doug Samuelson
To: Beth Cuje
Sent: Sat, January 29, 2011 7:12:04 PM
Subject: Re: September 2010 Follow-up Questionnaires
From my review of the September 2010 follow-up questionnaires regarding the January 2009 course on the Choice-Cube Method, I concluded that nine of the eleven respondents found the workshop valuable and the material useful. These nine respondents claim they are applying what they learned and that they have continued to use at least some of the materials for the year and a half after the course.
A tenth thought the workshop was valuable but seems to have forgotten most of it; and one, in his or her own words, dismissed the whole workshop as "ridiculous.
It is obvious that this proportion of positive assessment did not happen by chance.
Other than the September 2010 follow-up report, there is no basis, unfortunately, to assess what or how the people are doing since the January 2009 workshop.
In summary: these results clearly indicate that the preponderance of participants (ten of the eleven respondents) liked the training and considered it worthwhile. Nine reported that they continued to use many of the specific techniques they learned and that their overall condition improved as the result of the training.
Douglas A Samuelson, D.Sc.
Chief Scientist,
InfoLogix, Inc. Annandale, VA