!!

!!This!is!the!author’s!version!of!a!work!that!was!submitted/accepted!for!publication!in!the!following!source:!!!Lowe,!D!J!(1998)!The$development$of$expertise$in$early$stage$cost$estimating$through$experiential$learning.!In!Proceedings!of!the!RICS!Construction!and!Building!Research!Conference,!Oxford!Brookes!University,!2P3!September,!Edited!by!M!Keeping!and!D!Shiers,!ISBN!1P873P640P23P4,!The!Royal!Institution!of!Chartered!Surveyors,!Vol.!1!pp.!83P101,!eScholarID:243817!!This!file!was!downloaded!from:!https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk!!©!Copyright!1998!RICS!Foundation!!!Reproduced!in!accordance!with!the!copyright!policy!of!the!publisher.!!Notice:!Changes$introduced$as$a$result$of$publishing$processes$such$as$copy9editing$and$formatting$may$not$be$reflected$in$this$document.$For$a$definitive$version$of$this$work,$please$refer$to$the$published$source.$!

1

The development of expertise in early stage design cost estimating through experiential learning David J Lowe

Department of Building Engineering, UMIST, PO Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD

Abstract

The importance of experience to the early stage design cost estimator is well established

within current literature. It is believed to be acquired over time and has been associated with

the development of knowledge, familiarity, feedback, professional judgement and estimating

expertise. Despite this, however, relatively little is known of how practitioners use their

experiences in developing expertise in estimating. The aim of this investigation was,

therefore, to establish how practitioners learn from their experiences within the work

environment, the nature of that experience and their assessment of its importance to the

development of expertise in early stage design cost estimating. This paper distinguishes

between learning styles (stable or fixed characteristics), measured using a revised version of

Kolb=s (1985) Learning Style Inventory (LSI 1985), and approaches to learning (task

specific strategies), measured by an approaches to learning at work inventory specifically

developed for this project.

Findings from a fully structured interview survey, using a multi-sectional questionnaire, of

experienced early stage design cost estimators (quantity surveyors, n = 84) are presented.

They confirm the perceived high importance attributed to experience in the development of

expertise in early stage design cost estimating. Moreover, they support the perception that

2

early stage design cost estimators learn by doing (Experiential Learning). Descriptive

statistics are presented to illustrate the estimators= estimating experience, performance and

practice, while project specific experience and its effect on the way estimates are prepared is

examined. Further, subscales of Kolb=s LSI 1985 and factor scores for the approaches to

learning questionnaire are correlated with measures of time as an estimator to investigate

their relationship with age and tested for homogeneity within the sample.

Keywords: quantity surveyors, design cost estimating, expertise, experiential learning,

learning styles, approaches to learning

Introduction

Experience is perceived by quantity surveyors to be a significant factor in the accuracy of

cost prediction and in the development of the expertise that underlies professional judgement.

Skitmore and Lowe (1995) raise the question what is meant by experience? In practice,

experience is often equated to length of service or age. However, what is really important is

specific experience, derived from estimating projects of a similar type and size. They submit

that while suggesting the general circumstances in which experience may be obtained, this

adds little to the knowledge of what is valid experience. This knowledge they suggest may

provide insights into the crucial question of how what is learned from experience may be

acquired in an efficient and effective way.

Experiential learning is learning which is rooted in doing and experiencing. It involves the

3

individual, past and present experience and the learning environment. The aim of this

investigation was, therefore, to establish how practitioners learn from their experiences

within the work environment, the nature of that experience and their assessment of its

importance to the development of expertise in early stage design cost estimating.

Estimating Experience

The association of experience and the quality of estimating performance has been extensively

reported. Oteifa and Baldwin (1991) conclude that the single most important factor in the

production of any accurate estimate is an estimator's experience and expertise. Similarly,

Skitmore and Lowe (1995) suggest that the most significant factor is the estimator's

knowledge of general price levels and that this is invariably acquired through experience.

Further references to experience include: the importance of insight gained through a

background of experience (Park, 1966); estimating competency is essentially dependent on

personal experience (Grant, 1974); the implication that familiarity with specific projects, that

is, 'direct experience', enables the production of more accurate estimates (Morrison and

Stevens, 1980); and the suggestion that "... the achievement of an increase in accuracy is

dependent upon the means by which knowledge and experience gained on previous projects

is related to future work" (Morrison, 1984).

Brandon (1990) considers that "The expert uses his imagination, knowledge and experience

to fill in the gaps and expand the information available on the project at that time". Also,

Ferry and Brandon (1991) suggest that the estimator's intuition is based upon experience,

which is determined by the amount of data passing through the practitioner's hands. Beeston

4

(1983) considers the development of judgement a slow and painful process and to be the

result of experience: that is, making many mistakes and learning from them. Further,

Skitmore et al. (1990) conclude that experience contributes to expertise by way of the ability

to identify important aspects of projects and judge market conditions.

As the acquisition of expertise is thought to be an ongoing process (Skitmore et al. 1990),

involving long and consistent practice (Staszewski, 1988) and that lack of practice could lead

to a deterioration of forecasting skills, it can be deduced that the early stage design cost

estimator learns from experience. The investigation, however, of the influence of experience

as a developmental factor in estimating expertise has, to date, been limited in its approach.

It has been considered in terms of the perceived importance of experience to the design cost

estimator. Skitmore et al. (1990) found that practitioners have a consistently high regard for

their own forecasting ability, and the role of work experience and knowledge of market

conditions in contributing to this ability. Alternatively it has been investigated in terms of

quantitative measures of experience such as the length of service as an estimator and the

number of estimates prepared. These measures, however, were found not to be the

determinants of estimating ability (Skitmore et al., 1990). Skitmore et al. (1990) suggest that

other factors such as the type of experience and personality factors must be considered.

Ogunlana (1989) and Lowe (1992) indicate that, while experience is considered significant in

developing the requisite skills and knowledge of the design cost estimator, in practice

practitioners are failing to learn adequately from experience. They suggested reasons for this

include the lack of understanding of how to maximise the potential of learning from

experience and the lack of adequate feedback systems that highlight inadequate estimating

5

performance.

It is not, therefore, the length of service but the quality of the experience, the reactions of the

estimator to the experience, the successful incorporation of the experience into working

practices and an individual's knowledge base that is important: the ability of the individual to

learn from experience. Consequently, it is the insight and development derived from the

experience and the methods or strategies adopted by the early stage design cost estimator,

which enable them to effectively learn from experience, that requires further investigation.

Learning from experience

According to Chickering (1976) experiential learning means "the learning that occurs when

changes in judgements, feelings, knowledge, or skills result for a particular person from

living through an event or events". Also, it is considered synonymous with 'meaningful

discovery' (Boydell, 1976); the process that links education, work and personal development

(Kolb, 1984); and rooted in doing and experience. Further, it illuminates that experience and

provides direction for the making of a judgement as a guide to choice and action (Hutton,

1989). Kolb (1984) defines learning as "the process whereby knowledge is created through

the transformation of experience" and occurs " through the active extension and grounding of

ideas and experience in the external world and through internal reflection about the attributes

of these experiences and ideas". He adapted the earlier Lewinian experiential learning model

when formulating his experiential learning model. This comprises the cycle of concrete

experience, observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts and generalisations and

testing implications of concepts in new situations.

6

The importance of reflection

For Boreham (1987) learning from experience really means learning from reflection on

experience. Boud et al. (1985) define reflection as a form of response by the learner to

experiences, ".. a generic term for those intellectual and affective activities in which

individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and

appreciations". They believe that it is the evaluation of experience that is important in

learning. Reflection is triggered by the recognition that in some respects the situation is not

normal and therefore in need of special attention. The trigger may be an unexpected action or

outcome, or just an intuitive feeling of unease that something is not quite right (Eraut, 1994).

Most models of experiential learning assume that reflection will happen, but the application

of reflection will depend on the disposition of the learner (Eraut, 1994). Further, reflection is

the experiential skill in which people tend to be most deficient (Duley 1981), while most

expert performance is on-going and non-reflective (Eraut, 1994). Boud et al. (1985) suggest

that it may be the ability to reflect which characterises those who learn effectively from

experience.

Learning styles and approaches

We all acquired complex cognitive strategies, that is, preferred patterns of perceiving,

remembering, thinking, and problem solving, which are a major component of learning style

(Smith, 1982). Biggs (1988) suggests that the terms learning styles and learning strategies

appear to refer to two different aspects of learning. Cognitive styles are seen as stable, even

7

unchangeable, individual characteristics that partly control and organise more-fluid cognitive

strategies. Strategies and approaches are ways of handling particular tasks and are amenable

to change through intervention (Ramsden, 1988). Styles are, therefore, focused on the person,

strategies on the task (Biggs, 1988).

Kolb et al. (1979) postulate four learning orientations that relate to the four stages of Kolb's

(1976) experiential learning model. Concrete Experience - an experience-based, involved

approach to learning; Reflective Observation - an observation-based, impartial approach to

learning; Abstract Conceptualisation - a conceptually-based, analytical approach to learning;

and Active Experimentation - an action-based, active approach to learning. Kolb (1976)

derived from these four learning orientations four basic learning style types: the converger -

whose dominant learning abilities are abstract conceptualisation (AC) and active

experimentation (AE); the diverger - who has the opposite learning strengths to the

converger; the assimilator - whose dominant learning abilities are abstract conceptualisation

and reflective observation; and the accommodator who has the opposite learning strengths of

the assimilator (Kolb et al. 1979). Similarly, Honey and Mumford (1992) define four similar

learning styles: activists, reflectors, theorists and pragmatists.

There are a variety of theories expounded on the influence of learning strategies or

approaches. Pask (1976) has distinguished between two major categories of mental

competence that reflect the individual's preference for either a 'Serialist' or 'Holistic' approach

to learning. The serialist approach is to string a sequence of cognitive structures together,

while the holist in contrast, remembers and recalls material as a whole. Alternatively, Kagan

discovered an impulsivity-reflectivity dimension to individual learning (Lovell, 1980).

8

Objectives:

The following specific objectives for the investigation were generated:

! To investigate how practitioners consider they learn from experience, the nature of

that experience and their assessment of its importance.

! To assess the practitioners' learning styles and approaches to learning within the

working environment.

! To investigate the relationship between learning styles, approaches to learning and

length of time in the profession.

! To investigate differences in the learning style subscales and factor scores of the

approaches to learning at work questionnaires based upon practitioner subgroups.

! To investigate differences between the practitioner and novice quantity surveyor

samples for the learning style questionnaire subscale scores.

Methodology

The investigation adopted a fully structured interview survey requiring the interviewees to

complete a multi-sectional questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised: an experience profile,

which provided information concerning the position of the subject within their organisation,

their estimating experience, performance and practice; a revised randomised version of

Kolb's (1985) Learning Style Inventory (LSI - 1985); and an approaches to learning

questionnaire (ALQ), which required the subjects to rate the strength of their agreement to

9

twenty-four statements on a five-point agreement scale. The original scoring method of

Kolb's LSI - 1985 was replaced by a four-point agreement scale. The rationale for this was to

remove the ipsative nature of the inventory. The ALQ statements were derived from Kolb et

al's (1979) guide for analysis of personal problem solving processes; Kolb's (1984) adaptive

competencies and work abilities; Mumford's (1980) skills involved in effective learning

behaviour and the rational approach to learning; Honey and Mumford's (1989) knowledge

and skills items and abilities of the ideal learner; Richardson (1990) Approaches to studying

questionnaire; Smith's (1982) post project analysis form and Gibbs' (1988) abilities associated

with each stage of the learning cycle. The population for the investigation was experienced

quantity surveyors (involved in early stage design cost estimating) based within Greater

Manchester, Central Lancashire and South Lakeland. The area of study was selected as

representative of North West England. Ultimately, 84 practitioners from 77 practices took

part. This represents 45% of the target organisations.

In addition to the structured interviews with practitioners, the revised version of Kolb's LSI -

1985 was administered to students enrolled on full-time and part-time built environment

courses at five institutions of higher education located within the North West. The sample

comprised 63 students (19%) on full-time subdegree programmes, 131 students (39.6%) on

full-time BSc degree programmes and 137 students (29.5%) on a part-time BSc degree

programmes in Quantity Surveying. The sample was taken to represent the novice quantity

surveyor.

Analysis

10

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each question relating to the practitioners'

experience profile, estimating experience, performance and practice. The mean, standard

deviation and internal consistency coefficients (using Cronbach's alpha and the

Spearman-Brown split-half reliability test) were calculated for the subscale scores of Kolb's

revised LSI - 1985 . The items of the LSI-1985 and ALQ were ranked based on the mean

score. A six ("k") factor analysis was performed for the ALQ and factor scores generated.

The subscale and factor scores were then correlated with measures of the number of years the

quantity surveyor had prepared estimates. The subscale and factor scores were also analysed

for differences between different subgroups by means of one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) and its comparable non-parametric test.

Results

Profile of respondents

Position within the company/practice: The responses revealed that 40 of the interviewees

were partners or director of their organisation (47.6%), 20 were associates (23.8%), 20 were

principal or senior quantity surveyors (23.8%) and 4 were quantity surveyors (4.8%). This

indicates that predominantly the subjects held a senior position within their organisation.

Further, 28 of the interviewees were Fellows of the RICS (33.3%), 45 were Professional

Associates (53.6%), two were members of the Society of Surveying Technicians (2.4%), one

was a probationer (1.2%) and eight (9.5%) had no association with the RICS. This indicates a

general level of professional attainment within the sample. The practitioners had been

providing general cost advice for a mean of 16.7 years (SD 7.8) and had specialised after

11

approximately four years general estimating experience. Also, the length of general

experience is comparable with the mean length of corporate membership of the RICS at 16.7

years (SD 9.0).

Self-professed expertise: The responses indicated that 58 of the interviewees (69%)

considered themselves experts, while 26 (31%) did not. Respondents in the latter group

described themselves or their expertise in this area as experienced, competent/proficient,

reasonable, moderate or average or classified themselves in relation to the type of work they

carried out. Lowe (1992) suggested that some estimators, while being very proficient at the

task, were, however, very reluctant to refer to themselves as experts. A further question,

therefore, sought to assess the individual's self-rated competency level by a less emotive

mechanism. The results in Table 1 indicate a high self regard for their estimating

performance.

<<< Insert table 1 here >>>>

Experience factors

Information about the importance of general estimating experiences to the development of an

early stage estimator was obtained:

Influence of experience: The significance of work experience in developing several

acknowledged abilities considered important by early stage estimators was investigated. The

results (Table 2) indicate that experience had been very significant in developing the ability

12

to identify important aspects of projects and significant in developing their ability to judge

market conditions, apply appropriate estimating techniques and select suitable historic cost

data. The importance of learning by doing was further emphasised. Responses revealed that

17 practitioners (20.2%) considered positive experiences to have had the most influence,

while 7 (8.3%) considers negative experiences and 60 (71.4%) considered a balance of both

had the most influence on their development as an early stage estimator. This concurs with

the comments of Bannister and Fransella (1971) that the experience of being 'wrong' is

educationally as important as the experience of being right.

<<< Insert table 2 here >>>>

Development strategies: The results presented in Table 3 reveal a tendency for the quantity

surveyors to develop through a practical active mode associated with individual involvement

in estimating practice as oppose to group activity or a more passive role illustrated by

watching and imitating others. The practitioners considered exposure to or involvement in

estimating practice to be very significant in helping them to develop as early stage estimators.

Their ability to question how things were done, being coached by a mentor and learning by

trial and error were considered significant. However, the more passive approaches, acting

upon advice of others and learning by watching and imitating, were considered neither

significant nor insignificant. Only eleven interviewees proffered further factors. Five

interviewees referred to project specific experience, three mentioned awareness or common

sense, while others referred to feedback, the introduction of IT, advancement and "enjoying

getting stuck in".

<<< Insert table 3 here >>>>

13

Systematic reflection on the outcomes of estimates: The investigation revealed that 14

(16.7%) of the practitioners did not systematically reflect on the outcomes of estimates.

Further, while the remaining 70 (83.3%) interviewees considered that they did reflect on the

outcomes of estimates, 45.7% indicated the use of self-assessment as their sole means of

evaluation. Systematic reflection is considered crucial for effective experiential learning, for

example, Sch`n (1987) suggests that it is only through some process of systematic reflection

that a professional may achieve growth and self-renewal. Interestingly, only four practitioners

used diaries or logbooks for systematic reflection despite them being considered helpful in

aiding reflection on experiences (Gibbs, 1988). The results, however, are in keeping with

Beeston (1983) who maintained that few practitioners objectively measure their estimating

accuracy, Ogunlana (1989) who found an absence of a system requiring regular monitoring of

estimating performance and Duley (1981) who considers reflection to be the skill that most

people lack. The results lead to the conclusion that, despite the recommendations of Flanagan

and Norman (1983), Morrison (1984), and Ogunlana (1989), many practitioners have

inadequate feedback systems on their estimating performance.

Prompt to reviewing estimating procedures: A further question sought to determine what

factors would prompt the practitioners to review their estimating practice. The results reveal

that those factors concerned with performance, i.e. a desire to continually improve, client and

self dissatisfaction, also new opportunities and the introduction of new standards to be

positive prompts to reviewing the way they prepared estimates. However, new forms of

contract etc. and major catastrophe were considered to exert a moderate effect; while

reorganisation or the imposition of new people at a higher level were not considered to have

14

an affect. The results would suggest that the quantity surveyors consider themselves proactive

besides reactive.

Barriers to changing or questioning estimating procedures: Potential barriers to

practitioners reviewing the way they prepared estimates were investigated. Despite a variety

of blocks to learning suggested in the literature, pressure of work, feeling harassed and short

of time were suggested as the main barriers to changing or questioning estimating

performance, while lack of acceptance from colleagues may have an effect. However, most of

the interviewees considered the remaining factors: reliance on existing methods and

techniques, past negative experiences of change, fear of failure, lack of support from

colleagues and anxiety or discomfort at trying something different not to prevent them from

reviewing their estimating practices. This indicates that the interviewees considered

themselves independent of others and confident in their ability to question and review their

estimating practices. Only one interviewee suggested a further factor and that was movement

away from tried and proven procedures. This finding is in accord with Houle (1980) who

states that the major self-perceived barrier to learning for professionals is insufficient time.

Overall, however, the estimators considered they were unlikely to change or experiment with

the way they prepared estimates within the next twelve months.

The findings above confirm the perceived high importance of experience in the development

of an early stage design cost estimator. Moreover, they support the perception that early stage

design cost estimators learn by doing.

Project specific experience

15

Project or task specific experience is thought to be significant in the development of

estimating expertise. Questions designed to elicit information on the importance of project

specific estimating experiences were included in the study.

Description of a significantly learning event: To investigate further the type of event

through which significant learning takes place the practitioners rated twelve bipolar

descriptors of learning from experience (Table 4). This revealed that the type of event

through which the practitioners developed their estimating expertise was predominantly at

work, active, practical, job-centred, competitive, self-initiated and self-directed. The

remaining five factors appear distinct to the individual, having a less general effect.

<<< Insert table 4 here >>>>

Methods of obtaining knowledge: The practitioners were required to indicate how they had

obtained knowledge by rating eight specific factors between two extremes: education (Formal

courses, structured training, cpd etc.) and experience (Learning by doing). The results in

descending order of rating of the experience dimension are presented in Table 5. They

indicate a strong agreement that knowledge of clients' preferences, architects' preferences and

prejudices, contractors in the locality and project specific construction knowledge was gained

by experience. A combination, however, of experience and education had resulted in task

specific knowledge of the effects of the location of a project, estimating techniques, tendering

processes and background construction knowledge.

16

<<< Insert table 5 here >>>>

Approaches to Learning

All twenty-four statements used in the ALQ were ranked, based on their mean scores (Table

6). The results indicated a preference for an open and collaborative approach to learning,

represented by a high rating of: "I can accept help from others"; "I am open to new angles and

possibilities"; "I make a conscious effort to learn from experience"; "I am able to take risks";

"I can recognise and admit to making errors" and "I tend to openly share my experiences with

colleagues". They also suggested a reluctance for self-assessment or self-appraisal,

represented by the low rating of: "I make specific action plans"; "I regularly assess my own

development needs"; "I can describe the steps I need to go through to learn from experience";

"I can express my thoughts fluently"; "I often take time to review my

experiences/performance"; and "I ask for feedback on my performance". The low rating

given to goal setting is of concern as Rogers (1986) and Boydell (1976), among others, have

referred to the importance of goal setting to learning, while Handy (1985) believes that

individuals who learn fastest are those who set clearly defined goals for themselves.

Similarly, the low rating of self-assessment may be linked to individuals acquiring a vested

interest in not noticing their inadequacies. Heron (1985) refers to this as falsification, while

Eraut (1994) comments that "... self-knowledge of performance is difficult to acquire, and

self-comment tends to be justificatory rather than critical in intent". Finally, the low rating of

the ability to describe how individuals learn from experience was reasonably predictable as

Wankowski (1991) states that most people are not consciously aware of how or why they

learn.

17

<<< Insert table 6 here >>>>

Principal factors extraction with an oblique (Oblimin) rotation was used to determine the

underlying dimensions of the 24 items of the ALQ (Lowe, 1996). The six factor solution

accounts for 43.7% of the total variance in the ALQ. The internal consistencies of the six

factors were measured by the squared multiple correlations. At 0.84 for factor one, 0.78 for

factor two, 0.83 for factor three, 0.68 for factor four, 0.77 for factor five and 0.77 for factor

six they were internally consistent. Variables were ordered, grouped by size and interpretive

labels suggested. Factor one 'Creativity' is associated with the ability to take risks, see

connections, adjust quickly, convert ideas into action and openness. Factor two 'Self-

management' is associated with the ability to assess ones own development needs, analyse,

formulate action plans and review performance. Factor three 'Indifference' is associated with

not making a conscious effort to learn from experience, question things or investigate new

concepts. Factor four 'Review' is associated with the ability to analyse the success of others,

share experiences, and adjusting quickly. Factor five 'Amendment' is associated with making

a conscious effort to learn from experience, listening and adjusting quickly. Finally, factor six

'Self-protection' is associated with not recognising and adjusting to errors, accepting help or

asking questioning. Six factor scores were generated using the regression method.

Individual Learning Styles

The mean and standard deviations for the LSI - 1985 subscales are presented in Table 7. They

reveal the following order of preference: Active Experimentation (AE), Abstract

18

Conceptualisation (AC), Reflective Observation (RO) and Concrete Experience (CE), based

on the descending order of mean subscale scores. This is the same order of preference as

Smith and Kolb's (1986) normative data. Cronbach's alpha and Spearman-Brown split half

reliability scores between 0.74 and 0.92, suggested sufficiently strong reliability results for

the four learning styles. This suggests the inventory is internally consistent. The correlation

matrix for the LSI - 1985 subscales, however, revealed no support for the AC-CE and AE-RO

bipolar coordinates. This again confirms that these relationships may have been a function of

the 'ipsative' scales used in the original instruments. The interpretation, therefore, of Kolb's

Learning Style Type Grid that utilises these scores, should be carried out with great care. The

two bipolar dimensions of Kolb's LSI - 1985 indicated a tendency for the sample to favour

the Accommodator quadrant, although the mean coordinates represented the Converger style.

<<< Insert table 7 here >>>>

All forty-eight statements used in the inventory were ranked, based on their mean scores.

Those statements given a high rating included: "When I learn I like to see results from my

work"; "I learn best when I am practical"; "I learn best from a chance to try out and practice";

" I learn by doing"; and "When I learn I become involved and interested". While those given

a low rating included: "I learn best when I rely on my feelings"; "When I learn I like to deal

with my feelings"; "When I am learning I am quiet and reserved"; and "I learn by feeling".

Despite Hutton's (1989) belief that experiential learning requires doing and experiencing, the

results indicated a preference for the active rather than the emotional items.

Relationships between Learning Styles, Approaches to Learning and length of time in

19

the profession

The subscale scores for the LSI - 1985 and the Approaches to Learning factor scores were

correlated with three measures of the length of experience of the practitioners: the number of

years as an estimator, the number of years of specialism within estimating and the number of

years as a corporate member of the RICS. Pearson's 'r' and Spearman's 'rs' correlation matrices

are presented in Tables 8 and 9.

<<< Insert table 8 & 9 here >>>>

The results for the Approaches to Learning Questionnaire factor scores indicate that the

practitioners' rating of the Creativity approach increases significantly with all the measures of

time in the profession. Approach A (Creativity) correlates significantly and positively with

the number of years of specialism as an estimator at the 0.1% level, with the number of years

as an estimator at the 1% level and with the number of years as a corporate member of the

RICS at the 5% level. However, Approach B (Self-management), Approach C (Indifference),

Approach D (Review), Approach E (Amendment) and Approach F (Self-protection) do not

correlate significantly with any measure of length of experience.

The results for the LSI - 1985 subscales indicate that the practitioners' scores for Abstract

Conceptualisation and Concrete Experience increase significantly with measures of time in

the profession. Concrete Experience (CE) correlates significantly and positively with the

number of years as an estimator at the 5% level; while Abstract Conceptualisation (AC)

correlates significantly and positively with the number of years of specialism as an estimator

20

and the number of years as an estimator at the 5% level. However, Reflective Observation

(RO), Active Experimentation (AE), AC-CE and AE-RO do not correlate significantly with

any measure of length of experience.

Tests for differences in the LSI-1985 subscales and the ALQ factor scores based on

subgroups

The subscales and factor scores of the two inventories were tested for differences between

subgroups. Analysis one contained two subgroups based on the position of the practitioner in

their organisation: partners or directors (n = 40) and quantity surveying practitioners (n = 44).

Analysis two contained two subgroups based on their self-declared expertise at early stage

estimating: experts (n = 58) and non-experts (n = 26). Analysis three contained three

subgroups based on the practitioners class of membership of the RICS: Fellows (n = 28),

Professional Associates (n = 45) and non-members (n = 11). Analysis four contained three

subgroups based on method of reflection on estimating performance: peer appraisal (n = 36),

self assessment (n = 34) and no reflection (n = 14). Analysis five contained three subgroups

based on disposition of the practitioner to change: likely (n = 16), neutral (n = 16) and

unlikely (n = 56). The results are presented in Tables 8 and 9.

The Approaches to Learning Questionnaire

! Analysis one: The t-test for independent samples revealed highly significant

difference at the 1% level in the Approach A (Creativity) factor scores. Closer

examination revealed that the partner/directors' mean score was significantly higher

21

than that of the quantity surveying practitioners

! Analysis two: Revealed no significant differences in the subscales or factor scores.

! Analysis three: ANOVA revealed a significant difference at the 5% level in the

Approach A (Creativity) factor score. Closer examination revealed no two groups

significantly different at the 5% level.

! Analysis four: ANOVA revealed a highly significant difference at the 1% level in

Approach B (Self-management) factor score. The Kurskal-Wallis test revealed a

significant difference at the 5% level in the Approach D (Review) factor score. Closer

examination revealed: for Approach B the scores of practitioners who used peer

appraisal (group 1) or self appraisal (group 2) were significantly higher than those of

practitioners who had no formal methods of reflecting on the outcome of estimates

(group 3); and for Approach D the factor score of practitioners who used peer

appraisal (group 1) was higher than that of practitioners who used self appraisal

(group 2).

! Analysis five: ANOVA revealed a significant difference at the 5% level in Approach

D (Review) factor score. Closer examination revealed: for Approach D the mean

score of practitioners likely to change their estimating methods (group 1) was

significantly higher than that of practitioners who were neutral towards change (group

2).

Analysis one provides support for the finding that Approach A Creativity increases

significantly with time in the profession, while analysis four and five provide support for the

approaches to learning factor scores in terms of construct validity.

22

Individual Learning Styles

There were no significant differences in the subscales scores for any practitioner subgroup

(Analyses 1-5). This would indicate a homogeneous group in terms of learning styles. An

explanation for this finding could be that individuals adapt their learning styles to meet

organisational norms (Socialisation). Alternatively, it could be due to individuals selecting

career paths that match their preferred learning styles, organisations selecting employees with

learning styles to meet their organisational norms or practitioners developing learning styles

to conform to professional requirements.

The LSI-1985 subscales were also tested for differences between practitioner and student

subgroups. Analysis one contained two subgroups: practitioners (n = 84) and students - main

investigation one total sample (n = 326). Analysis two contained two subgroups: practitioners

(n = 84) and part-time students main investigation one - private practice and Local Authority

employees only (n = 51). The third analysis contained three subgroups: partners or directors

(n = 40), quantity surveying practitioners (n = 44) and part-time students main investigation

one - private practice and Local Authority employees only (n = 51). The results are presented

in Table 9.

! Analysis one: The t-test for independent samples revealed significant differences at

the 5% level in the RO and AC subscales. The Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon W Rank

Sum W test revealed significant differences at the 5% level in CE and AE-RO

subscales. Closer examination revealed: for the CE, AC and AE-RO subscales the

practitioners' mean scores were significantly higher than those of the students, while

23

for the RO subscale the practitioners' scores were significantly lower than those of the

students.

! Analysis two: The Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon W Rank Sum W test revealed a

significant difference at the 5% level in the CE and highly significant differences at

the 1% level in the AE and AE-RO subscales. Closer examination revealed: for the

CE, AE and AE-RO subscales the practitioners' scores were significantly higher than

those of the students.

! Analysis three: The Kurskal-Wallis test revealed a highly significant difference at the

1% level in the AE-RO subscale score and significant differences at the 5% level in

the CE and AE subscale scores. Closer examination revealed: for the CE subscale the

partners/directors' score was significantly higher than that of the students, for the AE

subscale both the partners/directors' and quantity surveying practitioners' scores were

significantly higher than that of the students, for the AE-RO subscale the

partners/directors' score was significantly higher than that of the students.

For Concrete Experience (Analysis 1 & 2), Abstract Conceptualisation (Analysis 1) and

Active Experimentation (Analysis 2) the scores for the practitioners were significantly higher

than those of the students; for Concrete Experience (Analysis 3) the scores for the

partners/directors were significantly higher than those of the student; and for Active

Experimentation (Analysis 3) the scores for both the partners/directors and quantity

surveying employees were significantly higher than those of the students (Analysis 3). For

Reflective Observation (Analysis 1) the scores for the practitioners were significantly lower

than those of the students. The findings provide support for the practitioners declared

preference for an active learning style, represented by learning by doing (Active

24

Experimentation and Concrete Experience), rather than a passive style, represented by

learning by observation (Reflective Observation), when compared with the student sample.

As previously stated, systematic reflection is considered crucial for effective experiential

learning, for example, Eraut (1994) considers reflection, both in terms of a form of

deliberation and metacognition, to be an important contributor to professional expertise. The

results are, however, in keeping Casey (1983) who suggests that the regular opportunity to

pause and reflect before having another go is not necessarily present in a manager's working

life and Eraut (1994) who states that most expert performance is on-going and non-reflective.

Summary of findings

The following findings have been drawn from the investigation:

! Practitioners rate the importance of experience in the development of estimating

ability very highly.

! Experience is considered to be acquired through preparing estimates, therefore,

learning by doing, which is very significant in developing the ability to identify

important aspects of projects and significant in developing the ability to judge market

conditions, apply appropriate estimating techniques and select suitable historic cost

data.

! Exposure to or involvement in estimating practice is deemed to be very significant in

the development of an early stage design cost estimator. Also the individual's ability

to question how things were done, being coached by a mentor and learning by trial

25

and error were considered significant. However, the more passive approaches, acting

upon advice of others and learning by watching and imitating, were considered

neither significant nor insignificant.

! The type of event through which practitioners believe they develop their estimating

expertise is predominantly at work, active, practical, job-centred, competitive, self-

initiated and self-directed.

! The level of systematic reflection on the outcomes of estimates was low.

! The main barrier to changing or questioning estimating performance is deemed to be

pressure of work, feeling harassed and short of time. However, generally the

estimators were unlikely to change or experiment with the way they prepared

estimates within the next twelve months.

! Practitioners prefer an active learning style, represented by learning by doing (Active

Experimentation, Concrete Experience), rather than a passive style, represented by

learning by observation (Reflective Observation), when compared with the student

sample. Further, their preference for Abstract Conceptualisation and Concrete

Experience increases significantly with measures of time in the profession.

! Practitioners are self-confident, preferring an open and collaborative approach to

learning but exhibiting a reluctance for self-assessment or self-appraisal. Further their

preference for the approach labelled creativity increases significantly with length of

time in the profession.

References

Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (1971) "Inquiring Man" Penguin Books, Harmondsworth

26

Beeston, D.T. (1983) "Statistical Methods for Building Price Data" E & FN Spon, London

Biggs, J. (1988) "Approaches to Learning and to Essay Writing" in"Learning Strategies and

Learning Styles" (edited by R.R. Schmeck) Plenum Press, New York

Boreham, N.C. (1987) "Learning from Experience in Diagnostic Problem Solving" in

"Student Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology" (edited by J.T.E

Richardson, M.W. Eysenck and D. Warren Piper) The Society for Research into Higher

Education and Open University Press, Buckingham

Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985) " Promoting Reflection in Learning - a Model" in

"Reflection : Turning Experience into Learning" (edited by D. Boud, R. Keogh and D.

Walker) Kogan - Page, London

Boydell, T. (1976) "Experiential Learning" Manchester Monographs

Brandon, P.S. (1990) "The Development of an expert system for the strategic planning of

construction projects" Construction Management and Economics, Vol 8, No 3 pp 285-300

Casey, D. (1983) "Where action Learning fits in" in "Action Learning in Practice" (edited by

M. Pedler) Gower, Aldershot

Chickering, A.W. (1976) "Developmental Change as a Major Outcome" in "Experiential

Learning : Rationale, Characteristics and Assessment" (edited by M.T. Keaton and

Associates) Jossey Bass, San Francisco

Duley, J.S. (1981) "Field experience education" in "The Modern American College" (edited

by A.W. Chickering) Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Eraut, M. (1994) "Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence" The Falmer Press,

London

Ferry, D.J. and Brandon, P.S. (1991) "Cost Planning of Buildings" 5th Edition, BSP, Oxford

Flanagan, R. and Norman, G. (1983) "The accuracy and monitoring of quantity surveyors'

27

price forecasting for building work" Construction Management and Economics, Vol 1, No 2

pp 157- 180

Gibbs, G. (1988) "Learning by doing - A guide to teaching and learning methods" F.E.U.

Grant, G. (1974) "The estimator's tasks and skills" Building Trade Journal, 168 December 13

pp 52-54

Handy, C.B. (1985) "Understanding Organisations" 3rd Edition, Penguin Books,

Harmondsworth

Heron, J. (1985) "The Role of Reflection in a Co-operative Inquiry" in "Reflection : Turning

Experience into Learning" (edited by D. Boud, R. Keogh and D. Walker) Kogan - Page,

London

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1989) "The Manual of Learning Opportunities" P. Honey and

A. Mumford, Maidenhead

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992) "The Manual of Learning Styles" Peter Honey,

Maidenhead

Houle, C.O. (1980) "Continuing Learning in the Professions" Jossey Bass, San Francisco

Hutton, M. (1989) "Learning from Action: A Conceptual Framework" in "Making Sense of

Experiential Learning" (edited by S. Warner Weil and I. McGill) The Society for Research

into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham

Kolb, D.A., Rubin, K.M. and McIntyre, J.M. (1979) "Organisational Psychology : An

experimental Approach" 3rd Edition, Prentice - Hall, New Jersey

Kolb, D.A. (1976) "The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual" McBer & Co., Boston,

Mass.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) "Experiential Learning : Experience as the Source of Learning and

Development" Prentice - Hall, New Jersey

28

Kolb, D.A. (1985) "Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual" Revised edition McBer &

Co., Boston, Mass.

Lovell, R.B. (1980) "Adult Learning" Croom Helm, London

Lowe, D.J. (1992) "Experiential Learning: A Factor in the Development of an Expert

Pre-tender Estimator", MSc thesis, Salford University

Lowe, D.J. (1996) "Experiential Learning in Design Cost Estimating", unpublished PhD,

UMIST

Morrison, N. (1984) "The accuracy of quantity surveyors cost estimating" Construction

Management and Economics, Vol 2 No 1 pp 57-75

Morrison, N. and Stevens, S. (1980) "Construction Cost Data Base" 2nd annual report of

research project by Department of Construction Management, University of Reading, for

Property Services Agency, Directorate of Quantity Surveying, DOE

Mumford, A.C. (1980) "Making Experience Pay - Management Success through effective

Learning" McGraw - Hill, London

Ogunlana, S.O. (1989) "Accuracy in Design Cost Estimating" PhD thesis, Loughborough

University of Technology

Oteifa, S.A. and Baldwin, A. (1990) "Modelling Civil Engineering Estimators' Expertise"

Proceedings of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) 6th

Annual Conference, University of Salford, 7th September 1990, pp 160-169

Park, W.R. (1966) "The Strategy of Contracting for Profit" Prentice Hall

Pask, G. (1976) "Styles and Strategies of Learning" British Journal of Educational

Psychology, Vol. 46 pp 128-148

Ramsden, P. (1988) "Context and Strategy: Situational Influences on Learning" in "Learning

Strategies and Learning Styles" (edited by R.R. Schmeck) Plenum Press, New York

29

Richardson, J.T.E. (1990) "Reliability and replicability of the Approaches to Studying

Questionnaire" Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 15, No. 2 pp 155-168

Rogers, A. (1986) "Teaching Adults" Open University Press, Buckingham

Sch`n, D.A. (1987) "Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for

Teaching and Learning in the Professions" Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Skitmore, R.M. and Lowe, D.J. (1995) "Human factors in estimating" in "Project cost

estimating" (edited by N.J. Smith) Thomas Telford Limited, London

Skitmore, R.M., Stradling, S., Tuohy, A. and Mkwezalamba, H. (1990) "The Accuracy of

Construction Price Forecasts", Salford University

Smith, D.M. and Kolb, D.A. (1986) "User's Guide for the Learning-Style Inventory" McBer

and Company, Boston, Massachusetts

Smith, R.M. (1982) "Learning How to Learn: Applied Theory for Adults" The Open

University Press, Milton Keynes

Staszewski, J.J. (1988) "Skilled memory and expert mental calculation" in "The nature of

Experience" (edited by M.T.H. Chi, R. Glaser, M.J. Farr) Laurence Erlbaum Associates, New

Jersey

Wankowski, J. (1991) "Assisting the Individual Student with Study Difficulties" in "Helping

Students to Learn: Teaching, Counselling, Research" (edited by K. Raaheim, J. Wankowski

and J. Radford) The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,

Buckingham

30

$Table 1: Frequency, mean and standard deviation for self-rated level of competence

(n = 84)

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

SD

Moderate

0

1

23

48

12

Very high

3.85

0.67

Notes: Bold highlights mode

Table 2: Frequencies, means and standard deviations for the contribution of work experience to the development of abilities (n = 84)

Very Insignificant

Very Significant

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

SD

Identify important aspects of projects

0

2

2

18

62

4.67

0.65

Judge market conditions

0

6

19

24

35

4.05

0.97

Apply appropriate estimating techniques

2

4

20

29

29

3.94

1.00

Select suitable historical cost data

0

9

22

29

24

3.81

0.98

Notes: Bold highlights mode

Table 3: Frequencies, means and standard deviations for approaches to learning (n = 84)

Very Insignificant

Very Significant

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

SD

Exposure to/ involvement in estimating practice

2

3

12

28

39

4.18

0.97

Your ability to question how things are done

0

6

16

38

24

3.95

0.88

Being coached by a mentor or supervisor

3

14

21

29

17

3.51

1.10

Learning by trial and error

8

16

14

28

18

3.38

1.28

Acting upon advice of others(not a mentor)

4

13

41

20

6

3.13

0.93

Learning by watching and imitating others

10

18

26

19

11

3.04

1.21

Notes: Bold highlights mode

31

Table 4: Frequencies, means and standard deviations for rating of 12 bipolar

descriptors of learning from experience (n = 81)

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

SD

At work

44

22

10

3

2

Not at work

1.73

0.99

Practical

36

35

4

6

0

Theoretical

1.75

0.86

Competitive

16

29

26

6

4

Uncompetitive

2.42

1.05

Self initiated

16

31

12

14

8

Initiated by others

2.59

1.26

Self directed

16

30

11

16

8

Directed by others

2.63

1.28

Sudden

15

20

22

18

6

Incremental

2.75

1.21

Alone

16

18

19

16

12

With others

2.88

1.35

Pleasant

9

20

23

18

11

Unpleasant

3.03

1.21

Distant

7

15

29

17

13

Recent

3.17

1.17

Qualification orientated

2

12

32

24

11

Curiosity/Personal interest orientated

3.37

0.98

Passive

1

2

18

39

21

Active

3.95

0.84

Life centred

1

1

13

35

31

Job centred

4.16

0.83

Table 5: Frequencies, means and standard deviations for methods of obtaining task specific knowledge (n = 84)

Education

Experience

1

2

3

4

5

Mea

n

SD

Clients' preferences and prejudices

0

2

1

19

62

4.68

0.62

Architects' preferences and prejudices

0

3

7

18

56

4.51

0.80

Contractors in the locality

0

3

9

19

53

4.45

0.83

Project specific construction knowledge

0

2

15

30

37

4.21

0.82

The effects of the location of a project

2

11

26

25

20

3.60

1.07

Estimating techniques

2

15

26

25

16

3.45

1.07

Tendering processes

2

16

26

23

17

3.44

1.09

Background construction knowledge

3

21

24

16

20

3.35

1.20

32

Notes: Bold highlights mode

33

Table 6: Ranking of Individual Questions of Approaches to Learning Questionnaire (n = 84)

Item

Mean

SD

8

3.64

0.57

I make a conscious effort to learn from experience

7

3.40

0.82

I can accept help from others

12

3.23

0.63

I am open to new angles and possibilities

21

3.14

0.81

I can recognise and admit to making errors

3

3.08

0.95

I tend to openly share my experiences with colleagues

9

3.08

0.79

I'm good at asking questions even when there is a risk to my self esteem

16

3.07

0.69

I am good at seeing connections between things

22

2.98

0.73

I often question things that I hear or read

14

2.95

0.74

I can convert ideas into feasible action

5

2.89

0.98

I reach conclusions via careful thought and analysis

15

2.81

0.87

I am able to take risks

24

2.81

0.83

I like to investigate new concepts before committing myself

18

2.77

0.81

I am able to adjust quickly to new, unfamiliar situations

11

2.71

0.74

I can express my thoughts fluently

23

2.70

0.86

I try to relate new ideas to real life situations

20

2.61

0.86

I tend to convert criticism into constructive suggestions for improvement

10

2.55

0.86

I tend to listen patiently to colleagues

1

2.54

0.95

I often take time to review my experiences/performance

6

2.48

1.06

I have detailed recall of past experiences

19

2.37

0.97

I make specific action plans

17

2.36

1.14

I ask for feedback on my performance

2

2.35

0.95

I can describe the steps I need to go through to learn from experience

13

2.27

0.95

I regularly assess my own development needs

4

1.85

0.96

I tend to analyse what other successful people do

34

Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Scale Intercorrelations for Kolb's

Learning Style Inventory - 1985 revised subscales (n = 84)

Reliability

Correlation matrix

Scal

e

Mea

n

SD

R1

R2

RO

AC

AE

AC-CE

AE-RO

CE1

32.43

4.61

0.74

0.80

0.304** 0.281**

0.395*** 0.403***

0.420*** 0.420***

-0.518*** -0.519***

-0.022 -0.008

RO

32.86

6.57

0.88

0.92

0.450*** 0.471***

0.270* 0.270*

0.150 0.149

-0.786*** -0.765***

AC

36.82

4.85

0.83

0.89

0.442*** 0.414***

0.582*** 0.489***

-0.148 -0.179

AE

40.49

4.40

0.81

0.87

0.040 -0.069

0.383*** 0.371***

AC-CE

4.39

5.21

0.84

0.85

-0.118 -0.173

AE-RO

7.63

6.85

0.86

0.91

P 'r' S 'rs'

*** = p# 0.001 ** = p# 0.01 *= p# 0.05 R1 = Cronbach's Alpha, R2 = Spearman-Brown split-half NB: 1 = Lilliefors (Kolmogrow-Smirnov) test of normality indicates that a non-parametric test is appropriate (P 'r' = Pearson's Correlation Coefficients , S 'rs' = Spearman's Correlation Coefficients)

35

Table 8: Correlations between Approaches to Learning Questionnaire factor scores and Number of years experience, and ANOVA and tests for differences for Approaches to

Learning Questionnaire factor scores

n

Approach

A

Approach

B

Approach

C

Approach

D

Approach

E

Approach

F No. Years Estimator1

84

P 'r' S 'rs'

0.329** 0.300**

0.029 -0.006

-0.097 -0.125

-0.198 -0.189

-0.007 -0.060

-0.088 -0.074

No. Years Specialism1

84

P 'r' S 'rs'

0.393*** 0.357***

0.150 0.120

-0.111 -0.126

-0.029 -0.044

-0.048 -0.058

-0.189 -0.161

No. Years RICS1

73

P 'r' S 'rs'

0.227

0.245*

-0.163 -0.175

-0.014 -0.035

-0.062 -0.058

0.017 0.026

-0.193 -0.220

Partner/ Employee

40 44

't'1 't'2

2.69** -2.51*

0.29 -0.10

0.41 -0.25

-1.86 -1.94

-0.20 -0.42

-0.73 -0.57

Expert/ Non-expert

58 26

't'1 't'2

0.86 -0.67

1.22 -1.00

-0.18 -0.05

-1.95 -1.85

0.59 -0.17

0.16 -0.24

RICS Members.

Fr x2

3.46* 5.44

0.97 2.65

0.75 1.01

1.79 3.74

1.10 3.52

1.31 2.44

Methods of Reflection

Fr x2

0.84 2.64

6.97**

12.11**

0.11 0.19

2.98

6.29*

1.84 2.65

0.58 1.02

Disposition to change

Fr x2

1.01 0.92

0.39 2 0.57

0.84 2.31

3.15* 5.52

1.39 2.66

2.45 4.17

*** = p≤ 0.001 ** = p≤ 0.01 *= p≤ 0.05 't'1 = t-test for Independent Samples, 't'2 = Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test, Fr = F Ratio Oneway Analysis of Variance, x2 = Chi-Square Kurskal-Wallis 1-Way Anova NB: 1 = Lilliefors (Kolmogrow-Smirnov) test of normality indicates that a non-parametric test is appropriate NB: 2 = Levene test for homogeneity of variances indicates that a non-parametric test is appropriate

36

Table 9: Correlations between Kolb's Learning Style Inventory - 1985 subscales and

number of years experience, and ANOVA and tests for differences for LSI-1985 subscales

n

CE1

RO

AC

AE

AC-CE

AE-RO

No. Years Estimator1

84

P 'r' S rs'

0.221* 0.219*

0.003 -0.010

0.182

0.220*

-0.010 -0.023

-0.026 -0.045

-0.009 -0.033

No. Years Specialism1

84

P 'r' S 'rs'

0.213 0.195

-0.049 -0.069

0.248* 0.224*

-0.003 -0.030

0.043 0.027

0.045 0.045

No. Years RICS1

73

P 'r' S 'rs'

0.207 0.212

-0.120 -0.109

0.026 0.069

-0.171 -0.150

-0.163 -0.208

0.003 -0.013

Partner/ Employee

40 44

't'1 't'2

1.23 -1.44

-1.24 -1.32

1.25 -1.26

0.32 -0.29

0.10 -0.26

1.40 -1.20

Expert/ Non-expert

58 26

't'1 't'2

0.67 -1.01

0.12 -0.09

0.70 -0.74

-0.28 -0.11

0.05 -0.32

-0.29 -0.21

RICS Membership

Fr x2

0.47 0.68

1.14 2.72

0.61 0.30

1.18 1.92

0.24 1.71

1.71 2.60

Methods of Reflection

Fr x2

1.64 3.07

2.92 5.22

1.85 2.54

2.49 5.93

0.28 0.99

0.37 2 1.12

Disposition to change

Fr x2

1.15 3.83

1.55 2.88

0.82 1.79

1.37 2.29

1.23 3.99

0.38 0.67

Practitioners/ Students

84

326

't'1 't'2

2.42* -2.13*

-2.02* -1.91

1.99* -1.80

0.84 -0.53

-0.27 -0.46

2.29* -2.35*

Practitioners/ PT Students

84 51

't'1 't'2

2.68** -2.50*

-0.94 -0.70

1.64 -1.57

3.07** -2.72**

-0.94 -0.74

3.07** -2.81**

Position in organisation

Fr x2

4.22* 7.91*

1.34 2.27

2.12 3.80

4.71** 7.43*

0.452 0.58

5.72** 9.45**

*** = p≤ 0.001 ** = p≤ 0.01 *= p≤ 0.05 't'1 = t-test for Independent Samples, 't'2 = Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test, Fr = F Ratio Oneway Analysis of Variance, x2 = Chi-Square Kurskal-Wallis 1-Way Anova NB: 1 = Lilliefors (Kolmogrow-Smirnov) test of normality indicates that a non-parametric test is appropriate NB: 2 = Levene test for homogeneity of variances indicates that a non-parametric test is appropriate