Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsDepartment of Ergonomics and Psychologywww.erg.bme.hu

1

A short introduction into the Q-methodology and its

applications in safety science

Prof. L. Izsó

Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsDepartment of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

2

1. The fundamentals of the Q-methodology

1.1. Basic ideas

1.2. The data matrix of the Q-methodology

1.3. The technique of „forced choice”

1.4. Including FA in the Q-methodology

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures (a case study from the safety science)

The Q-methodology and its applications

Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

3

• The basic ideas of the Q-methodology were worked out by British physicist and psychologist W. Stephenson as early as in 1935, and during the following decades he – basically in „The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and Its Methodology” (1953) – further developed them. Nowadays we are witnessing a rediscovery of the usefulness of this approach.

• The Q- methodology provides a foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity, and it is this central feature which recommends it to persons interested in qualitative aspects of human behavior.

• Most typically, a person is presented with a set of statements about some topic, and is asked to rank-order them (usually from "agree" to "disagree"), an operation referred to as "Q sorting.”

1.1. Basic ideas

Focus on the subjective dimension of any issue towards which different points-of-view can be expressed.

The main features can be summarized as follows (after Prof. Paul Stenner of University of Brighton):

1. Each of a sample of participants (the p-set)2. … sorts a sample of items (the q-set)3. … into a subjectively meaningful pattern (the q-sort).4. Resulting q-sorts are factor analysed by-person

(q-analysis)5. … yielding a set of factors whose interpretation

reveals a set of points-of-view (the f-set)

1.1. Basic ideas

Basic steps:• Generating the Q (item) set

(representatively)• Selecting the P (participant) set

(usually not representatively)• Collecting Q sort data• Q Correlation and factoring• Factor interpretation

1.1. Basic ideas

Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

6

•The statements are matters of opinion only (not fact), and the fact that the Q sorter is ranking the statements from his or her own point of view is what brings subjectivity into the picture. •There is obviously no right or wrong way to provide "my point of view" about anything -- health care, a particular nomination, the reasons why people commit suicide, why Cleveland can't field a decent baseball team, or anything else.• Yet the rankings are usually subject to factor analysis (FA), and the resulting factors, inasmuch as they have arisen from individual subjectivities, indicate segments of subjectivity which exist.•Thus the Q-methodology, in a sense, unifies the strengths of qualitative and quantitative traditions.

1.1. Basic ideas

•In traditional psychological data analysis methods (so called R-methods) tests (scales or other instrument scores) are applied to a sample of persons and the correlation coefficients are calculated between these tests as variables.•In the Q-methodology, of the contrary, persons (or different conditions/instructions within persons) are applied to a sample of stimuli and the correlation coefficients are calculated between these stimuli as variables.•In the second step of the Q-methodology – in case of an exploratory analysis - usually a special factor analysis (FA) is performed based on the correlation coefficients obtained earlier. 7Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

1.1. Basic ideas

BME APPI Ergonómia és Pszichológia Tanszékwww.erg.bme.hu

A data matrix for traditional R-methodology:1.2.The data matrix of the Q-methodology

Persons Tests

a b c

A 100x (1) 3r (-1) 0,500 mm (-0,873)

B 75x (0) 5r (0) 0,950 mm (1,091)

C 50x (-1) 7r (1) 0,650 mm (0,218)

Mean 75x (0) 5r (0) 0,700 mm (0)

SD 25,0x (1) 2,0r (1) 0,229 mm (1)

Applying a, b and c tests to the (A, B, C) sample of persons.

The figures in brackets are the standardized values. 8

a b c

a 1 - 1,000 - 0,327

b - 1,000 1 0,327

c - 0,327 0,327 1

A correlation matrix calculated from the data matrix of traditional R-methodology:

9Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsDepartment of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

1.2.The data matrix of the Q-methodology

Stephenson: "Correlating Persons Instead of Tests" (1935)The figures in brackets are the standardized values.

Statements Persons/conditions

A B C

a 1p (-0,801) 2q (-0,320) 1s (-0,801)

b 2p (-0,320) 1q (-0,801) 5s (1,121)

c 5p (1,121) 5q (1,121) 2s (-0,320)

Mean 2,667p (0) 2,667q (0) 2,667s (0)

SD 2,082p (1) 2,082q (1) 2,082s (1)

A data matrix for the Q-methodology:

10

1.2.The data matrix of the Q-methodology

BME APPI Ergonómia és Pszichológia Tanszékwww.erg.bme.hu

Statements Persons/conditions

A B C

a 1p (-0,801) 2q (-0,320) 1s (-0,801)

b 2p (-0,320) 1q (-0,801) 5s (1,121)

c 5p (1,121) 5q (1,121) 2s (-0,320)

Mean 2,667p (0) 2,667q (0) 2,667s (0)

SD 2,082p (1) 2,082q (1) 2,082s (1)

A data matrix for the Q-methodology:

Applying A, B and C persons (or one single person under A, B and C conditions/instructions) to the (a, b, c) sample of stimuli (statements, collections of smells, tastes, colors, paintings, pieces of art, photographs, even musical selections, etc.), where the data in the colomns are given in p, q, and s „units”. 11

1.2.The data matrix of the Q-methodology

A B C

A 1 0,885 - 0,038

B 0,885 1 - 0,500

C - 0,038 - 0,500

1

A correlation matrix calculated from the data matrix of the Q-methodology:

12Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsDepartment of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

1.2.The data matrix of the Q-methodology

BME APPI Ergonómia és Pszichológia Tanszékwww.erg.bme.hu

1.3. The technique of „forced choice”

• The so called ”forced-choice” or „forced distribution) means that the items are arranged (forced) into a frame approximately of the shape of the normal distribution.

• This arrangement has decisive advantages: the normality requirement necessary for the FA is ab ovo satisfied.

13Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

Most disagree Most agree -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

2 3 4 5 6 6 8 6 6 5 4 3 2

n=60

Eg: sorting 60 statements on a 13 degree scale

14Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

1.3. The technique of „forced choice”

The act of sorting by „forced distribution”

• Because of the „forced distribution” the stimuli can interact during sorting.

• If the same person performs more sorting by different instructions the variables (instructions) can also interact during sorting.

15

1.3. The technique of „forced choice”

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 7 12 17 37 28 13 9 4 46 32 25 29 52

1 54 51 43 56 45 16 49 14 33 50 57 36

19 11 26 22 58 27 59 48 38 41 10

23 34 18 30 24 15 53 3 31

44 21 35 60 20 6 55

47 8 42 2 5

39

40

Eg: sorting 60 statements on a 13 degree scale

16Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

1.3. The technique of „forced choice”

17

• In the final step a FA is applied to the correlation matrix.

• While in case of a „normal” or „R type” FA the analysis is usually finished when the factor loadings are calculated,

• in the Q-methodology in additon the factor scores are also calculated and these solve as the basis of the interpretation of the resulted factors/components.

17Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

1.4. Including FA in the Q-methodology

BME APPI Ergonómia és Pszichológia Tanszékwww.erg.bme.hu

18

A case studyObjective studying of subjective opinions of

different experts participating in the investigation of safety-related events in a nuclear power plant by the Q-methodology (NPP_Q-sorting.sav)

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

18Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

The first eight statements of the 53 item Q-list:1) There is no supervision to check if the right correcting measures were taken.2) Responsible managers in the organization recognize if a particular cause occurs too often as triggering factor.3) The results of the investigation are influenced by the investigators themselves.4) The investigation is launched too late.5) All the involved persons are drawn into the investigation.6) The correcting measures are usually launched, but never completed.7) The resulting decisions are adequate answers to the events (incidents or accidents).8) The managers are open to the results of the investigation.19

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

Sorting the 53 statements on a 9 degree scaleby „forced distribution”

20

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

The experts performed the following Q-sortings:• The 4 staff members of the Safety Directorate: for the

„routine” only (4 Q-sortings),• The 2 staff members of the Training Center for both the

„routine” and the „SOL” (4 Q-sortings),• The 2 invited independent external experts for both the

„routine” and the „SOL” (4 Q-sortings).

These altogether 12 Q-sortings as variables were later factorized and the resulting significant factors/components were interpreted in terms of available background information.

21

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

22

Two main components/dimensions occurred:

22

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

23

Two main dimensions occurred:

23

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

2424

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of sub

Two main dimensions occurred:

25

Dimension 1: from - 4 („ Most disagree”)

•The investigators take into account only objectively recorded facts, they are not interested in the opinions of the persons involved in the event.•The investigation does not take into account all the circumstances of the investigated events properly.•Only individual human errors are identified as causes, managerial failures are not.•…

25Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsDepartment of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

26

Dimension 1: to + 4 („ Most agree”)

•…•The investigating team does not settle for identifying one single cause or finding the error made by one single person.•The persons involved in an event are asked also personally concerning the event.•The managers are open to the results of the investigation.

26Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsDepartment of Ergonomics and Psychology www.erg.bme.hu

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

27

Dimension 1: can be interpreted as the degree to which the investigation is•multicausal,•thorough,•deep and wide enough,•open, transparent and correct, •just and fair.

(A positive dimension: larger values have better meaning)

27

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

BME APPI Ergonómia és Pszichológia Tanszékwww.erg.bme.hu

28

Dimension 2: from – 4 („ Most disagree”)

•The investigators knowingly search the relationship between organizational decisions and the event investigated.•The usual time period of maximum 30 days is enough for a thorough investigation.•The persons involved in an event feel their participation in the investigation process useful. •…

28

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

BME APPI Ergonómia és Pszichológia Tanszékwww.erg.bme.hu

29

Dimension 2: to + 4 („ Most agree”)

•…•The investigations do not foster the personnel to learn something from every single investigated events.•The results of the investigation are influenced by the investigators themselves.•The investigation usually does not involve the responsibility of managers.

29

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

BME APPI Ergonómia és Pszichológia Tanszékwww.erg.bme.hu

30

Dimension 2: can be interpreted as the degree to which the investigation

is not•covering the responsibility of managers,•targeting the organizational decisions,•independent from the investigators,•satisfying for the persons involved.

(A negative dimension: larger values have worse meaning)

30

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

31

Once again the two main dimensionsthat occurred:

31

Interpretation:1)Safety Directorate staff have an unrealistic positive opinion about their routine procedure(high positive loads ondimension 1)

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjec

3232

Interpretation:2) Training Center staff and external experts both have a very negative opinion about the same routine procedure(high positive loads ondimension 2)

Once again the two main dimensionsthat occurred:

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjec

3333

Interpretation:3) Training Center staff and external experts both have a positive opinion about the SOL method(high positive loads ondimension 1)

Once again the two main dimensionsthat occurred:

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjec

3434

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

3535

Opinions about the routine investigation

Staff members of the Safety Directorate

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

3636

Staff members of the Safety Directorate

Staff members of the Training Center

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

Opinions about the routine investigation

3737

Staff members of the Safety Directorate

Staff members of the Training Center

Invited external experts

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

Opinions about the routine investigation

3838

Opinions about the SOL investigation

Safety Directorate Staff had no SOL experience

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

3939

Staff members of the Training Center

Safety Directorate Staff had no SOL experience

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

Opinions about the SOL investigation

4040

Staff members of the Training Center

Invited external experts

Safety Directorate Staff had no SOL experience

2. Applying the Q-methodology for objectivestudying of subjective opinion-structures

Opinions about the SOL investigation