Engineering Doctoral Students' Not Sure Item Nonresponse Rates on the Departmental Climate Survey

This research full paper describes engineering doctoral students' nonresponse patterns on a departmental climate survey. As the U.S. engineering workforce does not reflect the diversity of the U.S. population, the departmental climate can be one lever that higher education leaders can use to identify specific policies, practices, and procedures in doctoral programs to increase the retention and success of students from historically excluded groups. During the summer and fall of 2023, 355 engineering doctoral students from 28 institutions in the U.S. responded to a climate scale that we developed to assess multiple climate factors associated with organizational commitment or member retention. Items included a six-point Likert-type response option and “not sure.” While most students responded adequately to the climate scale items with the Likert scale, a significant number of students also responded to the “not sure” option. Based on the climate and survey research in the literature, we hypothesized that these item nonresponses may stem from (a) the contextual characteristics of climate constructs or items and/or (b) student characteristics. Descriptive and inferential statistical data analyses showed that “not sure” item nonresponse differed by climate constructs and items as well as student characteristics. Among the six climate factors, on average, authenticity climate had the highest item nonresponse rates, followed by performance climate and diversity climate. While the item nonresponse rates increased by student age, at the item level analysis, item nonresponse rates varied by residency, gender, and first-generation status. There were no significant differences in the item nonresponse rates on underrepresented minority (URM) status, student disability, and LGBTQIA+ status.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/fie61694.2024.10893433
Primary Topic
Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Engineering Doctoral Students' Not Sure Item Nonresponse Rates on the Departmental Climate Survey

So Yoon Yoon, Nicole M. Else‐Quest, Joseph Roy
Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
article

Engineering Doctoral Students' Not Sure Item Nonresponse Rates on the Departmental Climate Survey

So Yoon Yoon, Nicole M. Else‐Quest, Joseph Roy
article en

Abstract

This research full paper describes engineering doctoral students' nonresponse patterns on a departmental climate survey. As the U.S. engineering workforce does not reflect the diversity of the U.S. population, the departmental climate can be one lever that higher education leaders can use to identify specific policies, practices, and procedures in doctoral programs to increase the retention and success of students from historically excluded groups. During the summer and fall of 2023, 355 engineering doctoral students from 28 institutions in the U.S. responded to a climate scale that we developed to assess multiple climate factors associated with organizational commitment or member retention. Items included a six-point Likert-type response option and “not sure.” While most students responded adequately to the climate scale items with the Likert scale, a significant number of students also responded to the “not sure” option. Based on the climate and survey research in the literature, we hypothesized that these item nonresponses may stem from (a) the contextual characteristics of climate constructs or items and/or (b) student characteristics. Descriptive and inferential statistical data analyses showed that “not sure” item nonresponse differed by climate constructs and items as well as student characteristics. Among the six climate factors, on average, authenticity climate had the highest item nonresponse rates, followed by performance climate and diversity climate. While the item nonresponse rates increased by student age, at the item level analysis, item nonresponse rates varied by residency, gender, and first-generation status. There were no significant differences in the item nonresponse rates on underrepresented minority (URM) status, student disability, and LGBTQIA+ status.

American Society For Engineering Education (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), University of Cincinnati (US)
National Science Foundation
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.