1
Data Visualization Examples
Goodman Research Group, Inc. (GRG) has extensive experience creating engaging and
informative visual displays of data for our client reports. We have used a variety of methods to make our findings accessible to a broad audience, including maps, graphs, charts, and word clouds. At GRG, we make it a priority to continually improve our ability to display results in innovative and creative ways. Below are several examples of data visualization methods we have used in recent reports, along with a brief description of what is being illustrated.
Example 1
GRG is currently conducting a multi-method process and summative evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the National Science Festival Alliance project. GRG collected data at four Science Festivals: San Diego, CA; Cambridge, MA; Bay Area, CA; and Philadelphia, PA. As part of our evaluation activities, GRG produced reports on each of the individual Festivals that will be included in our comprehensive final report of the Alliance later this year. Figure 1 shows a heat map showing attendees by area at this year’s Philadelphia Science Festival. Similar maps were created for each city.
2 Example 2
GRG conducted process and outcomes evaluation of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts’ Trustee Advantage program, an educational program designed to help the Boards of Trustees at five Massachusetts hospitals advance the governance of quality and safety improvement at their institutions. Figure 2 is a dashboard listing participating hospitals’ progress on governance practices assessed in the evaluation that had been linked in prior empirical studies to hard quality and safety outcomes.
Figure 2: Changes in Empirically Safety-Linked Governance Practices at Participating Hospitals Governance Practice (Benchmark) Before TA Program After TA Program Changes Due to TA?
Hospital has formal training program
covering clinical quality for Board (32%a) Board is involved in setting quality
agenda for the hospital (63%b) – Board has quality subcommittee (59%a,
60%+b) –
Board receives formal quality
performance measurement report (80%c) – Quality performance on agenda at every
Board meeting (63%a, 75%b)
1
At least 20a,b–25%c of Board time spent on quality issues (42%a and 40%b at least 20%, 28% more than 25%c)
Board reviews a quality dashboard
regularly (72%a) – Board uses dashboard with national
benchmarks (65-75%b) Board reviews JCAHO Core Measures at
least quarterly (57%a) Board reviews infection rates at least
quarterly (69%a) CEO compensation linked to quality and
safety indicators (66%c, 56%b, 44%a) – Hospital establishes strategic goals for
quality improvement (80%b)
2
3
Key
Below StandardClose to StandardMeets Standard Exceeds Standard Entirely Due to TAPartially Due to TA
TA = Trustee Advantage.
aJha & Epstein (2010). bJiang et al. (2009) cVaughn et al. (2006).
1One green dot remained green, but there was a change indicated in the right-hand column. That hospital had quality on
the agenda at every meeting, but they were only meeting quarterly, well below the standard. They doubled the number of meetings, keeping quality on the agenda at all of them, and attributed this change entirely to their participation in the Trustee Advantage program.
2
Extent to which goals have dimensions needed for effective improvement: measurable, time-bound, realistic, and ambitious.
3 GRG has conducted evaluation of the Renew Boston Residential Energy Efficiency Program, launched in 2010 as a partnership among the City of Boston, NSTAR, National Grid, Mass Energy Consumer’s Alliance, and Next Step Living. The program was designed to demonstrate how to achieve city-wide energy reduction goals with a focus on Boston renters and homeowners living in 1-4 unit buildings. Figure 3 shows the various reasons that homeowners did not implement
recommendations from their Home Energy Assessment.
Figure 3: Homeowners NOT Moving Forward: Mean Rating of Reason by Quantity of Reasons
N= 67
Note: Reasons in bold (mean >1.8); reasons not in bold (mean >1.0); reasons not listed (means <.1.0)
Response scale: 0 (this doesn’t apply to me at all), 1 (this applies to me a little), 2 (this applies to me somewhat), 3 (this applies to me a lot).
Some
R
easons
Se
ver
al R
easons
Fe
w
R
easons
Nume
rous
R
eas
ons
Poor quality installation Too much mess Too much hassle Just forgot Costs too much Conflict of interest Inaccurate assessment Hidden costs Costs too much Poor quality installation Too much hassle Hidden costs Too much mess Costs too muchHidden costs Costs too
4 Example 4
GRG conducted an evaluation for a Foundation of their scholarship program to determine the short- and long-term effects of the scholarship on participants’ lives. One of the survey questions left an open response to what participants believe would have happened if they had not received the scholarship. In Figure 4, the size of the word indicates how often it was used in response to the question.
5 Example 5
GRG is conducting an evaluation of the Education and Public Outreach (EPO) activities of the Chandra X-ray Observatory, launched by NASA in 1999 as its flagship mission for X-ray astronomy. As part of this outreach effort, print and media materials are available for order through the Chandra Request Form on the website. As shown in Figure 5, someone from every state except Wyoming and Rhode Island requested Chandra materials in the last three years. This represents approximately 800 people who requested 1,201 orders.
