A pre-dialogue and a post-dialogue questionnaire were used to collect the users' perceptions of its benefits and measure the change in the degree of decidedness.
Consequently, we quote post-dialogue numbers in the following paragraphs.
Our tests revealed no differences between dialogue groups in changes in ratings pre- vs. post-dialogue.
We also examined what percent of participants changed their responses in the post-dialogue survey.
Here, fewer individuals altered their response in the post-dialogue survey.
Again, our tests revealed no differences between dialogue groups in changes in ratings pre- vs. post-dialogue.
Across the three approaches, broad consent (Approach 3) was regarded the most favourably, both pre- and post-dialogue.
Across all scenarios, the response profile, in aggregate, was not substantively or statistically different pre- vs. post-dialogue.
At the individual level, for all but one scenario, close to half of participants shifted their consent choice between the pre- and post-dialogue surveys.
We tested for differences pre-and post-dialogue between dialogue groups using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA).
Follow-up after the dialogue, which in this case study was done through disseminating a policy dialogue summary and conducting a post-dialogue survey, is extremely important.
