Result Summary for Survey:Erice Crystallography 2008 Questionnaire

Erice Crystallography 2008 Questionnaire

1. How did you hear about this meeting?
		Response Percent	Response Count
Poster addressed to you		22.2%	28
Poster in institution		26.2%	33
From colleagues/boss/director		41.3%	52
Email		4.0%	5
Web		2.4%	3
Invitation		21.4%	27
From advertizing in Journal / listing		0.0%	0
Other (please specify)		1.6%	2
	answered question		126
	skipped question		0

2. Have you ever participated in a similar course?
		Response Percent	Response Count
NO		39.7%	50
YES, in Erice		27.0%	34
YES, but elsewhere		25.4%	32
YES, in Erice & elsewhere		7.9%	10
	answered question		126
	skipped question		0

3. Your research field is
		Response Percent	Response Count
Structural Biology		77.8%	98
Medicinal Chemistry		7.1%	9
Bioinformatics		19.0%	24
Drug Design		37.3%	47
Membrane proteins		2.4%	3
Clinical research		0.8%	1
Other (please specify)			13
	answered question		126
	skipped question		0

4. Are you a
		Response Percent	Response Count
lecturer and/or workshop leader		25.4%	32
participant with poster		59.5%	75
participant without poster		15.1%	19
	answered question		126
	skipped question		0

5. How important were the following course objectives, and how successfully were they addressed?

Importance
	Unimportant	Somewhat important	in the middle	Very important	Essential	Response Count
A wide overview of the field	0.0% (0)	1.6% (2)	9.6% (12)	60.0% (75)	28.8% (36)	125
The best available speakers in the field	0.0% (0)	2.4% (3)	6.5% (8)	66.1% (82)	25.0% (31)	124
Application of structural biology to medicine	0.0% (0)	5.6% (7)	12.1% (15)	47.6% (59)	34.7% (43)	124
Approach to difficult structural problems	3.2% (4)	10.5% (13)	33.1% (41)	42.7% (53)	10.5% (13)	124
Sufficient computing support	2.4% (3)	7.3% (9)	24.2% (30)	43.5% (54)	22.6% (28)	124
Opportunities to meet experts	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	4.0% (5)	52.4% (65)	43.5% (54)	124
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	0.0% (0)	15.2% (19)	39.2% (49)	36.0% (45)	9.6% (12)	125

Success
	Completely unsuccessful	somewhat unsuccessful	in the middle	somewhat successful	very successful	Response Count
A wide overview of the field	0.0% (0)	3.2% (4)	8.1% (10)	33.1% (41)	55.6% (69)	124
The best available speakers in the field	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	4.1% (5)	24.4% (30)	71.5% (88)	123
Application of structural biology to medicine	0.0% (0)	0.8% (1)	4.9% (6)	28.7% (35)	65.6% (80)	122
Approach to difficult structural problems	0.0% (0)	8.2% (10)	31.1% (38)	40.2% (49)	20.5% (25)	122
Sufficient computing support	0.0% (0)	3.3% (4)	12.2% (15)	17.9% (22)	66.7% (82)	123
Opportunities to meet experts	0.8% (1)	0.0% (0)	5.7% (7)	16.3% (20)	77.2% (95)	123
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	0.8% (1)	2.4% (3)	13.7% (17)	23.4% (29)	59.7% (74)	124

answered question

125

skipped question

1

6. Proportion of time spent on
	too much	adequate	too limited	Response Count
lectures	9.7% (12)	89.5% (111)	0.8% (1)	124
workshops	4.0% (5)	74.2% (92)	21.8% (27)	124
discussion	0.8% (1)	86.3% (107)	12.9% (16)	124
posters	3.2% (4)	70.2% (87)	26.6% (33)	124
free time	3.3% (4)	83.7% (103)	13.0% (16)	123
	answered question			124
	skipped question			2

7. Which topics were not covered as extensively as anticipated?
		Response Count
		55
	answered question	55
	skipped question	71

8. Which topics were given exaggerated importance?
		Response Count
		40
	answered question	40
	skipped question	86

9. Should there be a meeting like this one? If YES, how many years from now?
	NO	YES, 1-2 years from now	YES, 3-4 years from now	YES, 5-6 years from now	Rating Average	Response Count
Are you in favour?	0.0% (0)	34.4% (43)	48.8% (61)	16.8% (21)	2.82	125
Would you personally attend?	4.1% (5)	36.1% (44)	41.8% (51)	18.0% (22)	2.74	122
	answered question					126
	skipped question					0

10. Your evaluation of the following factors. Please write comments at the bottom.
	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Rating Average	Response Count
Advertizing this meeting	28.6% (36)	46.8% (59)	22.2% (28)	2.4% (3)	3.02	126
Selection of "students"	48.4% (61)	46.0% (58)	5.6% (7)	0.0% (0)	3.43	126
Notification of acceptance	65.1% (82)	29.4% (37)	5.6% (7)	0.0% (0)	3.60	126
General correspondence	71.4% (90)	22.2% (28)	6.3% (8)	0.0% (0)	3.65	126
Documents on the course	51.6% (65)	38.9% (49)	9.5% (12)	0.0% (0)	3.42	126
Web announcement	43.7% (55)	42.9% (54)	12.7% (16)	0.8% (1)	3.29	126
Documents on the course (in Erice)	56.3% (71)	34.9% (44)	7.1% (9)	1.6% (2)	3.46	126
Computers	50.0% (63)	31.7% (40)	15.1% (19)	3.2% (4)	3.29	126
Technical facilities in lecture hall	64.3% (81)	31.0% (39)	4.8% (6)	0.0% (0)	3.60	126
Workshop organization	51.6% (65)	33.3% (42)	14.3% (18)	0.8% (1)	3.36	126
Workshop quality	42.9% (54)	37.3% (47)	19.0% (24)	0.8% (1)	3.22	126
Quality of presentations	61.9% (78)	34.1% (43)	3.2% (4)	0.8% (1)	3.57	126
Poster session	47.6% (60)	43.7% (55)	7.9% (10)	0.8% (1)	3.38	126
Leisure (social program, excursions, etc)	71.4% (90)	23.8% (30)	4.8% (6)	0.0% (0)	3.67	126
Comments on meeting organization						65
	answered question					126
	skipped question					0

11. Please rate the workshops you attended ( from 0 to 100):
		Response Average	Response Total	Response Count
CCP4		68.33	1640	24
PDB		75.10	3154	42
GRID		83.59	3260	39
DMPK		82.59	2395	29
EBI		67.27	3027	45
MAIN		54.08	703	13
MODELER		73.45	3232	44
Proteopedia		88.08	3259	37
CCDC		75.51	4304	57
Crystallization		84.37	3881	46
DOCK		73.55	4781	65
	answered question			100
	skipped question			26

12. How do you score (0-100)
		Response Average	Response Total	Response Count
The meeting overall		91.39	10967	120
Workshop component		80.74	9043	112
	answered question			120
	skipped question			6

13. Any other comments, suggestions, observations, or criticisms? We remind you that this survey is completely anonymous.
		Response Count
		73
	answered question	73
	skipped question	53