Result Summary for Survey:Methods in Biomolecular Crystallography - Erice 2012

Methods in Biomolecular Crystallography - Erice 2012

1. How did you hear about this meeting? Multiple choice permitted.
	answered question		83
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Poster addressed to you		15.7%	13
Poster in institution		31.3%	26
From colleagues/boss/director		59.0%	49
Email		2.4%	2
Web		8.4%	7
Invitation		16.9%	14
From advertizing in Journal / listing		2.4%	2
Other (please specify) view		3.6%	3

2. Have you ever participated in a similar course?
	answered question		83
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
NO		44.6%	37
YES, in Erice		10.8%	9
YES, but elsewhere		33.7%	28
YES, in Erice & elsewhere		10.8%	9

3. Your research field is... (Multiple choice permitted)
	answered question		83
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Protein crystallography		90.4%	75
Biochemistry		50.6%	42
Crystallographic methods		33.7%	28
Data collection		18.1%	15
Structural biology		75.9%	63
Molecular biology		37.3%	31
SAXS		18.1%	15
Free electron lasers		2.4%	2
Bioinformatics/Software development		13.3%	11
CryoEM		2.4%	2
Other (please specify) view			3

4. Are you a
	answered question		83
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
lecturer		16.9%	14
workshop, demo or tutorial leader		3.6%	3
participant selected for an oral presentation		8.4%	7
participant with poster		66.3%	55
participant without poster		4.8%	4

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

answered question

82

skipped question

1

Importance
	Unimportant	Somewhat important	in the middle	Very important	Essential	Response Count
A wide overview of the field	0.0% (0)	2.5% (2)	9.9% (8)	59.3% (48)	28.4% (23)	81
An overview of the most recent results in the field	1.2% (1)	0.0% (0)	20.7% (17)	50.0% (41)	28.0% (23)	82
An introduction into experimental techniques	0.0% (0)	8.5% (7)	15.9% (13)	41.5% (34)	34.1% (28)	82
An overview of the theoretical approaches	0.0% (0)	8.5% (7)	23.2% (19)	45.1% (37)	23.2% (19)	82
An overview of the existing software	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	12.2% (10)	50.0% (41)	37.8% (31)	82
The best available speakers in the field	1.2% (1)	1.2% (1)	7.3% (6)	53.7% (44)	36.6% (30)	82
An opportunity for the young participants to give a talk and to present their results as posters	2.4% (2)	2.4% (2)	17.1% (14)	45.1% (37)	32.9% (27)	82
Approach to difficult problems	0.0% (0)	1.2% (1)	14.6% (12)	53.7% (44)	30.5% (25)	82
Sufficient computing support	2.4% (2)	6.1% (5)	22.0% (18)	48.8% (40)	20.7% (17)	82
Opportunities to meet experts	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	2.4% (2)	40.2% (33)	57.3% (47)	82
Opportunities for young participants to exchange experience with each other during informal discussions	0.0% (0)	1.2% (1)	6.1% (5)	41.5% (34)	51.2% (42)	82
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	1.2% (1)	7.3% (6)	37.8% (31)	39.0% (32)	14.6% (12)	82

Success
	Completely unsuccessful	somewhat unsuccessful	in the middle	somewhat successful	very successful	Response Count
A wide overview of the field	0.0% (0)	2.5% (2)	12.3% (10)	22.2% (18)	63.0% (51)	81
An overview of the most recent results in the field	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	14.8% (12)	24.7% (20)	60.5% (49)	81
An introduction into experimental techniques	1.2% (1)	3.7% (3)	22.2% (18)	37.0% (30)	35.8% (29)	81
An overview of the theoretical approaches	0.0% (0)	7.4% (6)	23.5% (19)	43.2% (35)	25.9% (21)	81
An overview of the existing software	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	13.6% (11)	27.2% (22)	59.3% (48)	81
The best available speakers in the field	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	7.4% (6)	22.2% (18)	70.4% (57)	81
An opportunity for the young participants to give a talk and to present their results as posters	0.0% (0)	6.2% (5)	6.2% (5)	25.9% (21)	61.7% (50)	81
Approach to difficult problems	1.2% (1)	6.2% (5)	21.0% (17)	35.8% (29)	35.8% (29)	81
Sufficient computing support	2.5% (2)	9.9% (8)	23.5% (19)	19.8% (16)	44.4% (36)	81
Opportunities to meet experts	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	1.2% (1)	17.3% (14)	81.5% (66)	81
Opportunities for young participants to exchange experience with each other during informal discussions	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	6.5% (5)	18.2% (14)	75.3% (58)	77
Comfortable living conditions, considering the constraints of Erice	1.2% (1)	3.7% (3)	12.2% (10)	23.2% (19)	59.8% (49)	82

6. Proportion of time spent on
	answered question			81
	skipped question			2
	too much	adequate	too limited	Response Count
lectures	29.6% (24)	70.4% (57)	0.0% (0)	81
demos, workshops, tutorials	2.5% (2)	51.9% (42)	45.7% (37)	81
discussion	1.2% (1)	69.1% (56)	29.6% (24)	81
posters	2.5% (2)	79.0% (64)	18.5% (15)	81
free time	2.5% (2)	77.8% (63)	19.8% (16)	81

7. Which topics were not covered as extensively as anticipated?
	answered question	33
	skipped question	50
		Response Count
view		33

8. Which topics were given exaggerated importance?
	answered question	32
	skipped question	51
		Response Count
view		32

9. Should there be another meeting like this one? If YES, how many years from now?
	answered question					82
	skipped question					1
	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)	52.4% (43)	46.3% (38)	1.2% (1)	2.49	82
Would you personally attend?	3.8% (3)	43.0% (34)	49.4% (39)	3.8% (3)	2.53	79

10. Your evaluation of the following factors. Please write comments at the bottom.
	answered question					82
	skipped question					1
	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Rating Average	Response Count
Advertizing this meeting	37.0% (30)	48.1% (39)	12.3% (10)	2.5% (2)	3.20	81
Selection of "students"	46.9% (38)	50.6% (41)	2.5% (2)	0.0% (0)	3.44	81
Notification of acceptance	67.9% (53)	28.2% (22)	3.8% (3)	0.0% (0)	3.64	78
General correspondence	79.0% (64)	17.3% (14)	3.7% (3)	0.0% (0)	3.75	81
Documents on the course	68.3% (56)	26.8% (22)	3.7% (3)	1.2% (1)	3.62	82
Web announcement	53.7% (44)	32.9% (27)	12.2% (10)	1.2% (1)	3.39	82
Documents on the course (in Erice)	69.5% (57)	22.0% (18)	7.3% (6)	1.2% (1)	3.60	82
Computers	37.8% (31)	31.7% (26)	15.9% (13)	14.6% (12)	2.93	82
Technical facilities in lecture hall	69.1% (56)	18.5% (15)	12.3% (10)	0.0% (0)	3.57	81
Workshop, demo, tutorial organization	28.4% (23)	32.1% (26)	25.9% (21)	13.6% (11)	2.75	81
Workshop, demo, tutorial quality	31.6% (25)	35.4% (28)	25.3% (20)	7.6% (6)	2.91	79
Quality of presentations	55.6% (45)	39.5% (32)	4.9% (4)	0.0% (0)	3.51	81
Poster session	48.8% (40)	39.0% (32)	11.0% (9)	1.2% (1)	3.35	82
Leisure (social program, excursions, etc)	69.1% (56)	27.2% (22)	3.7% (3)	0.0% (0)	3.65	81
Comments on meeting organization view						32

11. Please rate the workshops you attended ( from 0 to 100):
	answered question			73
	skipped question			10
		Response Average	Response Total	Response Count
Rosetta - DiMaio view		64.98	3,444	53
Global Phasing - Vonrhein view		74.10	2,964	40
Mission Impossible - Uson view		56.14	2,470	44
Proteopedia - Prilusky view		77.05	3,005	39
Phaser - Read view		83.02	3,985	48
Phasing / weak scatterers - Frolow view		57.59	1,958	34
Docking - Irwin view		84.24	2,780	33
In meso crystallization - Caffrey view		83.98	3,443	41
Solve/resolve - Afonine/Terwilliger view		80.33	2,410	30
Coot - Emsley view		94.96	5,223	55
Phenix - Terwilliger view		84.98	4,589	54
CCP4 - Murshudov view		68.29	3,346	49
HKL3000 - Otwinowski view		54.84	3,016	55
XDS - Diederichs view		86.88	4,170	48
Phenix.refine - Afonine view		81.31	3,984	49
MolProbity - Richardson view		78.83	3,232	41

12. How do you score (0-100)
	answered question			77
	skipped question			6
		Response Average	Response Total	Response Count
The meeting overall view		90.90	6,999	77
Workshop component view		78.53	6,047	77

13. Any other comments, suggestions, observations, or criticisms? We remind you that this survey is completely anonymous.
	answered question	42
	skipped question	41
		Response Count
view		42