| Course | MT355 Marketing Research and Analytics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Survey pilot and revision memo |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT355 Unit 5
Six Faults, Six Repairs: An MT355 Unit 5 Pilot and Revision Memo on an Adult Swim Lessons Survey
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT355: Marketing Research and Analytics
Unit 5 Pilot and Revision Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The swim school, testers and figures are composite; the methods and sources cited are real.
Memo
To: Owner, Lakeside Swim School From: Research lead Subject: Pilot results and survey revisions
Method
The pilot had two stages. First, nine adults from the parent list read the draft questionnaire aloud in one-on-one sessions and explained each answer as they gave it. Presser et al. (2004) describe this kind of cognitive interviewing as a way to find where respondents misunderstand questions or struggle to answer them. Second, forty parents completed the online version as a soft launch, which showed how the survey behaved in real conditions: skipped items, drop-off and completion time. Nine interviews and forty responses cannot estimate anything about the population, but they can reveal faults.
Six Faults and Their Repairs
The first fault was the meaning of a length. Three of nine testers were unsure how long a length is. One thought it meant a lap there and back. The repair rewrites the screener to say one length of a 25-yard pool, about the length of a basketball court, swimming without stopping or touching the bottom.
The second fault was the word beginner. Two testers objected to it, one saying it made them feel like a child. The repair changes the class description from a beginner class to a learn-to-swim class for adults.
The third fault was how the price item was read. Two testers asked whether answering likely would sign them up. The repair adds a sentence before the item: this question only asks how likely you would be; it does not enroll you.
The fourth fault was the evenings grid. Four of forty soft-launch respondents skipped it. Their other answers suggested they could not attend any listed evening, and the grid offered no way to say so. The repair adds a none-of-these option.
The fifth fault was the income item. Twelve of forty, 30 percent, left it blank. The repair moves income to the end, widens the bands and adds a prefer-not-to-say option, so that a blank is no longer the only way to decline.
The sixth fault was length. Median completion was 11 minutes, against the six promised. The repair removes three items on past swimming experience that did not inform the decision and shortens the barrier list, bringing the expected time to about seven minutes. The introduction now says about seven minutes.
The pilot's most useful finding was not a confusing word but a promise the survey could not keep: six minutes that took eleven.
Screening Rate
Of the forty soft-launch respondents, 9 screened in as unable to swim a length, or 22.5 percent. This is the only local estimate the school has of how many adults on its list cannot swim, and the sampling plan in Unit 7 will use it. Forty responses give a wide margin around that figure, so the plan should treat it as an assumption to test, not a fact.
Why Both Stages Were Needed
The two stages found different problems. The cognitive interviews found problems of meaning: what a length is, how beginner sounds and whether the price item implies commitment. Tourangeau et al. (2000) describe comprehension as the first step in answering a survey, and these were comprehension failures that no amount of online data would have revealed. The soft launch found problems of behavior: skipped grids, blank income items and a survey that took nearly twice as long as promised. No tester mentioned length in the interviews, because a researcher was sitting with them and time felt different. Running only one stage would have left half the faults in place.
What Was Not Changed
Testers did not misunderstand the comfort items or the barrier list, so those stay except for shortening. The randomized price design caused no confusion once the reassurance sentence was added. Willis (2005) notes that cognitive interviews are best at finding problems, not proving their absence, so the unchanged items are not guaranteed to work for everyone.
Next Step
The revised survey goes to the owner for approval on December 3 and to the full list on December 6, allowing four weeks of responses before the January analysis. If the owner wants further changes, a second short soft launch of twenty responses can be run in the first week of December without moving the send date.
References
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh008
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage.
What the MT355 Unit 5 assignment asks for
Unit 5 asks for a memo reporting a pilot test of a survey and the revisions it produced. Describe the method before the findings, since nine interviews and forty responses can support only limited claims. Instructors expect each problem to be paired with its evidence, such as what testers said or how many skipped an item, and with a specific change. Cognitive interviews and a soft launch tend to reveal different problems, and explaining that difference shows understanding. The memo should report any figure later units will need, such as a screening rate, with a caution about its precision. Items left unchanged should be noted. A next step with dates connects the pilot to the fielding schedule.
How the MT 355 Unit 5 example is put together
The sample describes both pilot stages and cites Presser and colleagues. Six faults follow in prose, each with evidence and repair, from rewriting the screener's definition of a length to cutting three items to bring completion toward seven minutes, under the highlighted line that the most useful finding was a promise the survey could not keep. A section explains why both stages were needed, citing Tourangeau and colleagues on comprehension. The screening rate of 9 in 40 is reported with a caution. Unchanged items are noted, citing Willis on what cognitive interviews cannot prove. The next step sets owner approval on December 3 and fielding on December 6.
MT355 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Pilot memos are generally judged on transparent method, clear pairing of evidence and revision, attention to both meaning and behavior problems and useful handoffs to later units. Graders reward memos that say how many testers raised each issue. Revisions should address the cause of each problem. Recognizing that different pilot methods catch different faults shows depth. Reported figures, such as screening rates, should carry a caution about precision. Unchanged items should be noted with reasons. Dates connect the pilot to the research schedule. Methods sources appear in APA 7. Memos that list changes without evidence, or that treat a forty-person soft launch as an estimate of the population, tend to receive lower marks.
MT355 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Pilot memos often report that the survey went well and list minor wording changes. Another common weakness is running only one kind of test, which misses either comprehension problems or behavior problems. Some memos make changes without saying what prompted them. The survey's length is frequently ignored, though it drives completion. Before drafting, ask several people like your intended respondents to read the survey aloud to you, then send it to a small online group and time it. Compare what each test showed. The faults found by only one method are usually the ones worth explaining most carefully. Recording each tester's exact words makes the evidence column easy to write.
Get an MT355 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Share what your Unit 5 pilot found, even as rough notes, along with the draft instrument, the prompt and the rubric. The memo comes back in 24-48h with each problem, its evidence and its repair laid out, and with a clear line between what your testers showed and what they cannot. The first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT355 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT355 Unit 1: Published Statistic Critique Post
- MT355 Unit 2: Marketing Research Question Brief
- MT355 Unit 3: Secondary Market Research Review
- MT355 Unit 4: Marketing Questionnaire Draft
- MT355 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT355 Unit 7: Sampling Plan
- MT355 Unit 8: Qualitative Analysis
- MT355 Unit 9: Data Analysis Exercise
- MT355 Unit 10: Research Report
- MT340 Unit 5: Negotiation Preparation Plan
- MT330 Unit 5: Product Adaptation Analysis
- MT314 Unit 5: Social Venture Business Model Summary
- MT313 Unit 5: Double Materiality Assessment
MT355 Unit 5 questions, answered
How many testers does a pilot need?
For talk-aloud interviews, five to ten is common, since the goal is to find problems rather than count them. One confused reader is enough to justify examining an item. The MT355 sample adds a small soft launch because timing and skip rates need more responses than interviews provide. Your section may set a number; if it does not, state and justify yours.
What if my testers found no problems?
Report that honestly, then examine why: testers too close to the project, instructions that invited polite answers, or a method that watched answers rather than reasoning. A clean pilot with a thoughtful account of its limits can still score well. What rarely earns credit is a memo that invents problems to fill the table, since graders can usually tell.
Should the revised questionnaire be attached?
Most prompts expect it, often with changes marked so a grader can match each revision to its finding. The sample lists changes in the table and attaches the revised instrument with edited items highlighted. If your section asks only for the memo, a short appendix listing the revised item wording still helps a reader follow the changes.
Where can I find a free MT355 Unit 5 sample paper?
The complete MT355 Unit 5 pilot memo is on this page, pairing six survey faults with their evidence and repairs.
What screening rate does the MT355 Unit 5 sample report?
Nine of forty soft-launch respondents, 22.5 percent, could not swim a length, a figure the sampling plan uses with caution.