Evaluation of Two Fully Rugged Laptop Computers for the Forest Service
Appendix L—Questionnaire
A questionnaire was administered to 20 law enforcement officers who were field testing rugged laptops and a new software reporting system. Officers were asked how well the laptop they used performed in the everyday world of law enforcement activities. The questionnaire was divided into five sections:
- Attributes that related to the user interface
- Hardware features
- Use of the laptops in vehicle and office mounts
- General impressions
- Overall ratings
Respondents were also asked to rank the three most important features of a laptop designed for law enforcement field use.
The questionnaire was sent to all 20 participants in the study (10 participants were evaluating the Panasonic CF-30 laptop and 10 were evaluating the General Dynamics XR-1 laptop). Sixteen usable questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 80 percent. Seven responses were received from officers testing the CF-30 laptop and nine responses were received from officers testing the XR-1. Responses were analyzed to determine significant differences in ratings between the two laptops. Because of the small study size, inferences from this study should be treated with caution. A larger trial would be needed for conclusions to be drawn with more confidence.
In the sections of the questionnaire examining user interface, computer hardware, vehicle and office mounts, and general impressions, participants in this trial were presented with a series of statements about their experience working with the laptop. For each statement the respondent indicated whether they "strongly disagreed," "disagreed," "neither agreed nor disagreed," "agreed," or "strongly agreed" with the statements. Respondents also could indicate that they did not know what their response was to the statements.
Regarding the user interface, respondents were presented with 17 statements about the use of the computer: the touch screen, and other input devices such as the touch pad, stylus and keyboard. Fourteen statements about the computer's hardware were offered concerning the computer's battery, the number and accessibility of the USB ports, and the usefulness of the fingerprint reader and the built-in CD/DVD drive. Similarly, 12 statements were offered about the vehicle and office mounts, and 7 were general impression statements concerning the computer's weight, noise, heat, processor speed and accessibility.
A scale from 1 to 5 was developed from the responses where 1 represents a strongly negative evaluation of the user interface attribute, and 5 represents a strongly positive evaluation. As shown in table L–1, the mean scores for interface, hardware, mount, and general impressions differed between the two laptops. However, none of the differences were statistically significant at the p ≤ .05 level. Any conclusions based on these differences should be made with caution.
Respondents also were asked to provide an overall rating of how easy their laptop was to use and how well the laptop met their needs. Participants rated the ease of use from 1 (very difficult to use) to 10 (very easy to use). Similarly, respondents rated how well the machine met their needs from 1 (did not meet my needs at all) to 10 (completely met my needs). Table L–2 shows the responses. The mean responses for the ease of use were 8.3 for the CF-30 laptop and 6.8 for the XR-1 laptop.
Both the significance level of these measures and the nearly identical scores for ease of use and usefulness should urge caution before drawing conclusions based on these responses. Respondents might not have distinguished between usability and usefulness. Or, they might simply have used the responses to one of the questions as a guide when filling out the other.
A final measure was used to evaluate the features that respondents considered most important for a laptop used in law enforcement settings. Respondents were presented with a list of 18 attributes and were asked to rank their top 3 (1 for their first choice to 3 for their third choice). Participants could write down attributes that were not included in the original list. Table L–3 shows the number of respondents selecting each attribute as their first, second, or third choice. Ruggedness was the attribute most often selected as important. Processor speed, the availability of a vehicle mount, and a backlit keyboard were also selected as important.
*The sum of the number of respondents selecting the attribute as their first choice, times three, plus the number of respondents selecting the attribute as their second choice, times two, plus the number of respondents selecting the attribute as their third choice.
E-mail: 