My remarks were relevant as to the validity and to some extent the reliability, of the original questions because the original questions omitted the segment of the population who are permanent residents or citizens and CRT members. In other words, if a questionnaire is to be valid it should measure what it purports to measure and the questions as written did not do that. Therefore it was an invalid survey.
Let me explain. The choices were:
1. I have always received a 90 day stamp on my passport.
2. I have received less than a 90 Day Stamp on my passport.
For the question to have been valid it would have to include a third choice:
3. I am a permanent resident or a citizen.
My first explanation was posted on Sunday, October 3, 2010, and was written in response to the comment made on Friday, October 1, 2010, by Icantstayaway: “Why would 48 people view this and only 8 vote
†I was simply trying to answer that question.
It was based on the fact that if one is a permanent resident, one does not receive a time limit stamp on their passport. A visa as defined is “An endorsement on a passport indicating that the holder is allowed to enter, leave, or stay for a specified period of time in a country†(Merriam-Webster). The stamp on the passport is a temporary visa. Because it is temporary it has time limits. Permanent visas do not have time limits.
The original questions addressed the duration of the “day stamp†or length of time the visa was or is valid. My point was that a permanent resident is not required to have a time limit stamped on their visa because a permanent resident has a permanent visa. Therefore a resident or a citizen cannot declaratively state that he/she “received a 90 day stamp on [his/her] passport†or “less than a 90 Day Stamp on [his/her] passport,†and consequently cannot participate in the survey.
That was the rationale to address Icantstayaway’s question which was why did why were there 48 viewers but only eight people voted. The original question did not provide a possible response for permanent residents (and citizens) because the original question failed to address the issue by failing to address all the possibilities.
I understand that some didn’t understand me. I base that on the comments “Am I confused here or does this question not make sense ?†and “huh ?
â€.
Yes, I understand what you were trying to get at. I was just being technical or perhaps more correctly a “plick†because the question was not properly worded and therefore not technically valid. So I was poking fun at you while you were poking fun at me. Sorry if I offended you. Nonetheless, the concept that you wanted to measure was actually a good concept.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
Pura Vida 
