Risk -taking propensity of faculty, administrators, and academic department heads at a large, urban, multi -campus community college

This research was undertaken to explore dimensions of the risk construct, identify factors related to risk-taking in education, and study risk propensity among employees at a community college. Risk-taking propensity (RTP) was measured by the 12-item BCDQ, which consisted of personal and professional risk-related situations balanced for the money, reputation, and satisfaction dimensions of the risk construct. Scoring ranged from 1.00 (most cautious) to 6.00 (most risky).^ Surveys including the BCDQ and seven demographic questions relating to age, gender, professional status, length of service, academic discipline, highest degree, and campus location were sent to faculty, administrators, and academic department heads. A total of 325 surveys were returned, resulting in a 66.7% response rate. Subjects were relatively homogeneous for age, length of service, and highest degree.^ Subjects were also homogeneous for risk-taking propensity: no substantive differences in RTP scores were noted within and among demographic groups, with the possible exception of academic discipline. The mean RTP score for all subjects was 3.77, for faculty was 3.76, for administrators was 3.83, and for department heads was 3.64.^ The relationship between propensity to take personal risks and propensity to take professional risks was tested by computing Pearson r correlation coefficients. The relationships for the total sample, faculty, and administrator groups were statistically significant, but of limited practical significance. Subjects were placed into risk categories by dividing the response scale into thirds. A 3 x 3 factorial ANOVA revealed no interaction effects between professional status and risk category with regard to RTP score. A discriminant analysis showed that a seven-factor model was not effective in predicting risk category.^ The homogeneity of the study sample and the effect of a risk-encouraging environment were discussed in the context of the community college. Since very little data on risk-taking in education is available, risk propensity data from this study could serve as a basis for comparison to future research. Results could be used by institutions to plan professional development activities, designed to increase risk-taking and encourage active acceptance of change. ^

Incorporating variable peak -to -daily ratios in the equilibrium traffic assignment procedure of the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS)

The standard highway assignment model in the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS) is based on the equilibrium traffic assignment method. This method involves running several iterations of all-or-nothing capacity-restraint assignment with an adjustment of travel time to reflect delays encountered in the associated iteration. The iterative link time adjustment process is accomplished through the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) volume-delay equation. Since FSUTMS' traffic assignment procedure outputs daily volumes, and the input capacities are given in hourly volumes, it is necessary to convert the hourly capacities to their daily equivalents when computing the volume-to-capacity ratios used in the BPR function. The conversion is accomplished by dividing the hourly capacity by a factor called the peak-to-daily ratio, or referred to as CONFAC in FSUTMS. The ratio is computed as the highest hourly volume of a day divided by the corresponding total daily volume. ^ While several studies have indicated that CONFAC is a decreasing function of the level of congestion, a constant value is used for each facility type in the current version of FSUTMS. This ignores the different congestion level associated with each roadway and is believed to be one of the culprits of traffic assignment errors. Traffic counts data from across the state of Florida were used to calibrate CONFACs as a function of a congestion measure using the weighted least squares method. The calibrated functions were then implemented in FSUTMS through a procedure that takes advantage of the iterative nature of FSUTMS' equilibrium assignment method. ^ The assignment results based on constant and variable CONFACs were then compared against the ground counts for three selected networks. It was found that the accuracy from the two assignments was not significantly different, that the hypothesized improvement in assignment results from the variable CONFAC model was not empirically evident. It was recognized that many other factors beyond the scope and control of this study could contribute to this finding. It was recommended that further studies focus on the use of the variable CONFAC model with recalibrated parameters for the BPR function and/or with other forms of volume-delay functions. ^

Risk-taking propensity of faculty, administrators and academic departament heads at large, urban, multicampus community college

This research was undertaken to explore dimensions of the risk construct, identify factors related to risk-taking in education, and study risk propensity among employees at a community college. Risk-taking propensity (RTP) was measured by the 12-item BCDQ, which consisted of personal and professional risk-related situations balanced for the money, reputation, and satisfaction dimensions of the risk construct. Scoring ranged from 1.00 (most cautious) to 6.00 (most risky). Surveys including the BCDQ and seven demographic questions relating to age, gender, professional status, length of service, academic discipline, highest degree, and campus location were sent to faculty, administrators, and academic department heads. A total of 325 surveys were returned, resulting in a 66.7% response rate. Subjects were relatively homogeneous for age, length of service, and highest degree. Subjects were also homogeneous for risk-taking propensity: no substantive differences in RTP scores were noted within and among demographic groups, with the possible exception of academic discipline. The mean RTP score for all subjects was 3.77, for faculty was 3.76, for administrators was 3.83, and for department heads was 3.64. The relationship between propensity to take personal risks and propensity to take professional risks was tested by computing Pearson r correlation coefficients. The relationships for the total sample, faculty, and administrator groups were statistically significant, but of limited practical significance. Subjects were placed into risk categories by dividing the response scale into thirds. A 3 X 3 factorial ANOVA revealed no interaction effects between professional status and risk category with regard to RTP score. A discriminant analysis showed that a seven-factor model was not effective in predicting risk category. The homogeneity of the study sample and the effect of a risk encouraging environment were discussed in the context of the community college. Since very little data on risk-taking in education is available, risk propensity data from this study could serve as a basis for comparison to future research. Results could be used by institutions to plan professional development activities, designed to increase risk-taking and encourage active acceptance of change.