Attack I: - more details..

Is the bar for wage and hour survey evidence too high?

As mentioned in the last posted the defendant's in Marlo v. UPS attacked the plaintiff's wage and hour survey on several levels. The following discusses the details of the attack.

(see yesterday for discussion on 1. sample not representative)

2. The survey questions were not framed in a clear, precise,
and non-leading manner


The questions to be asked of interviewees were not framed in a clear,
precise, and non-leading manner. First, many questions in the Telephone Survey
use biased words and phrasing that were designed to lead to a specific or desired
response.

Second, the [Federal] Reference Manual explains that the "yes/no/not applicable"
response format results in inaccurate data because it encourages "acquiescence"
(the tendency of respondents in some surveys to agree or disagree, known as "yeahsaying"
and "nay-saying") and "social desirability" (the desire to present oneself in
a favorable light). Reference Manual at 375-377

Third, the Telephone Survey elicited responses to all questions, even
though some questions clearly did not apply to all respondents because they did not
pertain to all three of the relevant FTS positions.

....The fact that most of the respondents answered every question regardless of whether it applied to them confirms that the questions encouraged acquiescence and guessing.