Par Talk

[Cgkdisc]

I suspect "reachability" (in one on par 3s and two on par 4s) is an important component of enjoyment. Your quest may need to first pose the questions, "Among par 3 holes you can reach with a good drive..." and "Among par 4 holes you can reach with a good drive and upshot..."

 

[Improbably]

Interesting - but not quite what I'm looking for. I'm more looking for a formal instrument that has been used for measurement before, which I can use for checking convergent validity. That is a good idea though - for the purpose of seeing if they have developed any instruments, checked for reliability or not, that have been used on individual holes.

Your search for "...a formal instrument..." sounds like you want something quantitative to describe something qualitative.

 

[Monocacy]

Does anyone here know of any measures of hole enjoyment that exist?.

DGCR FAQ: How do I mark a hole as my favorite?

:shrugemoji:

 

[ChrisWoj]

I think you'll need to conduct a survey, then.

That's what I'm discussing here. Not just the conducting though - but the development including steps related to validity and reliability. Being able to run it against any other developed instruments would help with adding a component of convergent validity to it, for the purpose of drawing meaning from any results.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Your search for "...a formal instrument..." sounds like you want something quantitative to describe something qualitative.

I'm looking to develop an instrument for quantifying enjoyment. I am curious whether or not anything like it has been done before to use that in improving the quality of what I develop - but as convergent reliability can't exist without converging instruments I won't be able to report that in developing conclusions about the quality of the measure. I'd like to see if any others are out there, but if not - this is just the first, and could be used to help with any that others develop moving forward.

 

[Steve West]

I'm looking to develop an instrument for quantifying enjoyment. I am curious whether or not anything like it has been done before to use that in improving the quality of what I develop - but as convergent reliability can't exist without converging instruments I won't be able to report that in developing conclusions about the quality of the measure. I'd like to see if any others are out there, but if not - this is just the first, and could be used to help with any that others develop moving forward.

Monocacy may be on to something. Whatever measure you come up with ought to be able to pick out the most DGCR-favorited holes on the courses you apply it to. At least there is a lot of organized data.

On another note, I don't think "reachability" will be a positive factor. A surpisingly large percent of players out in the real world rarely even play a hole they can reach, so how would they know? Also, players seem to like those holes where they got an unexpectedly good score once. The favorite at BRP is the 12 foot wide 444 foot long tunnel where no one can realistically expect to reach it.

Of course, it might be pain - rather than enjoyment - which contributes the most to a hole being favorited, so maybe you would be measuring something different.

 

[Karl]

I'm looking to develop an instrument for quantifying enjoyment.

Good luck sir! You are about to undertake an endeavor that centuries of sociologists, psychologists, comidians, masseuses, and whores have yet to succeed at.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Good luck sir! You are about to undertake an endeavor that centuries of sociologists, psychologists, comidians, masseuses, and whores have yet to succeed at.

Within very specific contexts we've been successful at developing measures of latent traits/sensations as constructs... But you're right: this is tremendously difficult. We didn't even come to a common definition for "measurement" that translated across physical and social sciences until the middle of the last century.

I'm looking to at least provide something that has practical unidimensionality (that word is like a tongue twister for my fingers, I typed it unidemsional three times) and abstract invariance. Those can be checked through covariate analysis. And then construct validity will be where we will have some measure of debate regarding the important question - "Is this measuring what you want it to measure?" I'll share what I'm trialing when I finalize the draft, it isn't complex by any means. Even if testing demonstrates reliability in terms of what I mentioned above, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is valid.

Monocacy may be on to something. Whatever measure you come up with ought to be able to pick out the most DGCR-favorited holes on the courses you apply it to. At least there is a lot of organized data.

I agree - finding a way to use the instrument with people in some other communities will be very important. I'm going to have to dig in to that tool to see what sort of results some of my local holes have. I really hadn't even realized that was a feature of this site.

On another note, I don't think "reachability" will be a positive factor. A surpisingly large percent of players out in the real world rarely even play a hole they can reach, so how would they know? Also, players seem to like those holes where they got an unexpectedly good score once. The favorite at BRP is the 12 foot wide 444 foot long tunnel where no one can realistically expect to reach it.

Of course, it might be pain - rather than enjoyment - which contributes the most to a hole being favorited, so maybe you would be measuring something different.[/QUOTE]
In going over the wording I found myself using the word "appropriate" quite a lot. For example: "This hole's length provides an appropriate challenge." - responses in the format of a 4-item Likert scale with "I prefer not to answer" available on each. Another example related to your BRP reference: "The rough appropriately punishes errant shots on this hole."

 

[Steve West]

I think this work deserves its own thread.

 

[PMantle]

I suspect "reachability" (in one on par 3s and two on par 4s) is an important component of enjoyment. Your quest may need to first pose the questions, "Among par 3 holes you can reach with a good drive..." and "Among par 4 holes you can reach with a good drive and upshot..."

Absolutely. The worst holes out there are par 3s that no one can reach due to either length or a shape no disc can do. So, you stand there on the tee knowing your throw isn't super important. It's just a lay up with zero expectation of birdie.

 

[zjones9]

I think this work deserves its own thread.

"Get off my lawn" -Steve West

On a serious note, I agree. This is a completely separate topic to the par debate.

 

[ChrisWoj]

"Get off my lawn" -Steve West

On a serious note, I agree. This is a completely separate topic to the par debate.

True. I'll start one when I post my trial instrument. This seemed like a good place to hear from anyone who cares about analysis of disc golf holes.

 

[jeverett]

I'm looking to develop an instrument for quantifying enjoyment. I am curious whether or not anything like it has been done before to use that in improving the quality of what I develop - but as convergent reliability can't exist without converging instruments I won't be able to report that in developing conclusions about the quality of the measure. I'd like to see if any others are out there, but if not - this is just the first, and could be used to help with any that others develop moving forward.

I suspect you're going to run into the same problem that research on game design does: people don't all 'play' for the same reasons, get the same things 'out' of the experience, or even enjoy the same game-play experiences. I don't know if it helps any, but here is one particular article that I liked a lot:

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. Journal of Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.

For reference, Yee applied factor analysis to previous (1996) work done on player primary motivational archetypes (Bartle).

 

[DavidSauls]

Does anyone here know of any measures of hole enjoyment that exist? I'm looking to develop a useful instrument for measuring enjoyment of holes to possibly use in analysis with more concrete/tangible measures of the way our holes play. Anything that is already out there could be used to help me measure convergent validity of my own instrument with others.

I measure it on our local course by how often players, in casual rounds, ask to throw multiple tee shots.

Though I wonder if I'm falsely perceiving a twinge of sarcasm, in the search for an objective measure for a subjective aspect of disc golf.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I suspect you're going to run into the same problem that research on game design does: people don't all 'play' for the same reasons, get the same things 'out' of the experience, or even enjoy the same game-play experiences. I don't know if it helps any, but here is one particular article that I liked a lot:

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. Journal of Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.

For reference, Yee applied factor analysis to previous (1996) work done on player primary motivational archetypes (Bartle).

You're absolutely right. Another thing to bring up when I start a thread on it.

I'll PM you on the Yee study, which I like and dislike.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I measure it on our local course by how often players, in casual rounds, ask to throw multiple tee shots.

Though I wonder if I'm falsely perceiving a twinge of sarcasm, in the search for an objective measure for a subjective aspect of disc golf.

An objective measure for relative sensation.

 

[DavidSauls]

An objective measure for relative sensation.

Like rating courses?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Like rating courses?

To some extent - the goal is a unidimensional construct with abstract invariance (those scrabble words basically translate to: a ruler). A ruler for measuring relative enjoyment for each hole. A perfect case would provide perfect additive properties, and some theorists claim a good survey instrument can do that with a well defined construct but I'm not totally convinced though I see value in the ability of a well constructed instrument to provide some of that invariance, minimizing error - X = T + E (outcome equals true score plus error).

 

[ChrisWoj]

I think this work deserves its own thread.

Considering people are getting active and its going on more than I expected - I'll PM someone about splitting this.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I'm looking to develop an instrument for quantifying enjoyment. I am curious whether or not anything like it has been done before to use that in improving the quality of what I develop - but as convergent reliability can't exist without converging instruments I won't be able to report that in developing conclusions about the quality of the measure. I'd like to see if any others are out there, but if not - this is just the first, and could be used to help with any that others develop moving forward.

While it doesn't necessarily delve in to "quantifying" the factors that make holes enjoyable,the "Fun Factor" in hole design thread does a pretty good job identifying specific features or attributes that make holes enjoyable.

Assuming one equates fun with enjoyability.