The MediaOnline reports that the new AMPS methodology has not been tested and is based on a huge range of assumptions not facts.

from http://www.themediaonline.co.za/themedia/view/themedia/en/page255?oid=38389&sn=Detail 

What on earth possessed SAARF to change to a new methodology without testing? What on earth possessed them to make assumptions based on a methodology that has never been tested within significant sub-segments of South African society? Would we accept assumptions about the causes of tsunamis or earthquakes without relevant scientific facts?

Yet today SAARF is merrily assuming the new double screen CAPI methodology is better. The old SAARF did not allow a change in a word without testing. Yet now SAARF has imported a methodology that is used in France and Belgium and the UK - and apparently not in other developing countries - and makes the assumption that it will improve the accuracy of our figures.

How? Why? How does it affect the different rungs of our social fabric?

Where is the side-by-side testing of old and proposed new methodologies that the old rigorous SAARF insisted on? Where is the testing of the conventional and consistent methodology alongside double screen CAPI? How can SAARF, in a paper given at the recent PAMRO conference, admit that interviewers (and conceivably respondents?) were ‘scared' of the new technology and then deny it now? The interviewers and respondents each have laptops linked with remote control - how does this impact on respondents who have never touched a laptop before? We need to know the facts, not wishful thinking because of the investment in expensive technology.

It is alleged there is less title confusion, but how do we know there isn't in fact more title confusion? Why did the old SAARF run side-by-side tests of a proposed new methodology with sheets of mastheads alongside a test of shuffle cards and then reject the former and carry on with the latter? And now they are practically replicating the sheets of mastheads on screen. Does it not seem odd that of the 129 magazines measured, 33% had a significant increase in readership and 5% a significant decrease; whereas of the 51 newspapers measured, only 6% had a significant increase in readership and 22% a significant decrease?

Looking at actual changes it looks even more suspicious: 54% of newspapers are down, 33% are up and 13% no change. Some newspapers have lost up to 40% of their readership. How do we explain this? Is this a factor of confusion of mastheads? Newspaper mastheads are fairly similar - black, blue or red and similar fonts - whereas magazines have far more creativity in their mastheads. Could this be resulting in under-claiming in regard to the former? Who knows, without diagnostic testing.

There is an old Turkish proverb that says: ‘No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back'. The new AMPS may or may not be on the wrong road. But what is for sure is that we don't know. And the route is likely to become more tumultuous when the next period is rolled into the current period. Surely we must stop and evaluate where we are, based not on assumptions but on proper testing?