Here’s your Usefulness Score recalculated from the new CSV using Section 4 Choices (Easiness) and Section 5 Choices (Effectiveness), with your 0–100 translation.
🧮 Scoring setup
Map to 1–5: Strongly agree=5, Somewhat/“Agree”=4, Neutral=3, Somewhat/“Disagree”=2, Strongly disagree=1
Translate to 0–100: (Rating − 1) × 25 → {1:0, 2:25, 3:50, 4:75, 5:100}
1) Easiness (Section 4 Choices)
Counts (N=100):
Strongly agree: 40 → 100
Agree: 47 → 75
Neutral: 12 → 50
Disagree: 1 → 25
Strongly disagree: 0
Easiness Score (0–100)
(
40
×
100
)
+
(
47
×
75
)
+
(
12
×
50
)
+
(
1
×
25
)
100
=
81.5
100
(40×100)+(47×75)+(12×50)+(1×25)
=81.5
2) Effectiveness (Section 5 Choices)
Counts (N=100):
Strongly agree: 35 → 100
Agree: 39 → 75
Neutral: 23 → 50
Disagree: 3 → 25
Strongly disagree: 0
Effectiveness Score (0–100)
(
35
×
100
)
+
(
39
×
75
)
+
(
23
×
50
)
+
(
3
×
25
)
100
=
76.5
100
(35×100)+(39×75)+(23×50)+(3×25)
=76.5
3) Usefulness Score
Usefulness
=
Easiness
+
Effectiveness
2
=
81.5
+
76.5
2
=
79.0
%
Usefulness=
2
Easiness+Effectiveness
=
2
81.5+76.5
=79.0%
Scale placement: Good (70–89%)
Quick read on explanations
This file doesn’t include (or the cells are empty for) Section 4/5 Explanation, so there’s no qualitative text to analyze. If you have another export with those columns populated, I can pull themes and give targeted, evidence-based suggestions to push Usefulness into the mid-80s.