March 1, 2022 / By: Alex Byczko / In: survey, instructor, data, compensation,  coach / 0 Comments 

Read on to learn more about this year's survey and you'll be able to download your copy of the infographic at the bottom of this post.

Last year, we decided to relaunch the Compensation Survey and open it up to all sports on the Checklick platform. We continued the same with this year while also opening up the questions to allow for higher resolution data. 

2021 was another irregular year with the Covid-19 pandemic. We captured the shifting impacts of Covid-19 on the coaching industry and we have some really interesting comparatives from this year’s results. In this post, we'll go over our methodology, new questions, rationale, errors, and distributions. 

All questions were written in a way that allowed for simple responses. With the changes from multiple choice to short answer questions, we found that there was a reporting error, particularly with the hourly compensation question. This was mainly an issue with reporting incorrect values or omitting proper values. Anything that was not indicative of a clear monetary value was omitted. Next year, we will shift the example response to have more clarity on what the response format should be. 

Questions about age will likely change next year. Since the cut of 65+ seemed to yield a fair amount of responses, we should be catching data on this demographic. 

Similarly, we may do that same thing with years of experience. 

This year we are providing the averages of our distribution data in a handy dandy infographic.
Check that out as we think it’s direct, informative and cuts some of the noise of how we have done this in the past.

Another successful survey in the books. Stay tuned for more, because we have a lot! 

Make sure you fill in all mandatory fields. Required fields are marked *

The 2022 Checklick Compensation Survey is coming at you with a little facelift.  

It goes without saying, thank you to all respondents!

In a similar fashion to last year, the polled population were coaches who use Checklick.

Here are details about the survey;

• 221 respondents
• The survey was open to responses for 2 months
• 168 in 2017 vs 224 in 2020 

Over the last couple of years, our responses have hovered around 220. Like any survey, there is an initial gate crash of opening responses, however the responses taper off fairly quickly. The format we have chosen for the response window and reminders seem to allow those who want to respond the necessary time too. Around closing, we are receiving few to no responses. We will carry this forward.

This year we asked 16 questions, 5 of which were specifically focused on the impact of Covid-19, while the others were standard fare. Standard fare questions being nationality, pay, age, experience, qualifications, etc. We did open the survey to non-paid coaches (volunteers) in some of the demographic-based questions. 

With 2 years of data on the impacts of Covid-19, we can see how the changing landscape of the pandemic has affected the coaching world. We will deliver this comparison to you in the next post.   

All the questions were phrased simply to reduce survey attrition. However, we did change up the format of questions, allowing some “check all that apply”, short answer, and multiple choice.  Some of the demographic questions were more open-ended by shifting to short answers.  All the questions on demographic information (Age, Experience, Qualifications) questions could be directly compared to previous year’s surveys.

Data was collected via Google Forms.  Response distribution outputs that are provided by the application were used, however, the more significant findings came from the raw data analysis.  

Since we are still in a pandemic, asking about the impacts of Covid-19 seemed appropriate. This will provide us with a little comparison on how vaccines affected program opening, group sizing, etc. when compared to pre-vaccine 2020. 

We found last year that some coaches were left out of the compensation survey, volunteers. Although they are not paid, it is important to gather their demographic data to get a better picture of the coaching industry. We integrated their data into all the results except income as they had a heavy outlier influence when calculating averages. 

Some questions changed this round to allow for higher resolution in the data. We found that although age and pay ranges were easy to deal with when parsing the data they were blunt answers providing a blurry picture of how coaches were truly compensated. We changed these responses from multiple choice to short answer, providing a response format, to allow for individual responses. This allows us to be more flexible with the data by filtering to ranges, getting more accurate averages, while also being able to get more specific. This is something we hope to develop upon and implement into other questions next year.  

Compensation was a short answer currency figure. This response was cross-referenced with that respondent’s reported national currency and was then converted to Canadian Dollars. Exchange rates were determined via a Google search on Jan 5th, 2022. Euro to CAD was converted at $1.45 and USD to CAD was converted at $1.30.

As for the rest of the questions, some of the core questions can be directly compared to previous interactions of the Checklick Compensation Survey. However, the survey does still skew heavily towards the sport of sailing and within Canada. As Checklick is expanding its presence in other markets, a more representative cross-section of all sports and regions will be attained. 

We will continue to revise the survey to improve our data collection and let us know if you like our new visual format.   Let us know what you think about our survey via the comments at the bottom of this post.  

In our next post, we will look at the data with a finer comb. We will provide you with the same breakdowns and insights as last year. Then in a subsequent post, we will take a look at comparisons between regions and years.

Copyright Checklick Inc. All Rights Reserved.