The Interior Design Practice: Qualifying Factors of Competent Practice

Dorothy Hardy and Marjorie Kriebel, editors National Council for Interior Design Qualifications New York, NY

Background The National Concil for Interior Design

Qualification is an independent organization created in the public interest to establish stan- dards for the qualification of professional in- terior designers. The Council serves to identify to the public those interior designers who have met the minimum standards for professional practice by passing the NCIDQ examination. It endeavors to maintain the most advanced examining procedures and to constantly revise the examination to reflect expanding professional knowledge and de- sign development techniques.

In March 198 1 the Council considered the need to again survey the professional field, determine what a practitioner does and ana- lyze the results to identify current needs upon which the NCIDQ examination would be based. Subsequently, the Council appointed a committee of four persons selected for their expertise and geographic location (see Ap- pendix: Committee Members and Acknowl- edgements). The charge to the committee was to identify minimum competency skills and the knowledge and skill levels of the current

professional practice. This information will be for purposes of reviewing goals, content and structure of the current professional ex- amination.

Objectives Consistent with its charge, the committee

1. To identify a list of competencies used in the practice by professional de- signers.

2. To rank the importance of the list of competencies used in current practice.

3. To provide information for the National Council for Interior Design Qualifica- tion that will assist the Council in its continuing analysis of exam content.

identified the following objectives:

Procedures The charge to the committee requested that

factors affecting minimum competency in the practice of interior design be identified and these findings be applied to the goals of the project which were to study and analyze the content and structure of the current examina-

tion. The major approach was predicted upon the work actually done by practitioners in the field. The current content of the NCIDQ ex- amination and its Study Guide was also taken into consideration by the committee.

The committee met in Toronto in April 1981 to identify and organize procedures:

A. Evaluate existing research and formu-

B. Conduct pilot study interviews with a

C. Make adjustments after pre-testing

D. Determine sample for survey E. Conduct a mail survey F. Analyze findings

late a survey document

variety of designers

document

It was desirable that meetings be limited to as few as possible: telephone conference calls and mailings would be used as the constant source of communication among committee members.

A. Formulation of Document The first draft of the proposed document

was completed in March 1982. Respondents would be presented a list of Subject Areas

TABLE 1: PILOT STUDY SAMPLE SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION Sample Geographic

Group Organization * Sue+ Sue Distribution Population

W. N.CEN. N.W. S.W. CAN

1 ASID 6700 12 3 2 2 2 3 2 IBD 1025 5 1 1 1 2 - 3 IDEC 238 3 1 - - I 1 4 ID1 52 3 - - 3 - -

3 5 ID0 365 3 6 IDSA 65 3 1 1 - 1 - 7 NHFL 500 3 - 1 1 I - 8 NCIDQ + 2yrs** 770 4 I 1 I I - 9 LEADERS 44 2

- - - -

- _ - 2 -

TOTALS 9759 38 7 8 8 8 7

**Persons who had passed the NCIDQ examination in the past two years *Organizations and population figures are from NCIDQ records at the time of pilot study

@Copyright, 1984, Interior Design Educators Council Journal of Interior Design Educators and Research lO(2): 3-6

3

(competencies) to be rated on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 is not important and 6 is very impor- tant to what they do and use in their practice. The 117 competency areas were culled from the 1981 NCIDQ Study Guide, research re- ports by Myers (1982) and Benhamou (1980), and input from the committee. De- mographic data would be collected on age; sex; number of years in the profession; whether work is residential, contract or both; and number of designers in the firm. The draft was revised in a meeting at Baltimore in April 1982 and the survey document was ready for the interLiew stage in May 1982.

B. Pilot Study The pilot study was to collect information

in person from representative groups within the design profession. The pilot study infor- mation would be utilized to:

Pre-test the survey document. Get indications from the pilot sample of population and stratum variances, since required sample sizes depend on such variances. Determine the size of the mailing sam- ple that would take into account the con- sequences of sampling error and would produce answers that are satisfactorily close, and Identify the numerical frequences and other statistical information about the competencies which were considered significant.

While the committee was completing the evaluation of existing research materials and developing the survey documents, work was begun to identify the interview sample. Avail- ability of knowledgeable interviewers and considerations for financial matters were im- portant factors. To conserve funds, metropol-

itan corridors were identified where there was personnel to do the interviewing.

The pilot study was completed with 35 per- sonal interviews. Distribution of the pilot study sample was generally proportioned to reflect the population of the NCIDQ member organizations and would be proportionately similar to the sample of the mailing survey. (See Table 1 .)

C. Adjustments to Survey Document

tions were made to the survey document.

D. Survey Sample Size The sampling possibilities were studies

with Dr. PauL Minton, Director of the Insti- tute of Statistics, Virginia Commonwealth University. It was determined tht a stratified random sample should be undertaken. The population to be surveyed was divided into groups. From each group (stratum) or sub- group a method for the random sample was developed. The proportionate size of the sample varied in each stratum, based on anal- ysis of standard deviations in pilot study re- sponses.

E. Mailstudy A total of 676 questionnaires were mailed.

There were 305 returns (45 %). (See Table 2.) The response data was put on a coding form and then on file in a WYLBUR data set. The following studies were completed on the sur- vey data and represent the active segment of the population that responded to the survey:

1. Frequency of response per item. 2. Cumulative frequencies 3. Percentages 4. Cumulative percentages 5. Mean (average response) for each item 6. Standard deviation (a measure of the va-

Based on pilot study response to modifica-

riability) of each item.

-~ ~~

TABLE 2: STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE SIZE AND RESPONSE Required

Group Organization Population Size Sample Returns

1 ASID 7298 483(6.6%) 230(47.6%) 2 IBD 1025 46(4.5 %) 22(47.8%) 3 IDEC 156 12(7.7 %) 341.7%) 4 1DI 68 6(8.8%) 2(33.3%) 5 ID0 35 1 27(7.7%) 11(40.7%) 6 IDSA (Membership list was not available) 7 NHFL 55 1 38(6.9%) 7( 18.4%) 8 NCIDQ+2yrs 766 537.2 %) 22(40 .O % ) 9 LEADERS 177 9(5.1%) 6( 66.7 % )

TOTALS 10,392 676(6.5 %) 305(45.1%) *Due to the consistent response from the IBD pilot study, the required sample size was smaller.

Findings Demographic information on the respon-

dents included age, sex, years in profession, categories of work, and number of designers in firm. (See Tables 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 , and 7.)

TABLE 3: AGE OF RESPONDENT Under 26 I %

26-35 36 % 36-45 27 % 46-55 21 % 56-65 12%

Over 65 3%

TABLE 4: SEX OF RESPONDENTS Male 40 %

Female 60%

TABLE 5: YEARS IN PROFESSION 1-5 1 1 % 6-10 28%

11-15 15% 16-20 11% 2 1-25 14% 26-30 1 1 % 31-35 4% 36-40 2%

Over 40 3%

TABLE 6: CATEGORIES OF WORK Contract 33 % Residential 8% Contract and

residential 52 % Design educator 3% Other 4%

TABLE 7: NUMBER OF DESIGNERS IN FIRM

1-2 49 % 3-5 29 % 6- 10 10%

11-15 5% 16-25 3%

Over 25 4%

Respondents rated competency areas based on what they do and use in their practice. Table 8 ranks the importance of these skills and knowledges by mean scores only. It should be noted that there is not a significant difference between some of these listed. For example, it cannot be proven that there is a significant difference of ranking between “Presentation to Client” (5.62 mean score)

4

TABLE 8: RANKING OF IMPORTANCE TO INTERIOR DESIGN PRACTICE

RANK ITEM MEAN* 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13

14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40

Presentation to a client Professional ethics Estimating 20th Century-Current Furn., Commercial Working Drawings-Readings Functional Needs Interior Finishing Materials Budgeting Basic Elements of Design & composition Office Space Planning Appropriate Use/Functional 20th Century-Current Architecture Lighting-Types of Fixtures/Lamps Working Drawings-Drafting Specification Writing-Furnishing Office Furn. Arrangements 20th Century-Current Art Management Color-Effects of Size, etc. Public Relations Finishedlnstallation Inform. Project Administration Contract Documents Acquisition of Work Lighting-Distribution Color-Characteristics Textile Fibres Trade Relations Lighting-Recommended Levels Presentation Drawings Salesmanship Appropriate UselEmotional Impact Carpet Construction Business Writing Electrical Plans-Reading Construction Supervision 20th Century-Current Furn. Residential Lighting-Emotional Impact Carpet Installation Methods Interior Construction

5.622 5.426 5.298

5.294 5.291 5.235 5.195 5.188

5.175 5.155 5.147

5.128

5.126 5.118

5.108 5.106 5.100 5.072 5.057 5.041 5.023 5.010 5.007 4.997 4.993 4.976 4.927 4.837

4.819 4.773 4.758

4.708 4.682 4.672 4.640 4.639

4.630 4.607 4.601 4.600

RANK ITEM MEAN* 41 42 43 44 45

46 47

48

49 50 51 52 53 54

55 56

57 58 59

60 61

62 63 64

65

66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73

74 75 76 77

Behavioral Needs Detailing-Cabinetry Research Techniques Color-Types of Schemes Human Factors-Behavioral Needs Lighting Plans-Drafting Knowledge of Related Professions Knowledge of I.D. Organizations Commercial Space Planning Post-Occupancy Evaluation Textile Construction Upholstery Methods Fire Codes Specification Writing-Construct Building Codes Commercial Furniture Arrangements Detailing-Arch. Interiors Drapery Making Residential Furniture Arrangements Residential Space Planning Human Factors- Anthropometrics Detailing-Furniture Architectural/Structural Mat Lighting-Computation of Quantity Human Factors-Special Needs Signage, Lettering, Graphics 20th Century-Bauhaus Acoustics 20th Century-1945-1970 Acoustic Materials & systems Baroque/Rococo-Chippendale Electrical Plans-Drafting BaroquelRococo-Queen

Electrical Systems/Wiring Baroque/Rococo-Georgian Retailing 20th Century-Art Deco

Anne

4.582 4.525 4.519 4.465

4.457 4.439

4.429

4.429 4.419 4.416 4.416 4.401 4.365

4.322 4.292

4.290 4.269 4.254

4.234 4.224

4.172 4.147 4.146

4.101

4.078 4.068 4.064 4.063 4.058

3.986 3.983 3.895

3.882 3.868 3.859 3.772 3.742

RANK ITEM 78 Color-Theories & Systems 79 Neo Classic-Hepplewhite 80 Neo Classic-Sheraton 8 1 Energy Conservation 82 Building Structure 83 19th Century-Art Nouveau 84 BaroquelRococo-American

85 Neo Classic-Louis XVI 86 Neo Classic-Adam 87 Heating/Ventilating/Air

88 Baroque/Rococo-Louis XV 89 19th Century-English

90 Perspective Drawing,

91 Neo Classic-Directoire 92 BaroquelRococo-Louis XIV 93 Neo Classic-Empire 94 Baroque/Rococo-Resoration 95 19th Century-American

96 Plumbing 97 Wholesaling, jobbing, etc. 98 19th Century-Victorian 99

Colonial

Cond.

Regency

Isometrics

Empire

Far East and Islamic Arts 100 Classical Antiquity 101 Rendering 102 Pre-Columbian and

American Indian Arts 103 Renaissance-Tudor 104 Renaissance-Jacobean 105 Theories of Architects &

Designers 106 Renaissance-Italian 107 Solar Energy-Passive 108 Renaissance-Louis XIII 109 AfricanArts 110 Renaissance-Spanish 1 1 1 European Peasant Arts 112 Computers-Information

1 13 Renaissance Art-Germanic 114 Renaissance-Francis I 115 Middle Ages 116 Computers-Drawing Tool 117 Model Building

Retrieval

*Means of Item Importance for Total Sample, ranked (1 = Not Important, 6 = Very Important)

and “Office Space Planning” (5.15 mean score).

A summary of all subsections except His- tory averages in importance around the 75 % level (4.391 or 73%). The History subsection has an overall importance rating of under 50% (2.853 or 47.5%), but competencies re- lated to the twentieth century fall again in to the 75% range (4.574 or 76.2%). (See Table 9.)

MEAN* 3.710 3.638 3.624 3.613 3.590 3.586

3.565 3.537 3.524

3.505 3.502

3.468

3.372 3.270 3.269 3.257 3.253

3.250 3.244 3.232 3.197 3.175 3.165 3.064

2.890 2.865 2.845

2.833 2.782 2.782 2.741 2.719 2.641 2.591

2.556 2.453 2.453 2.368 2.147 1.926

TABLE 9 RANKING OF IMPORTANCE BY SUBSECTION Rank Item Mean

1 Programming 4.779 2 Professional 4.773 3 Business Practice 4.718 4 Materials 4.682 5 Planning 4.571 6 Theory 4.325 7 Building Construction and

Support Systems 4.110 8 Communication Skills 3.771 9 History 2.852

%of6

79.6% 79.6% 78.6% 78.0% 76.2% 72.1%

68.5% 62.8% 47.5%

5

A number of commments were made on the survey document and during pilot study inter- views that “people should know” certain facts and background material, even if these are not consciously used in everyday office operation. Some quotations from responses appear in the Observation section of this pa- per.

Observations It is interesting to note that almost half of

the respondents are working in one or two person offices and over three quarters are working in offices of five persons or less. It is possible that the survey failed to contact a suf- ficient number of people from large design or architectural firms. However, the vast major- ity of NICDQ examination candidates are ap- plying through member organizations, and it may be that few members of the “giant” firms join any organization and, therefore, a relatively small number of such professionals take the NCIDQ examination currently.

There was a broad distribution of years in profession. Forty percent of the respondents have practiced less than ten years; another forty percent have practiced ten to twenty- five years. A predictable difference in com- petency ranking may become apparent between groups. Computer analysis for this factor has not been done. There is an expecta- tion that new competencies and different atti- tudes may emerge on the part of the younger professionals.

Some competency areas are theoretical and academic and are not used in daily office work. The question of whether areas are valid from a theoretical and educational viewpoint was nor asked in the survey. Care should be taken that the mean score rating is not the only measure to rank the importance of the skills and knowledge to the practice.

“Presentation to a Client” had the highest ranking of importance. This ranking may not measurably influence the make-up of the NCIDQ examination but should be of impor- tance to educators. Elements such as “Pre- sentation Drawings” and “Salesmanship” are subcategories of this overall general com- petency area and have been listed and ranked separately.

Ratings for questions related to Building Construction and Support Systems were in the middle range. Several respondents pointed out that the interior designer fre- quently is not the person to produce these drawings and details, but designers “must understand” these matters.

Model building is an example of an item which rated low. It is possible that this re- sponse was caused by the previously men- tioned lack of representation from “giant” or architectural firms. Computer related ques- tions were responded to consistently low, yet comments were made that the importance of computers will increase rapidly. Passive solar energy also rated low in importance.

Generally low importance was given to History items except those related to the twentieth century period. The following comments (quoted from the survey docu- ments and the pilot study) give an understand- ing of how to intepret these low ratings:

The response of low importance to specific historical periods is truly a misrepresenta- tion. The knowledge of the history of art, architecture, furnishings, and interiors is a basic need. We are constantly drawing on it for inspiration and integrity, but we are not doing “period” work; nor does any parti- cular period seem influential enough to give it greater importance, relative to our current practice. Yes, in general for background theory, but not for daily use with the possible excep- tion of classic historical interiors or reno- vation jobs, which are less common. Important for exam, but not for current personal practice. Not important in today’s work, but to be a designer, it is mandatory. Who can say how this knowledge affects your concept - have to know. All part of a good liberal arts education.

The survey identified what the practi- tioners actually do in the field so that the NCIDQ examination would reflect current practices. While the findings of the survey should be of interest to education and accredi- tation of interior design programs, the ratings may not necessarily reflect educational view- points.

Appendix: Committee Members Members of the Professional Survey Com-

mittee: Dorothy M. Hardy, Committee Chairperson

Professor of Design Virginia Commonwealth University

Professor of Design San Diego State University

Professor of Design University of Massachusetts

Donald Covington

Arnold Friedmann

Ronald Veitch Professor of Design University of Manitoba

Acknowledgements Reed Benhamou

Buie Harwood Professor of Design, Purdue University

Associate Professor of Interior Design North Texas State University

Associate Professor of Design Drexel University

Director, Institute of Statistics Virginia Commonwealth University

Professor of Housing and Interior Design Central State University, OK

Professor Emeritus California State University

Business Services and Assistance to Chairman

Executive Administrator National Council for Interior Design Qualifications

Marjorie Kriebel

Dr. Paul Minton

Dr. Cheryl Myers

Betty Ann Raschko

Lucy Campbell

Lynn Klaskin

References knhamou, Reed, “Professional Practice in Interior De-

sign: Frequency Profiles and their Relation to Interior Design Education. JoumI of Interior Design Educa- rionandResearch. 6(2) . 1980: 16-21.

Irving, Flonnell. “NCIDQ Qualifying Examination.” Re- port to the National Council of Interior Design Quali- fication, New York, November I , 1976.

McLeod. William Peter. “An Analysis of the Academic Portion of the NCIDQ Exam.” Report to the National Council of Interior Design Qualification, July, 1980.

- “An Analysis of the Problem Portion of the NCIDQ Exam.” Report to the National Council of Interior De- sign Qualification, New York, November, 1981.

Myers, Cheryl. “Entry Level Competencies Needed by Interior Designers:’ Journal of Interior Design Mu- carionnndReseorch. 8 ( I ) . 1982: 19-24.

Reznikoff, S.C. “Jury Task Force Report.’’ Report to the National Council of Interior Design Qualification, New York. August, 1981.

Sherman, Curt. “Review and Revisions of NCIDQ De- sign Jury Material.” Report to National Council of In- terior Design Qualifications. New York, July. 1981.

6