数量的结果是不言而喻的，但是研究人员创建的工具需要进一步的检查和改进，特别是在使用Cronbach Alpha的时候。为了在Cronbach Alpha中获得0.81分，这些发现的变量必须进行调整。这个缺陷甚至在对18个不同的参与者进行测试之后，才会对项目的真正主题进行测试。即使总体参与(从完整的调查问卷中收集数据)由61名受访者组成，但在42名志愿者中，只有20人参与了访谈。他们对面试问题的回答可能会因为面试官的职位和面试的方式而受到限制或影响，而面试的方式是通过电话和面对面的方式进行的。尽管由于外部因素或变量最终会被标记为一个问题，在任何研究论文中都没有绝对或完美的发现，但这项研究成功地在回答研究问题时取得了成功，并证明了它们的方法和工具的使用是合理的。他们的结论是开放的，他们利用一种改进的统计测量工具，邀请了进一步的研究。
The quantitative results were self explanatory, but the instrument the researchers created would require further review and improvements especially while using Cronbach Alpha. In order to achieve a 0.81 score on the Cronbach Alpha, the variables from the findings had to be adjusted. This flaw occurred even after testing it with 18 different participants before administering it to the real subjects of the project. Even if the overall participation (in collecting data from completed questionnaires) consisted of 61 respondents, the interviews were conducted only on 20 of the 42 who volunteered to take part. The answers they had provided to the interview questions could be constricted or influenced due to the positions held by the interviewers and the manner in how the interview was conducted-over the telephone and face-to-face. Although there is no absolute or perfect findings in any research paper due to external elements or variables that would eventually get flagged as an issue, this study however managed to successfully achieve in answering the research questions raised and justified the use of their methods and instruments. Their conclusion was open ended and they invited further research using an improved instrument of statistical measurements.