Data Collection Instruments. The qualitative data collection instruments consisted of one FGD guide (service providers) and five KI guides, including:
(1) country resource persons and focal point persons/champions at target facilities; (2) MOH policymakers; (3) CAs and development partners; (4) VFCP facilitators; and (5) global stakeholders. The FGD guides were pre-tested at one facility in each country and necessary corrections were made (KI and FGD guide: xxxx://xxx.x0xxxxxxxx.xxx/publications-tools/pac-fp-assessment-tools- english.html).
Data Collection Instruments. Recruitment & Data Collection Data Analysis Student Contribution to Thesis Chapter IV - Manuscript Introduction Purpose Statement & Research Questions
Data Collection Instruments. The applied data collection instruments included three types which were individual semi-structured interviews with the main participants, two focus-group discussions with the groups of experienced teachers and beginning teachers, and lesson observations of the main participants. The main purpose of application these data collection instruments was to explore each of them in-depth. Meanwhile, the qualitative research defines a researcher as the primary instrument for collecting data. Thus, the qualitative data is interpreted by means of this instrument, rather than through other data collection instruments (Xxxxxxxx, 1994). The research was conducted on the base of voluntary participation, and with the adherence of anonymity of participants. Firstly, I met two main participants, and asked them to participate in individual interviews. Then, I identified other eight participants for participation in focus group discussions. Thus, the focus group discussion participants were not introduced with their group-mates in advance, and saw each other only during the interview. Finally, non-participant observation of lessons was done to observe both teaching and learning in order to analyze how assessment practices were arranged to obtain data.
Data Collection Instruments. Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx (2018) used a survey instrument with questions focusing on each type of PVRC bullying and sub-questions helping to distinguish bullying perpetrators and victims. It consists of four statements where each statement describes one type of PVRC bullying with following sub questions (for example: How often do you do this?) to which students answer using the scale from 0 (never) to 5 (all of the time). Additionally, they investigated differences in bullying victimization and perpetration based on gender (Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2018). Similarly, when exploring PVRC bullying, the present study has duplicated the study conducted by Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxxx et al (2018) and used the data collection instrument developed by them. In addition to the variables of the research study mentioned above, the current study investigated ethnicity, language of instruction, academic performance and residence and determined if there was any relationship between these variables. Due to the fact that there is a lack of tools to measure bullying in Kazakh or Russian, the present study used the above mentioned tool and was guided with the strategy of Xxxxx and Xxxxxx’s (2018) study, when researchers translated existing scale, which is the Child-Adolescent Teasing Scale (CATS), and adapted it for Turkish context. The participants in this study are highly competent in English. However, in order to avoid any language barrier and possible misunderstandings, the present study followed translation procedures such as back-translation method and made necessary revisions for unclear expressions.
Data Collection Instruments. Two structured questionnaires was used to elicit data from Nairobi city county education department officer on assessment of devolved governance system in management of education in Nairobi City County. For retrospective data, desk reviews used to assess the relevant of the existing policies and laws, from education sector Nairobi City County 2014. Validity is often defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to measure (AM J Health pharm- volume1, 2008). According to Xxxxxxx (2005) validity is the degree to which results obtained from the analysis of the actually represent the element under study. Therefore it is the degree to which the instrument truly measures what it is intended to measure. In other words, validity ensures content, construct and criterion related validity in the study. Xxxxxxx and mugenda (2008) advocate that the pre-test sample should be 1% to 10% depending on sample size. In this study, a pilot study was carried on 18 who were not be included in the final study. Xxxxxxx, (2005) defines reliability as the consistency of measurement, or degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same conditions with the same subjects. In this study, test- retest method will be used to estimate the degree to which same results could be obtained with a repeated measure. To gauge reliability, the instruments will be administered twice within a time interval of two weeks. The respondents used during pre-testing exercise will not be included in the final sample. Questionnaires will then be reviewed on the basis of the responses obtained.
Data Collection Instruments. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were considered as an effective instrument for data collection. According to Xxxxxxxx (2014), interviews are characterised by a high response rate because they are scheduled in advance, and "sample participants typically feel obliged to complete the interview" (p.384). The interview protocol (see Appendix 1) comprised open- ended questions that were designed to address the research question and guided by the literature review. Xxxxx et al. (2007) defined a number of advantages of open-ended questions. One of them is flexibility. The participants talked on the research topic in their own way and led to unexpected findings. Secondly, it enabled the researcher to ask additional questions to gain a deeper understanding of the response or resolve a misunderstanding. In addition, it helped the researcher test the expertise and opinions of respondents. The interviews were conducted in two ways. Four participants had face-to-face interviews, while two parents responded to the interview questions via phone. When doing the telephone interviews, the researcher scheduled the phone calls at a time when respondents were available and had sufficient time to think over questions and provide full answers. Xxxxx (2004) argued that in comparison to face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews are easier in terms of confidentiality and result in more sincere responses. However, the disadvantage of telephone interviews is that the researcher cannot see the respondents' gestures, posture and mimes during the conversation (Xxxxxxxx, 2014).
Data Collection Instruments. The Investigator will prepare and maintain adequate and accurate source documents designed to record all observations and other pertinent data for each subject who is enrolled in the study. Study personnel at each site will enter data from source documents corresponding to a subject’s visit into the protocol-specific electronic Case Report Form (CRF) when the information corresponding to that visit is available. Subjects will not be identified by name in the study database or on any study documents to be collected by the Sponsor (or designee), but will be identified by a site number, subject number, and initials. If a correction is required for a CRF, the time and date stamps track the person entering or updating CRF data and create an electronic audit trail. The Investigator is responsible for all information collected on subjects enrolled in this study. All data collected during the course of this study must be reviewed and verified for completeness and accuracy by the Investigator. A CD containing the CRF data will be provided to the site to retain with the essential documents at the Investigator’s site at the completion of the study. Subjects who are participating in the various sub-studies will keep the same unique identification number as the CORE study. Sub-study specific data (e.g., MCC images, MBW results, pH pill results) generally will not be entered into the CRF but will be provided directly by participating sites to the sub-study principal investigator for evaluation and analysis via secure mail or electronic transfer. The data files will be kept on a password protected computer and routinely backed up. At the end of the study, the sub-study principal investigators will provide relevant sub-study data to the TDNCC to be incorporated into the overall study database and will be transferred via the secure Accellion file transfer application. Similarly the TDNCC will provide each of the sub-study principal investigators with relevant data for sub-study subjects from the CRF for their sub-study specific analyses. Relevant data from subjects co-enrolled in the Part B CORE study and the PUSH study will be exchanged between PROSPECT and PUSH study principal investigators via secure mail or electronic transfer. Details of the data transfer (including, but not limited to, frequency of transfer, format of data and query process) will be documented in a Data Transfer Agreement between each of the research labs/sub-study principal investigator institutions...
Data Collection Instruments. The interview protocol was an instrument for data collection (see Appendix A). Semi-structured interviewing allowed to change the order of questions or rephrase for participants in order to gather more information valuable for the study. The interview protocol consisted of two parts. The first part included questions regarding relationships at the workplace with department chairs, such as “What do you think about the attitude of the head of your department towards you?” The second part tried to reveal if there is an informal mentorship between the young female faculty member and a department chair. For example, “Can you name your department chair as your informal mentor?” These questions were designed from categories that emerged from the literature review and the conceptual framework. Before conducting the actual interview, I pilot tested the instrument on a former female faculty member. Piloting interview helped to find a logical sequence of order of the questions and detect the approximate time of the interview.
Data Collection Instruments. The Contractor shall develop and pretest data collection instruments with program participants, authorized vendors, State and/or local agency staff, and other project personnel or implementing partners to enable an evaluation that measures the implementation progress and impact of the modernization projects on participants, in accordance with the objectives and research questions. The Contractor shall pretest any new instruments prior to data collection. Expected deliverables for this task include all required data collection instruments, recruitment materials, and a pretest memorandum.
Data Collection Instruments. For this study, I was interested in the sense of belongingness variable as an outcome. Thus, sense of belongingness is the dependent variable and the other social connection variables were classified as independent variables. The student independent variables will now be discussed further.
