Data Collection Methods. This section provides the information about the instruments and procedures used to collect data.
Data Collection Methods. The data collection methods carried out by the author in this research report are interviews and observations. For more details, the author will present an explanation of the data collection methods carried out by the author as below:
Data Collection Methods. The current project builds on Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx’x (1988a, 1988b) methodology by completing ‘mini-ethnographies’ with all informants. Mini-ethnographies use ethnographic methods to gain detailed, individualized information about an important aspect of a person or family’s life, in this case the occurrence or presence of autism in a child. By completing open-ended, semi-structured interviews28 with parents of autistic children, I gathered pertinent and nuanced information about current and future goals for their children, behaviors of most concern, interactions with professionals, explanations for their child’s autism, and diagnostic and treatment journeys. Interviews with professionals yielded information about pathways into working with children on the 28 See Appendix 2 for the guiding questions of these interviews. spectrum, professional goals for children, and the benefits and difficulties of working with autistic children. Both populations discussed their thoughts on major autism-related issues such as causation, rises in rates, treatment approaches and cures, and autistic adulthood. The interviews were designed to cover major autism-related issues and experiences that, when compared between two disparate cultural locations, reveal important discrepancies that influence how this condition and the behaviors associated with it are approached by both parents and professionals. These major differences are important considerations for researchers, clinicians, and advocates who are hoping to interact with parents or professionals from various cultural locations and backgrounds. The interviews also revealed differences in perspectives between caregivers and professionals within a singular cultural location. Discrepancies between emic, or local ideologies of the general public, and etic (Xxxxx, 1997), or professionally based perspectives coming from outside the lay public, can cause contention between the service consumers (e.g., parents, caregivers, children, adults) and the service providers (e.g., teachers, physicians, healers, therapists; Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxx, 2003; Goin-Kochel, Mackintosh, & Xxxxx, 2006; Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxx, 1999). Parents have reported the difficulty in obtaining a diagnosis, learning about services, and making treatment decisions (Xxxxxxx & Xxxx, 2008; Xxxx & Salisbury, 2012). Negotiating treatment provisions and navigating difficult professional interactions are not ideal for the care of an autistic child, making the discovery of primary points ...
Data Collection Methods. This section explains the methods of data collection about the research questions of this study. A qualitative interview was applied as a single data collection method because in-depth interviews help to understand the perception of career advancement from young female faculty’s perspective. I prepared to interview around 12 people because according to Guest, Xxxxx & Xxxxxxx (2006), a saturation which is sufficient to achieve the main goal of the qualitative study occurs around that number. Also, I intended to conduct face- to-face interviews with participants because it is the best way to gather detailed data, where verbal and non-verbal cues can be understood (Xxxxxxxxx, 2003).
Data Collection Methods. The Rapid Plot Monitoring Protocol (RPMP) used for data collection was adapted from the Kaibab Rapid Plot protocol (xxxx://xxx.xx.xxxx.xxx/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5438937.pdf) developed for Kaibab National Forest Plan (xxxx://xxx.xx.xxxx.xxx/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791580.pdf) monitoring program. This work is similar to/adapted from Xxxxx et al. 2015 rapid forest assessment methods. The adaptation used in this data collection effort was developed through members of the 4FRI Multi-Party Monitoring Board to provide pre- and post-treatment data to address stakeholder developed monitoring indicators/questions/metrics (Final EIS – Appendix E - xxxx://xxx.xx.xxxx.xxx/main/4fri/planning). Specifically, the protocol and data collection effort addresses indicators 3-4, 7-10, 24-25, and 30. The RPMP (Appendix A) guides data collection to assess tree and vegetation structure (trees >4” in diameter at breast height, shrubs, grasses, forbs), ground cover, fuels related structure (dominant fuel model(s), tons of fine fuels, canopy base height), wildlife use, regeneration (trees <4”), disturbance (grazing, fire, mechanical, insects and disease), and presence of invasive plant species (xxxx://xxx.xx.xxx.xx/database/feis/plants/index.html). The four Task Orders chosen for plot installation and measurement (Wing Mountain East, Xxxx Prairie, Hochderffer, and Xxxxx’s Well) were gridded with a potential plot network using GIS software (200 x 200 m spacing). A subset of plots was randomly selected for measurement, using a 1 plot/50 acres rule of thumb. All plot locations were permanently monumented with a small metal pin buried at plot center with a tag indicating Task order and Plot #. A reference tree was tagged below xxxxx height to help relocate plot centers. A sub-meter UTM coordinate was taken at each plot center, and coordinates were corrected using Pathfinder Office software. Plot inspections were performed by both The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) individually and collectively. TNC inspected two plots and the USFS inspected four plots (two TNC inspected plots and 2 previously un-inspected plots) early in the data collection process. Several issues with “in/out” trees were identified and crews re-measured these plots. Subsequently, TNC and USFS co- inspected three plots and found no accuracy issues with any of the data collected. Data using the RPM protocol was collected across; 55 plots in the Wing Mountain East Task Order (5...
Data Collection Methods. This study will use web-based, electronic case report forms (eCRFs) developed through a validated, Electronic Records / Electronic Signatures-compliant platform (US Title 21 CFR Part 11). All site personnel who will be using this system will receive formal training, after which each person will be issued a unique user name and password. Only the person who owns the user name and password will enter the system using that user name and password. For data security reasons and to be in compliance with regulatory guidelines, user names and passwords are not transferable. The Investigator is responsible for all data entered via the electronic data capture (EDC) system eCRFs and must confirm the accuracy of the data by electronically approving (signing) the eCRFs. This responsibility includes the timely completion and accuracy of the data entered into the eCRFs by their site personnel. The study center will be visited as documented in the Study Monitoring Plan to review the eCRFs for completeness and accuracy. The CRA will highlight any omissions, apparent errors, and values requiring further clarification using computerized and manual procedures and ensure that appropriate site personnel address the discrepancies. When a discrepancy results in corrected eCRF data, the correction will be recorded in the eCRF audit trail. Data collection procedures will be discussed during EDC system training. Data from eCRFs and other external data will be entered into a clinical database as specified in the data management plan. Quality control and data validation procedures will be applied to ensure the validity and accuracy of the clinical database.
Data Collection Methods. Prior to conducting the interview, an initial telephonic consultation with participants was conducted. After the initial consultation, participants were e-mailed a copy of the interview packet that consisted of tentative interview questions (Appendix D), the description of research (Appendix E), informed consent (Appendix F), demographic questionnaire (Appendix H), cultural diversity, screening questions I & II (Appendix I) and Emory IRB approval form (Appendix G). Participants were asked to fill out the cultural diversity survey, demographic questionnaire and informed consent and to either mail it to me or scan and send it to me electronically. Interviews occurred in the latter part of Fall Term of 2014 and early part of Spring Term of 2015.
Data Collection Methods. The field of user-centred system development and human-computer interaction offers a wide range of established methods for user requirements gathering. In digital library studies these methods include questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, direct observation, diary studies and transaction log analyses amongst others (Xxxxx-Xxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx, 2000). These are also regularly found in digital cultural heritage user studies; for instance, the Multimatch project utilised both interviews and log file analysis, in addition to competitor analysis and the development of scenarios (Xxxxxxx et al, 2005). The TELplus project utilised focus groups, interviews, questionnaire surveys and log analyses (Xxxxxx et al, 2008). The ECLAP project used a combination of desk research, user surveys, expert interviews, brainstorming workshops and case study development (Xxxxxxxxx et al, 2010). Definition of initial user requirements for Europeana was mainly derived via expert workshops, where target users and scenarios of use were defined (Purday, 2005), whilst the later EuropeanaConnect builds upon this knowledge to define requirements for the mobile environment through additional desk research and a user survey (Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxx, 2009). There are then several methods in common use, and the selection of those most appropriate to the project in hand seems to depend upon the nature of the project, availability of prior knowledge, and to some degree, the resources of the project teams involved. For this initial stage of the PATHS User Requirements Analysis our methodology selection has been determined by the skills and experience of the project team developed in previous studies, access to potential users in the cultural heritage domain and consideration of time constraints. We were also limited by the availability of any existing systems that offers the scope and functionality of the proposed PATHS system, ruling out several of the observational methods in the first phase of the project. Our selected methods are in three categories: Desk research – for contextual information and knowledge of the state of the art in systems and practices relating to the creation of paths. Surveys – both quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) approaches, with users selected according to domain knowledge and availability User experiments – various observational techniques employed to understand actual user behaviour in tasks relating to path creation and use. These will be ...
Data Collection Methods. Q4,5) Tools for primary outcome measures must be described as reliable and valid. If ‘face’ validity or ‘content’ validity has been demonstrated, this is acceptable. Reliability and validity can be reported in the study or in a separate study. For example, some standard assessment tools have known reliability and validity. Additional question inserted regarding the method of reporting the subscales as dimensional scales considered to be of a higher standard particularly in the field of negative symptoms.
Data Collection Methods. Originally, the researcher intended to recruit only men whose children or wives were receiving financial assistance and were involved in programs at Mil Solidarios. However, due to recruitment challenges, the study population was expanded to include all fathers in the Bañado Sur. All in-depth interviews, group discussions, and focus groups were conducted in Spanish. Though the researcher speaks Spanish at an advanced level, it was brought to the researcher’s attention that participants from the community were more likely to give honest responses to a community member than a foreigner. In addition, though many community members speak Spanish fluently, Jopará is often used, a mix between Spanish and Guaraní. Therefore, a research assistant from Mil Solidarios who is also a community member of the Bañado Sur and fluent in both Spanish and Guaraní conducted all in-depth interviews and moderated all group discussion. The researcher was present for all interviews and group discussions. Overall, the flow of conversation was more fluid with the research assistant’s knowledge of Jopará. Participants tended to disclose more information and feel more comfortable when using a mix of the two.
