Participant Demographics. The participant who was unable to complete the experiment was replaced with another participant at the end of the study who completed the same condition. One participant was allocated to the wrong group (no. 3 instead of no. 2).
Participant Demographics. A total of 270 women were surveyed for this study. All participants were part of a neighbor women’s group, nearly two-thirds (63%) had a child under the age of 2, half were currently lactating (49%), and 11% were pregnant at the time of survey administration. Most participating women had not completed formal education beyond primary school (83%). Fewer than half (44%) of the participating households self-reported having access to a latrine, and roughly half (51%) reported using surface water as their primary source of drinking water. Food insecurity was very high among participating households, with nearly all households reporting anxiety and uncertainty about food supply as well as having insufficient food quality or quantity in the previous 30 days (Xxxxxx et al., 2007) (Table 2). Few households (12%) had a hygienic food preparation space by operational definition, and fewer than half of households (42%) were storing food hygienically. A quarter of the women (26%) were able to list 5 of 6 key handwashing times, and water and soap presence at handwashing stations was low (12% and 7%, respectively); nearly half (41%) of observed CU2 hands were clean, and self-reported handwashing with soap was high. About a third of households (34%) demonstrated an absence of human and animal feces, garbage, and other xxxxx in the area that caretakers reported as the primary play location of the CU2 (Table 3).
Participant Demographics. 45 Quantitative Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 51 Research Question #1 Parent Findings ...................................................................... 52 Research Question #2 Parent Findings ...................................................................... 55 Qualitative Data Research Findings .......................................................................... 56 Parent Interviews ....................................................................................................... 57 Research Question #2 Parent Findings ...................................................................... 59 Research Question #3 Parent Findings ...................................................................... 63 Research Question #2 GATE Teacher/Coordinator Findings ................................... 65 Summary.................................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 70 Summary of the Study ............................................................................................... 70 Discussion.................................................................................................................. 70 Research Question #2 Discussion ............................................................................. 73 Research Question #3 Discussion ............................................................................. 75
Participant Demographics. 73 Quantitative Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 76 Distribution of Transfer Requests by Race ................................................... 76 Special Education Services Received by Sample.......................................... 79 Qualitative Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 83 Research Question 1: School Personnel Findings ......................................... 89 Themes Overview: Trustworthy Relationship between Families and Educators Families .................................................................................................... 92 Themes Overview: Systemic Racism ........................................................................ 96 Themes Overview: School Supports 101 Restorative Practices 101 Supports and Services Available to Students and Families 102 Themes Overviews: Relationships with Students 103 Fostering a Positive Relationship with Students 103 Themes Overview: School District Bureaucracy 106 Broken Promises to Families 106 Themes Overview: Students’ Challenges in the School Environment 107 Factors out of the School Control 108 Factors that are Under School Control 108 Themes Overview: Successful Outcome of a Safety Transfer 109 Factors that are under School Control 110 Factors that are Outside the School Control 110 Triangulation: Parents’ and School Personnel Voices Common Themes 111 Research Question 2 :School Characteristics Findings 114 Research Question 3: PBIS Findings 119 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 122 Summary of the Study 122 Interpretation RQ1 123 Interpretation RQ2 129 Interpretation RQ3 131 Implications for Practice 132 Authentic School-Parents Partnership 132 Rethink School District Processes: Safety Transfer 133 SWPBIS and TFI 134 Recommendations for Further Research 134 Limitations 135 Delimitations 136 Summary 137 REFERENCES 139 APPENDICES 147 Appendix A: Qualitative School Personnel Interview Questions 147 Table 1. 1. School District Students' Demographics ....................................................... 21 Table 2. 1. Disciplinary Data for Students Attending Public Schools in the United States for the 2015-2016 School Year ............................................... 53 Table 3. 1. Visual Representation of the Research Questions, Variables, Constructs and Instruments Used in the Data Collection Process................. 60 Table 4. 1. Demographic Data ...
Participant Demographics. Demographic Characteristic Total Sample (n=30) Age Ethnicity: n (%) Annual Income*: n (%) Education Level: n (%) Daily Medication Adherence Chapter 4: Recommendations
Participant Demographics. From January to March 2019 we approached 43 staff, and 25 of took part in the focus groups. Those who declined did so because of the focus group timing (n=9), or they were required to remain on the xxxx to maintain minimum staff numbers and carry out clinical duties (n=4); five did not specify a reason. A total of 18 participants were also available to take part in the member-checking focus groups. Table 5 presents participants’ demographics. We identified five primary themes, which we discuss below in addition to subthemes. Figure 8 provides a visual overview of these themes and subthemes. Table 5 Participant demographics Characteristics Focus group Total (N=25) Member-checking groups (N=18) 1 (n=6) 2 (n=6) 3 (n=4) 4 (n=5) 5 (n=4) Mean (SD) 37.8 (12.4) 39.5 (11.3) 37 (10.8) 55.4 (7.4) 44.5 (5.1) 42.7 (11.6) 44.4 (12.8) Range 00-00 00-00 00-00 00-00 00-00 00-00 22-64 Women 3 6 3 3 1 16 12 Black African 4 0 4 4 4 16 15 Black Caribbean 1 3 0 1 0 5 1 White British 1 3 0 0 0 4 2 Staff nurse 5 6 1 4 4 20 16 Student nurse 1 0 2 0 0 3 1 Xxxx manager 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 Time in post (years), Mean (SD) 5.4 (3.4) 5 (4.8) 4 (5.7) 10.8 (4.7) 4.6 (2.1) 6.5 (3.4) 6.4 (4.8) 70 Figure 8 Visual overview of themes and sub-themes
Participant Demographics. In total, 1437 surveys were administered. Detailed demographics information about participants involved in the qualitative phase of the research can be found elsewhere[26]. Twenty-nine women were eventually excluded because they were missing data for all relevant items (1), had another household member already participate (8) or were under
Participant Demographics. Participant ages ranged from 18-79 with the mean age of participants being 35 years old. Six (38%) of the participants were unmarried, 6 (38%) were married women aged 25-40 years old, and 4 (25%) were over 40 years old. Eleven (69%) participants completed more than primary education and 5 (31%) completed primary or less than primary. The most common religion among participants was Christian (non-Catholic) 9 (56%) and the two most common ethnic groups that participants belonged to were Acholi, 4 (25%) and Baganda 3 (19%). The living situations of the participants varied as 4 (25%) lived in a single family home, 7 (44%) lived in a compound with shared living spaces including their sanitation facilities, and 5 (29%) did not clearly specify(Table 1).
Participant Demographics. Participants of the quantitative portion of this study were district parents (𝑛=150) with children in elementary, middle schools, and high schools, both, GATE and non-GATE identified. Out of those 150 parents, 10 parents volunteered to be interviewed, which provided qualitative data. The following table reports their race, gender, age, household arrangement, birthplace, and year of education whether in the United States or their country of birth. Demographic Data for Parent Participants (𝑁=150) Background Characteristics Categories Counts Percentage Race African American 3 2 Asian 2 1 Latino/Hispanic 136 91 White 7 5 Other 2 1 Gender Male 15 10 Female 135 90 Age 21-31 24 16 00-00 00 00 00-00 00 00 52-61 6 4 Household Two Parent 118 79 Single Parent 29 19 Other 3 2 Birthplace USA 44 29 Mexico 99 00 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx 0 0 Xxxxx Xxxxxxx 1 <1 Asia 2 1 Education Elementary (K-6) 20 13 Middle School (7-9) 47 31 High School (10-12) 52 35 Undergraduate 19 13 Graduate 12 8 Parents GATE 64 43 Non-GATE 86 57 The majority of participants were Latino/Hispanic (𝑛=136) females (𝑛=135) between the ages of 32-41 (𝑛=83) reporting a two parent household (𝑛=118) with non-GATE students (𝑛=86). Most participants were born in Mexico (𝑛=99) and received at least a middle school or high school education in their country (𝑛=99). It is important to note that in Mexico, elementary school goes up to 6th grade, middle school from 7-9th grade, and high school from 10-12th grade. Anything above high school is considered college/university. Parent Education Frequency (𝑛=150) Since this study focused on identifying GATE versus non-GATE parent involvement, it was necessary to identify parent characteristics to determine which types of parents had more home and school participation. The following trends emerged. GATE parents (𝑛=64) reported more years of education whether in the United States or in their home country with an average of
Participant Demographics. Participants were 48 females, 47 males and one non-binary participant, ranging in age from 21 to 79 years (M = 49.95, SD = 17.19). The education level of participants ranged from secondary school, GCSE’s, O-levels or below (n = 29) to college, A-levels or further education (n = 33) to degree or equivalent (n = 34). Six participants were currently engaged in ongoing education. Categories recommended by the Office for National Statistics (ONS; 2010) were utilised to classify participants’ occupations. Participants fell within the following professional categories: higher managerial and/or professional roles (n = 15), lower professional or higher technical or self-employed roles (n = 43), intermediate roles like clerical, sales or administrative positions (n = 23), small industry employers like agriculturalists or craftsmen (n = 3), semi-routine workers like child care providers or support workers (n = 10) and full-time students (n = 2). Current employment status of participants ranged from employed full-time (n = 37), employed part-time (n = 20), engaged in full-time or part-time education or training (n = 6), unemployed (n = 5), retired (n = 20) or self-employed (n = 8). As per the inclusion criteria, all participants were living independently in the community or at home with family, for younger participants. Table 1.2 presents detailed demographics of participants.
