CONSTRUCCIONES GÉNICAS

4.4.1 Measurement tool

The research instrument consisted of a self-administered questionnaire which was developed by the researcher. (See Appendix D) The development of this questionnaire, together with its content and format as well as its validity and reliability testing, are described in detail in Chapter 3.

4.4.2 Research Procedure

• _{Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital: ASD Outpatient Clinic, Speech Therapy and} Audiology Department, Soweto.

• _{Children’s Disability Centre, Children’s Memorial Institute, Braamfontein.} • _{The Key School, Parktown.}

• _{Bellavista School, Birdhaven.}

Data was collected during a six week period, from the beginning of May to mid-June 2008. The data collection procedure varied slightly between the schools and out-patient clinic, and is described below.

Out-patient clinics

Information sheets (see Appendix I) were distributed to all caregivers in the waiting room at the ASD outpatient clinic at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital. A translator was used to

explain the information sheet to the non-English speaking caregivers and answer any questions the caregivers had. The caregivers who elected to participate were then handed a questionnaire to fill out. In some instances, where participants were illiterate or unable to complete the questionnaire independently, the researcher completed the questionnaire by interviewing the participant individually. Alternatively, the researcher ran small groups, going through each question, step-by-step with the group, allowing participants to fill in their own forms. The researcher clarified any questions and assisted individuals where necessary. A translator was available to assist where necessary.

Schools for learners with special needs

The information sheet together with a questionnaire (appendix) was distributed to all the caregivers of children diagnosed with ASD who attended the particular school.

Caregivers were asked to return the completed or blank questionnaires to the school with their child. Where possible, and in particular where caregivers were illiterate or needed assistance in filling out the questionnaires, appointments were arranged for the caregiver to meet the researcher in order to fill out the questionnaire by interview. Translators were used where necessary.

Translation and assistance aimed to prevent exclusion of participants of varying race, culture or educational level, and thus preserve some ecological validity.

Critique of the research procedure

A combination of data collection methods was chosen in order to lower costs, improve efficiency of data collection and improve the quality of the data collected.60 However, bias

The administration of the questionnaire through face-to-face interviews with groups and individuals was useful in collecting data from illiterate and hard-to-reach participants. More complex questions could be explained and clarified to ensure that questions were appropriately understood and comprehensively answered. A translator was also used to ensure that

participants understood the questions. However the interviewer and translator could have been a source of bias, as participants may have altered information given in order to seek the interviewer’s approval. The interviewer’s own opinions may also bias the recording of information. The interviewer attempted to control for this bias by recording the participant’s exact words and reading the answers back to the participant to ensure that they were correctly recorded. Differences between the participant and the interviewer’s age and culture may have also biased the responses. Lack of anonymity was controlled for by not recording any personal details and by assigning participant codes.

The self-administration of the questionnaire was beneficial, particularly given the length of the questionnaire, in that it allowed participants to complete the questionnaire at their convenience with no time constraints. Since no personal contact was made with the researcher, respondent anonymity was maintained and interviewer bias was eliminated. However, response rate was compromised by this method and repeated follow ups needed to be made in order to ensure the return of completed questionnaires. This may have introduced volunteer bias.

This method also required good participant literacy, and was biased against participants whose first language was not English (the language used in the questionnaire). It was also found that some questions were misinterpreted by participants and some questions were omitted, which compromised the quality of the data collected. It may have been useful to ask participants to include a telephone number with their returned questionnaire so that the researcher could contact them in the case of incorrectly interpreted questions or incomplete answers.

4.5 Data Analysis

4.5.1 Quantitative Data

Responses to the closed-ended questions were coded, organized according to the construct the question operationalised and tabulated for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample using calculations of frequency, and measures of central

tendency(mean) and variability (standard deviations).60

The responses to question 33 and 69, regarding the ranking of the top five challenges and prioritization of services needed respectively, were weighted, and ranked to obtain an overall rank for each item. Where a caregiver had ranked an item as the most significant challenge, a weighted score of 5 was recorded for that item. The second most significant challenge scored 4, the third most significant challenge scored 3, the fourth most significant challenge scored 2 and the fifth most significant challenge scored 1. The scores for each item were then added. The items were then arranged in descending order of score, such that the item with the largest score was deemed the most significant challenge. This enabled the researcher to discern the most common challenges faced. Service needs were interpreted in the same way.

Cross tabulation (Chi square and Fischer’s Exact Coefficients) was used to test for

interdependence of outcomes for the variables of public and private groups. p-values were calculated and interpreted in order to determine statistical significance of findings.

4.5.2 Qualitative Data

Responses to the open-ended questions were analysed qualitatively. Inductive codes were developed by the researcher in analyzing the responses to questions 22 and 27, and

considering the literature on these subjects. Priori codes were established from the literature and were used to generate the answer options given in question 33 (closed-ended questions) that related to question 26 (open-ended question). These same codes were used to categorise

The findings of the data analysis will be presented in Chapter 5: Results, and discussed in Chapter 6: Discussion.

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the design and method used to gather and analyse data. The following chapter will describe in detail the findings of the study. The research method, limitations and bias will be critiqued in the discussion chapter.

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore caregiver’s perceptions and experiences of service provision within the Johannesburg Metropolitan Region, for their children diagnosed with ASD. To achieve this aim a self reporting questionnaire was designed by the researcher. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire was examined and tested in a pilot study and adjustments made to the questionnaire accordingly (see Chapter 3). The questionnaire was used to collect the data as described in Chapter 4.

The questionnaire employed two types of research, descriptive and qualitative. The results of the quantitative data collected in the descriptive study, pertaining to the demographics of the sample, the patterns of service use and barriers to service provision, will be described first. Results are presented for the total sample as well as separately for Group A (participants accessing private sector services) and Group B (participants accessing public sector services). Fisher exact or chi-squared significance values (p-values) are indicated for each variable, comparing Group A and Group B. Findings were described as “significant” where the p-value was less than or equal to 0.05.

Subsequently, the results of the qualitative study, pertaining to the barriers to, and facilitators of service delivery and access, will be discussed.